5 ms·

Police unions should pay part of settlements. Say half. (Employer, the city, should be accountable too) The union and police themselves will fix misconduct whe

Police unions should pay part of settlements. Say half. (Employer, the city, should be accountable too) The union and police themselves will fix misconduct when it costs them money. Currently they have little incentive to not use maximal force. And lots of incentive to be maximal, this may be the 1 in 100 people with intent and means to kill a cop and if I'm soft or lax I may be that cop.

ch4s3 6y ago
It’s interesting because their trading stresses the idea that any encounter could be deadly, even though it’s far from true. Policing in the US barely cracks the list of the top 15 most dangerous jobs. In fact the top two killers of on duty officers are car crashes and heart attacks. Random accidents and friendly fire also rank highly. Their mistaken beliefs about the dangers of random encounters definitely incentivize bad behavior.
- upbeat_general 6y ago
  Source for that data (on the leading causes of death for police officers)? Most things I could find show that more officers are shot than get into car crashes (tho it’s a close second). The exception being COVID-19 for the past year. I think you are right that they are not high up on the most dangerous jobs though I’d argue it still makes sense to fear deadly encounters the same way loggers should very much fear being crushed by a tree. I do however agree that this fear is taken far past what is rational though which does result in a lot of bad behavior.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    I think it depends on the year and how they account for the deaths. Most of the gun death stats seem to include suicides and accidental shootings by other officers. I actually don’t think the should be trained to fear deadly encounters, I believe they should be trained to assess risk and deescalate.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    In general (pre-covid), it seems like of the officers who die in the line of duty, a little less than half had accidental deaths and a little more than half had felonious deaths. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release... I recall reading about the heart attack stat too, but I can't remember where it was from. It could account for the number of officers who died from heart attacks while off duty too. Regardless, the amount of time, effort, and attention paid to the possibility of a felonious death seems out of proportion to the amount time, effort, and attention paid to accidental deaths, even though accidental deaths are almost as likely to occur.
    - ch4s3 6y ago
      The scale is important too. For all police interactions in 2019, there were 48 “felonious” deaths which isn’t very many compared to the wild rhetoric coming out of police unions.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Yes, the figures can show you that the observed death rate is low. But that doesn't 100% capture the intuition of what it means for a job to be safe. Remember, a big reason it's so safe (in this sense) is that officers go through a lot of training that protects them from the occasional nutjob. If they slip up on those protocols, they can easily become another officer killed in the line of duty. You'll notice that, by the same token, firebreathers and sword jugglers and trapeze artists don't make the top ten either. Does that mean they're safe jobs? In a sense, yes, like policing. But in another sense, no. It means the only people who do them are people who are super deft about doing them safely and can religiously follow the safety protocols. And the job can quickly become unsafe if the average person, like you and me, tried to do them and slipped up in following those protocols. Either way, it absolutely doesn't follow that if they just "trained the cops not to prepare for any encounter being a nutjob with a gun", that the job would (directly from that) become safer.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  Police unions go even further with 'warrior training' in that many cities banned the actual police force from paying for it and then the unions go around the intention of the law and pay for it themselves. I'm like 55% sure it's something I'm not comfortable legally banning individuals from choosing this for themselves - but I would like get rid of that style training and mindset. So idk maybe I'd be ok with limiting personal freedom here specifically because it's harmful to the greater community. Maybe similar to other public health laws that put public ahead of individual. Maybe there is legal precedent I don't know about to sway this tradeoff? https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/bob-kroll-minneapolis-warrior-police-training/ https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/bob-kroll-...
  - ProblemFactory 6y ago
    There is no need to limit personal freedoms - anyone should be free to get the training if they wish to. But they don't have to remain employed as police afterwards.
    - dillondoyle 6y ago
      I like this! though ironically the conservative states that say business should be able to discriminate/make their own policies would hate it haha.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  Car crashes...because they are rushing to the scene of a crime? Chasing a dangerous criminal? Heart attacks...because they push themselves beyond their own limits for the safety of the public? And in what world does "It's not in the X most dangerous jobs category" mean it isn't a dangerous job? Someone deciding to do deep sea fishing doesn't mean that police work becomes less or more dangerous. And other jobs in the top 15, you find people that get themselves killed at high rates for selfish motives(e.g. pizza delivery drivers blowing through red lights for bigger tips), which is not how it happens with police officers.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    > Car crashes...because they are rushing to the scene of a crime? Chasing a dangerous criminal? Mostly because they drive a lot. > Heart attacks...because they push themselves beyond their own limits for the safety of the public? Sure it's stressful, but heart attacks are one of the leading causes of death in America. > And in what world does "It's not in the X most dangerous jobs category" mean It means that the rhetoric coming from their unions and their own training is overblown. IT is obviously a dangerous job, but for example working as a roofer or cab driver are far more dangerous. It's about perspective. And in most parts of the country it isn't a dangerous job at all. I don't think it should be controversial to talk about these things in context and to make use of factual information.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
    You're debating some statement entirely removed from its context, which was to argue against a certain aggressiveness in encounters with citizens. You can't shoot your way out of a heart attack or random car crashes. (Also, and this just continues your already lost line of argumentation, "exertion" does not cause heart attacks, considering it's basically a synonym for sports. Too much red meat, beer, alcohol, anger, air pollution, and, yes, donuts do)
    - oh_sigh 6y ago
      I'm debating directly OPs points. If you feel this conversation is off track, then you should chastise OP, because I am just responding directly to them. Too much exertion will trigger a heart attack. Which is why heart attacks spike the day after it snows, because people with susceptible hearts go out and do vigorous, unusual activity.
dillondoyle 6y ago
What would cause the most expensive liability insurance? Would spreading the liability out to a union with many members lower the cost compared to each police person individually buying? I support whichever is most expensive and has the most personal consequence to change their behavior.
davmar 6y ago
serious question: what informs your opinions on this topic? i ask because cities are, in fact, already paying for settlements. however, the problem is deeper: settlements often times in results in the cities going into debt that wall street buys. the taxpayer ends up footing the bill. they're called "police brutality bonds". you might find this interesting: https://acrecampaigns.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ACRE_PBB_2020_2.pdf https://acrecampaigns.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ACRE_PB... https://acrecampaigns.org/research_post/police-brutality-bonds/ https://acrecampaigns.org/research_post/police-brutality-bon...
- njharman 6y ago
  > what informs your opinions on this topic? 40 years of observation, education and experience, I'm 50.
missedthecue 6y ago
The NYPD pension fund for instance is $50 billion. You think that a $100k settlement paid from a pot of $50 billion is going to bother a cop who can't access it for decades anyway?
- frongpik 6y ago
  It will bother the PU chief, though.
- MikeTheGreat 6y ago
  First, it would be interesting to know how much money the average police officer's union has for settlements, and how much settlements tend to be. I'm guessing not every union has a $50B pension fund, so the impact may be larger elsewhere. Second, it would be interesting to know if money from the pension fund can be used to pay settlements. Until you said something here I had assumed that paying for settlements would come from the union's annual budget, and not from a pension fund which had been funded earlier (but I could be wrong). Regardless - I think the idea of aligning the incentives of the officers themselves (through their union) and the citizens who are being policed is a good idea.
- njharman 6y ago
  Most police and police dept are not the NYPD. Anecdotally it seems many settlements are much, much more than 100k. So no, I don't think your strawman argument is applicable.
segmondy 6y ago
Doctor's have to carry malpractice insurance, I think police officers should do the same. That way a bad officer will eventually become uninsurable. So I agree with you, "Employee, Employer". Now on the city, I don't know that I agree on that, but where will the money really come from if not the city?
8bitsrule 6y ago
One way to do that might be: require the unions to carry settlement insurance. Require that insurance payments are made directly out of union dues. Increasing cost of insurance cost would act as a deterrent. Of course, that would be short-circuited if cities raise wages (paid by taxation) to cover those dues.

ch4s3 6y ago

It’s interesting because their trading stresses the idea that any encounter could be deadly, even though it’s far from true. Policing in the US barely cracks the list of the top 15 most dangerous jobs. In fact the top two killers of on duty officers are car crashes and heart attacks. Random accidents and friendly fire also rank highly. Their mistaken beliefs about the dangers of random encounters definitely incentivize bad behavior.

upbeat_general 6y ago
Source for that data (on the leading causes of death for police officers)? Most things I could find show that more officers are shot than get into car crashes (tho it’s a close second). The exception being COVID-19 for the past year. I think you are right that they are not high up on the most dangerous jobs though I’d argue it still makes sense to fear deadly encounters the same way loggers should very much fear being crushed by a tree. I do however agree that this fear is taken far past what is rational though which does result in a lot of bad behavior.
- ch4s3 6y ago
  I think it depends on the year and how they account for the deaths. Most of the gun death stats seem to include suicides and accidental shootings by other officers. I actually don’t think the should be trained to fear deadly encounters, I believe they should be trained to assess risk and deescalate.
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  In general (pre-covid), it seems like of the officers who die in the line of duty, a little less than half had accidental deaths and a little more than half had felonious deaths. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release... I recall reading about the heart attack stat too, but I can't remember where it was from. It could account for the number of officers who died from heart attacks while off duty too. Regardless, the amount of time, effort, and attention paid to the possibility of a felonious death seems out of proportion to the amount time, effort, and attention paid to accidental deaths, even though accidental deaths are almost as likely to occur.
  - ch4s3 6y ago
    The scale is important too. For all police interactions in 2019, there were 48 “felonious” deaths which isn’t very many compared to the wild rhetoric coming out of police unions.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine. Yes, the figures can show you that the observed death rate is low. But that doesn't 100% capture the intuition of what it means for a job to be safe. Remember, a big reason it's so safe (in this sense) is that officers go through a lot of training that protects them from the occasional nutjob. If they slip up on those protocols, they can easily become another officer killed in the line of duty. You'll notice that, by the same token, firebreathers and sword jugglers and trapeze artists don't make the top ten either. Does that mean they're safe jobs? In a sense, yes, like policing. But in another sense, no. It means the only people who do them are people who are super deft about doing them safely and can religiously follow the safety protocols. And the job can quickly become unsafe if the average person, like you and me, tried to do them and slipped up in following those protocols. Either way, it absolutely doesn't follow that if they just "trained the cops not to prepare for any encounter being a nutjob with a gun", that the job would (directly from that) become safer.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
dillondoyle 6y ago
Police unions go even further with 'warrior training' in that many cities banned the actual police force from paying for it and then the unions go around the intention of the law and pay for it themselves. I'm like 55% sure it's something I'm not comfortable legally banning individuals from choosing this for themselves - but I would like get rid of that style training and mindset. So idk maybe I'd be ok with limiting personal freedom here specifically because it's harmful to the greater community. Maybe similar to other public health laws that put public ahead of individual. Maybe there is legal precedent I don't know about to sway this tradeoff? https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/bob-kroll-minneapolis-warrior-police-training/ https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/05/bob-kroll-...
- ProblemFactory 6y ago
  There is no need to limit personal freedoms - anyone should be free to get the training if they wish to. But they don't have to remain employed as police afterwards.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    I like this! though ironically the conservative states that say business should be able to discriminate/make their own policies would hate it haha.
oh_sigh 6y ago
Car crashes...because they are rushing to the scene of a crime? Chasing a dangerous criminal? Heart attacks...because they push themselves beyond their own limits for the safety of the public? And in what world does "It's not in the X most dangerous jobs category" mean it isn't a dangerous job? Someone deciding to do deep sea fishing doesn't mean that police work becomes less or more dangerous. And other jobs in the top 15, you find people that get themselves killed at high rates for selfish motives(e.g. pizza delivery drivers blowing through red lights for bigger tips), which is not how it happens with police officers.
- ch4s3 6y ago
  > Car crashes...because they are rushing to the scene of a crime? Chasing a dangerous criminal? Mostly because they drive a lot. > Heart attacks...because they push themselves beyond their own limits for the safety of the public? Sure it's stressful, but heart attacks are one of the leading causes of death in America. > And in what world does "It's not in the X most dangerous jobs category" mean It means that the rhetoric coming from their unions and their own training is overblown. IT is obviously a dangerous job, but for example working as a roofer or cab driver are far more dangerous. It's about perspective. And in most parts of the country it isn't a dangerous job at all. I don't think it should be controversial to talk about these things in context and to make use of factual information.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
  You're debating some statement entirely removed from its context, which was to argue against a certain aggressiveness in encounters with citizens. You can't shoot your way out of a heart attack or random car crashes. (Also, and this just continues your already lost line of argumentation, "exertion" does not cause heart attacks, considering it's basically a synonym for sports. Too much red meat, beer, alcohol, anger, air pollution, and, yes, donuts do)
  - oh_sigh 6y ago
    I'm debating directly OPs points. If you feel this conversation is off track, then you should chastise OP, because I am just responding directly to them. Too much exertion will trigger a heart attack. Which is why heart attacks spike the day after it snows, because people with susceptible hearts go out and do vigorous, unusual activity.

dillondoyle 6y ago

What would cause the most expensive liability insurance? Would spreading the liability out to a union with many members lower the cost compared to each police person individually buying? I support whichever is most expensive and has the most personal consequence to change their behavior.

davmar 6y ago

serious question: what informs your opinions on this topic? i ask because cities are, in fact, already paying for settlements. however, the problem is deeper: settlements often times in results in the cities going into debt that wall street buys. the taxpayer ends up footing the bill. they're called "police brutality bonds". you might find this interesting: https://acrecampaigns.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ACRE_PBB_2020_2.pdf https://acrecampaigns.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ACRE_PB... https://acrecampaigns.org/research_post/police-brutality-bonds/ https://acrecampaigns.org/research_post/police-brutality-bon...

njharman 6y ago
> what informs your opinions on this topic? 40 years of observation, education and experience, I'm 50.

missedthecue 6y ago

The NYPD pension fund for instance is $50 billion. You think that a $100k settlement paid from a pot of $50 billion is going to bother a cop who can't access it for decades anyway?

frongpik 6y ago
It will bother the PU chief, though.
MikeTheGreat 6y ago
First, it would be interesting to know how much money the average police officer's union has for settlements, and how much settlements tend to be. I'm guessing not every union has a $50B pension fund, so the impact may be larger elsewhere. Second, it would be interesting to know if money from the pension fund can be used to pay settlements. Until you said something here I had assumed that paying for settlements would come from the union's annual budget, and not from a pension fund which had been funded earlier (but I could be wrong). Regardless - I think the idea of aligning the incentives of the officers themselves (through their union) and the citizens who are being policed is a good idea.
njharman 6y ago
Most police and police dept are not the NYPD. Anecdotally it seems many settlements are much, much more than 100k. So no, I don't think your strawman argument is applicable.

segmondy 6y ago

Doctor's have to carry malpractice insurance, I think police officers should do the same. That way a bad officer will eventually become uninsurable. So I agree with you, "Employee, Employer". Now on the city, I don't know that I agree on that, but where will the money really come from if not the city?

8bitsrule 6y ago

One way to do that might be: require the unions to carry settlement insurance. Require that insurance payments are made directly out of union dues. Increasing cost of insurance cost would act as a deterrent. Of course, that would be short-circuited if cities raise wages (paid by taxation) to cover those dues.