6 ms·

What we need is for them to have to carry personally paid malpractice insurance that is tied to their access to qualified immunity. And if their camera is off

What we need is for them to have to carry personally paid malpractice insurance that is tied to their access to qualified immunity. And if their camera is off they lose their insurance policy. Then no more access to qualified immunity. Being police is a luxury not a right.

noodlesUK 6y ago
We don’t need to create a private insurance market for yet another part of American life. Other countries have real oversight bodies with teeth that build public trust. It’s important that justice is done in these cases of abuse, and it also needs to be seen to be done by the public, which builds trust in the institutions of state.
- seibelj 6y ago
  The point of insurance is they have to pay for it personally. If the government pays for insurance and also pays for penalties, we are in the same situation we are today.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Unions would never allow that, and I highly doubt people on HN will be in support for weakening Public employee unions which I think should be completely abolished //side note, FDR agreed.... which is ironic given that most people that support Public Employee unions think we need a new new deal FDR style
    - drdeca 6y ago
      why [strikethrough]would[/strikethrough] [edit:do] you think people here would oppose weakening (or abolishing) police unions?
- brainfish 6y ago
  Regulatory capture is extremely common in American life, and many of our current policing issues can arguably be attributed in some large part to overly powerful police unions. So to me this sounds like a lip-service-non-solution waiting to happen.
- Guest42 6y ago
  Insurance exists for nearly everything. The difference in this particular scenario is the party responsibility for the liability.
- pasabagi 6y ago
  Do they? I'm only familiar with the IPCC in the UK, and they are basically worthless. Germany, for example, doesn't even have something like the IPCC. Are there any examples of working police oversight bodies?
jellicle 6y ago
Wouldn't it be easier just to punish and fire rather than creating yet another dysfunctional market?
LMYahooTFY 6y ago
>Being police is a luxury not a right. It's a service, not a luxury.
- ch4s3 6y ago
  I think the parent means that it's a career choice that in the US is quite well payed especially after some tenure, given the level of training /education required. It also comes with a ton of job protection that's rare in the US, and a pension. Couple all of that with a monopoly on violence in society, and police in the US occupy a position of unusual privilege.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  It's a luxury, not a service. If we're just making blanket statements without explanation, we can invert them.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> personally paid malpractice insurance Money is fungible. Even if the union doesn’t negotiate this insurance on a group level, passing along the premium could be quite easily baked into contract negotiations.
- emiliobumachar 6y ago
  Yes, on average. But the cops more at-risk of gross misbehavior, if correctly identified by the insurance companies (big if), would still be priced out of the market.
- kjeetgill 6y ago
  The difference is that insurance companies can choose not to insure someone. Reputation/history isn't fungible. Presumably they have skin in the game to have actuaries figure out who doesn't get to be an officer. Not saying it's a good scheme just that there's more at play than just money.

noodlesUK 6y ago

We don’t need to create a private insurance market for yet another part of American life. Other countries have real oversight bodies with teeth that build public trust. It’s important that justice is done in these cases of abuse, and it also needs to be seen to be done by the public, which builds trust in the institutions of state.

seibelj 6y ago
The point of insurance is they have to pay for it personally. If the government pays for insurance and also pays for penalties, we are in the same situation we are today.
- syshum 6y ago
  Unions would never allow that, and I highly doubt people on HN will be in support for weakening Public employee unions which I think should be completely abolished //side note, FDR agreed.... which is ironic given that most people that support Public Employee unions think we need a new new deal FDR style
  - drdeca 6y ago
    why [strikethrough]would[/strikethrough] [edit:do] you think people here would oppose weakening (or abolishing) police unions?
brainfish 6y ago
Regulatory capture is extremely common in American life, and many of our current policing issues can arguably be attributed in some large part to overly powerful police unions. So to me this sounds like a lip-service-non-solution waiting to happen.
Guest42 6y ago
Insurance exists for nearly everything. The difference in this particular scenario is the party responsibility for the liability.
pasabagi 6y ago
Do they? I'm only familiar with the IPCC in the UK, and they are basically worthless. Germany, for example, doesn't even have something like the IPCC. Are there any examples of working police oversight bodies?

jellicle 6y ago

Wouldn't it be easier just to punish and fire rather than creating yet another dysfunctional market?

LMYahooTFY 6y ago

>Being police is a luxury not a right. It's a service, not a luxury.

ch4s3 6y ago
I think the parent means that it's a career choice that in the US is quite well payed especially after some tenure, given the level of training /education required. It also comes with a ton of job protection that's rare in the US, and a pension. Couple all of that with a monopoly on violence in society, and police in the US occupy a position of unusual privilege.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
It's a luxury, not a service. If we're just making blanket statements without explanation, we can invert them.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> personally paid malpractice insurance Money is fungible. Even if the union doesn’t negotiate this insurance on a group level, passing along the premium could be quite easily baked into contract negotiations.

emiliobumachar 6y ago
Yes, on average. But the cops more at-risk of gross misbehavior, if correctly identified by the insurance companies (big if), would still be priced out of the market.
kjeetgill 6y ago
The difference is that insurance companies can choose not to insure someone. Reputation/history isn't fungible. Presumably they have skin in the game to have actuaries figure out who doesn't get to be an officer. Not saying it's a good scheme just that there's more at play than just money.