5 ms·
Get rid of QI and then let the departments decide whether or not to make the individuals pay. In either case there is someone with incentive to get rid of bad
by dnautics 6y ago
Get rid of QI and then let the departments decide whether or not to make the individuals pay. In either case there is someone with incentive to get rid of bad apples, which is better than no-one.
- mindslight 6y agoOnce we get rid of QI (which we obviously should because it has warped into a nonsensical concept), is there any reason to believe that the police unions won't end up shoving indemnification clauses into their contracts, putting us right back to where we are?
- Ididntdothis 6y agoAt least the municipalities then would have to choose between never ending payouts or fixing things.
- cgriswald 6y agoThat’s already the case. QI doesn’t prevent anyone from suing the department or city. It only prevents them suing the cop. A system in which all cops are indemnified is simply QI with more paperwork.
- dnautics 6y agoThat scenario is covered in my statement.
- mindslight 6y agoI disagree that municipalities would have much of a choice. Right now, a municipality is theoretically liable for every officer's actions, and could contractually share some of that liability onto the officers themselves. Yet they do not, presumably because the police unions do not allow it, and the system as a whole is great at shirking all liability for its misdeeds. Getting rid of QI does change the default option, but I would assume the unions would use the same negotiation techniques to get indemnification clauses.
- deathgrips 6y agoOr completely replace departments that train and arm murderers.