8 ms·

> recover damages from the government when their constitutional rights are violated Great, so I'm paying for the sins of crappy cops via my taxes. Do I have an

by CA0DA 6y ago

> recover damages from the government when their constitutional rights are violated Great, so I'm paying for the sins of crappy cops via my taxes. Do I have an ability to influence my city or state to not hire unethical cops? (serious question)

jachee 6y ago
Don't vote for mayor/governor candidates that glorify the police. Choose ones who want to divert paramilitary funding to other social safety net services.
GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago
Yes. Talk to your local representatives
fitblipper 6y ago
Only in a very limited capacity, I guess. IMO the important result of this legislation is that it helps align the incentives of the police department with that of the public they are supposed to serve. That means a department will be more likely to reform practices and policies which would cause frequent lawsuits instead of simply instituting policies to optimize for arrests or convictions. Asset forfeiture is another police policy which places the interests of the police at odds with that of the public. In many places the assets claimed by asset forfeiture can be used to directly fund the department's budget and there is no need to charge anyone of a crime to do so.
- unanswered 6y ago
  How does spending a greater amount of other people's money incentivize a police department or any other public body?
  - vinay427 6y ago
    They already hypothesized one possibility in their comment: > That means a department will be more likely to reform practices and policies which would cause frequent lawsuits instead of simply instituting policies to optimize for arrests or convictions.
farrarstan 6y ago
Lmao
adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
Step #1 is get rid of cop unions. They look out for the worst of the worst, and prevent anything from improving.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  getting rid of unions is also a problem, maybe limit the powers of public service unions. They are allowed to work for pension increase, wages, vacation time, but not allowed to touch disciplinary situations?
  - adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
    Police unions are much worse than other public unions. If other public unions take illegal action, the police can arrest them. When the police union does something illegal, no one is going to do anything about it.
    - sumedh 6y ago
      > When the police union does something illegal, no one is going to do anything about it. Cant the Feds step in?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
      as a normal rule the illegal actions I associate with unions are stuff like leadership skimming from the pension funds which would probably get them arrested. the negative actions I associate with police unions is stepping in to protect corrupt or violent cops from disciplinary actions / firing / arrest.
  - mike_d 6y ago
    Unions in public service are allowed to create de-facto rules and policies that would otherwise get lawmakers voted out or initiatives voted down. MUNI is a dysfunctional mess because the Union has the power to shut down a public service if their every demand isn't met.
michaelbuckbee 6y ago
One proposed tactic has been that either cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund The insurance idea is stupid. It will just end up being bought by the union, removing the individual incentive component, and added as a line item the next time pay negotiations come up.
  - reportt 6y ago
    But underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same. If they are deemed too risky, it doesn't matter if the union is backing their premiums or not -- if they don't have insurance, they can't work (or can't do fieldwork or something).
    - Robin_Message 6y ago
      The union could adopt an "all or none" policy with the insurance company, and then if an individual officer is barred by the insurer, the union will be telling all officers (and management) "sorry, insurance won't cover us, can't come in to work until it is sorted."
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same They don't need to, but that's not how insurance is sold. Unions collectively buy and negotiate benefits for their members. And a requirement from the union would be, no doubt, universal coverage and pricing.
- astrange 6y ago
  This already happens. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-industry-is-helping-police-departments-tackle-bad-behavior https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-i...
daniellarusso 6y ago
Become mayor or governor.

by CA0DA 6y ago

jachee 6y ago

Don't vote for mayor/governor candidates that glorify the police. Choose ones who want to divert paramilitary funding to other social safety net services.

GoOnThenDoTell 6y ago

Yes. Talk to your local representatives

fitblipper 6y ago

Only in a very limited capacity, I guess. IMO the important result of this legislation is that it helps align the incentives of the police department with that of the public they are supposed to serve. That means a department will be more likely to reform practices and policies which would cause frequent lawsuits instead of simply instituting policies to optimize for arrests or convictions. Asset forfeiture is another police policy which places the interests of the police at odds with that of the public. In many places the assets claimed by asset forfeiture can be used to directly fund the department's budget and there is no need to charge anyone of a crime to do so.

unanswered 6y ago
How does spending a greater amount of other people's money incentivize a police department or any other public body?
- vinay427 6y ago
  They already hypothesized one possibility in their comment: > That means a department will be more likely to reform practices and policies which would cause frequent lawsuits instead of simply instituting policies to optimize for arrests or convictions.

farrarstan 6y ago

Lmao

adgjlsfhk1 6y ago

Step #1 is get rid of cop unions. They look out for the worst of the worst, and prevent anything from improving.

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
getting rid of unions is also a problem, maybe limit the powers of public service unions. They are allowed to work for pension increase, wages, vacation time, but not allowed to touch disciplinary situations?
- adgjlsfhk1 6y ago
  Police unions are much worse than other public unions. If other public unions take illegal action, the police can arrest them. When the police union does something illegal, no one is going to do anything about it.
  - sumedh 6y ago
    > When the police union does something illegal, no one is going to do anything about it. Cant the Feds step in?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    as a normal rule the illegal actions I associate with unions are stuff like leadership skimming from the pension funds which would probably get them arrested. the negative actions I associate with police unions is stepping in to protect corrupt or violent cops from disciplinary actions / firing / arrest.
- mike_d 6y ago
  Unions in public service are allowed to create de-facto rules and policies that would otherwise get lawmakers voted out or initiatives voted down. MUNI is a dysfunctional mess because the Union has the power to shut down a public service if their every demand isn't met.

michaelbuckbee 6y ago

One proposed tactic has been that either cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund The insurance idea is stupid. It will just end up being bought by the union, removing the individual incentive component, and added as a line item the next time pay negotiations come up.
- reportt 6y ago
  But underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same. If they are deemed too risky, it doesn't matter if the union is backing their premiums or not -- if they don't have insurance, they can't work (or can't do fieldwork or something).
  - Robin_Message 6y ago
    The union could adopt an "all or none" policy with the insurance company, and then if an individual officer is barred by the insurer, the union will be telling all officers (and management) "sorry, insurance won't cover us, can't come in to work until it is sorted."
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > underwriters don't necessarily need to insure every officer, and not every officer will be insured the same They don't need to, but that's not how insurance is sold. Unions collectively buy and negotiate benefits for their members. And a requirement from the union would be, no doubt, universal coverage and pricing.
astrange 6y ago
This already happens. https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-industry-is-helping-police-departments-tackle-bad-behavior https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-i...

daniellarusso 6y ago

Become mayor or governor.