4 ms·

It makes me incensed when the taxpayer foots the bill for a cops fuckup

reaperman 2y ago
I really think requiring police to carry their own insurance would help a lot here. It would obviously be hard to collect on a judgement against an officer’s pocketbook, but its easy to collect a payment owed by an insurance company. Plus its not weird - we already have many professions which de facto (or de jure) require the professional to find and pay for their own insurance - doctors, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. There are some downsides to the taxpayers under the private-insurance model. Assuming police are already paid about as little as we can get away with paying them, their salaries would have to increase by the average insurance premium. Over the long term, this should be equal to about 1.2x the awarded payouts. Assuming insurance company profit would be de jure capped at 20%, which happens for health insurance and auto insurance in some states - if the insurance company accidentally makes more profit they issue rebates to customers to bring down profits to the maximum level. So it could be argued that taxpayers would end up paying 20% more. But there’s some additional nuance which may lead to upsides for taxpayers wallets: 1) When a repeatedly problematic officer sees their premiums raised a lot, they’ll likely leave the profession. Removing the most egregious repeat-offenders will most likely lower the taxpayer’s bills. 2) Taxpayers in areas with sudden high judgments against them will be somewhat subsidized by taxpayers in other areas. This at least doesn’t suddenly victimize the taxpayers in areas where they are already victimized by police. 3) Police might be afraid of higher premiums, and change their practices to avoid judgements - thus lowering the taxpayer burden. Any changes in how police do their jobs to avoid higher premiums could have positive or negative externalities. - Would certain officers in the “in-group” get assigned lower-risk work and bank more take-home due to lower premiums, and others would be discriminated against by being assigned high-risk patrol areas and face higher premiums either as a result of their specific assigned duties or as a result of occasional interactions that are more likely to occur in those areas? - Would police officers be even more hesitant to rush into Uvalde High than they already are to stop active shooters? - Will police officers learn new techniques that are equally or more effective at reducing crime than current abuse-of-power techniques, or will they just avoid policing as much as they can to minimize the risk to their premiums and give criminals a permissive environment to operate in? Ideally we want to find a way to incentivize professional, courteous, AND effective policing to get the most value from tax-payers dollars. Many people believe courteous policing leads to effective policing, and many people believe the opposite (that more extreme / “rough” policing leads to more effective crime-reduction). For that reason alone I think it might be difficult to get private insurance requirements enacted. But I do think most people can agree that IF it’s possible to have courteous AND effective policing at the same time, that would be ideal.
- zenogantner 2y ago
  It's cheaper for a (large enough) state to just damages/settlements, rather than paying insurance contributions. Many countries manage to have (mostly) courteous and effective professional police forces without using an insurance/private lawsuit based framework such as the one you suggest.
- sdwr 2y ago
  Love the thought that went into this. I subscribe to the broken window theory of policing. Letting officers get away with small violations opens the door to bringing their ego to the job, and an "us vs them" mentality.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    Is that Open Window Theory, or Open Door theory?
- mindslight 2y ago
  I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse. Currently there aren't very many insurable events, because there is essentially no liability. Correcting basic liability is the first step to reform. When a citizen is unjustly harmed, if an officer is not following written departmental policy then that officer should be personally liable, with the department as a jointly-liable fallback (for enabling them). If the officer is following written department policy, then only the department should be liable. This creates an incentive for municipalities to create written procedures that except situations like these (based on both the mens rea vindictiveness, and also the fact the victim had obviously broken no laws). Note that I'm not proposing some radical departure from known territory, but rather something that is still less than the general liability dynamic that applies to everyone else. Then if individual officers want insurance they can seek it out themselves, or if a municipality is worried about capitalization issues they can insist on it during negotiations.
jokoon 2y ago
Maybe people have learned how to exploit this for money It's easy, they just provoke cops who tend to not follow the law until they got a case. If I could get wrongly arrested by a cop or even hurt to gain 300k, that would be worth it, and I would imagine people would learn the law and observe cops to make it happen. It's very malicious, but it seems the gains are high.
- arresin 2y ago
  There is a small but non zero chance of being shot.
  - ethanwillis 2y ago
    That's a risk I take every single day I go outside. Where I live there's over 100 shootings a year on the interstate alone in the loop around my city.
    - more_corn 2y ago
      Wow. When I was a kid I once asked my stepdad why people who live in super dangerous inner city neighborhoods didn’t move. His answer (some people can’t afford to move) didn’t satisfy me at the time. I thought to myself “bus tickets cost fifty bucks”. As a child I didn’t understand the nuances of life, but I also think there’s some power in childish naïveté.
- fred_is_fred 2y ago
  There is absolutely a set of people doing this. You can find their clips on YouTube. Here's one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOA2VgqxzQ&pp=ygUbZ29kIGJsZXNzIGhvbWVsZXNzIHZldGVyYW5z https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOA2VgqxzQ&pp=ygUbZ29kIGJsZ...
  - RockRobotRock 2y ago
    Have you seen this channel? https://youtube.com/@audittheaudit?si=Q9r2ARA71itTa3Lw https://youtube.com/@audittheaudit?si=Q9r2ARA71itTa3Lw There are definitely “auditor” types who are provocative but that’s a small minority
kelipso 2y ago
In the end it's the government's fault (which implies the taxpayer's fault) for having a system where they hire these types of cops.

I really think requiring police to carry their own insurance would help a lot here. It would obviously be hard to collect on a judgement against an officer’s pocketbook, but its easy to collect a payment owed by an insurance company. Plus its not weird - we already have many professions which de facto (or de jure) require the professional to find and pay for their own insurance - doctors, plumbers, electricians, carpenters, etc. There are some downsides to the taxpayers under the private-insurance model. Assuming police are already paid about as little as we can get away with paying them, their salaries would have to increase by the average insurance premium. Over the long term, this should be equal to about 1.2x the awarded payouts. Assuming insurance company profit would be de jure capped at 20%, which happens for health insurance and auto insurance in some states - if the insurance company accidentally makes more profit they issue rebates to customers to bring down profits to the maximum level. So it could be argued that taxpayers would end up paying 20% more. But there’s some additional nuance which may lead to upsides for taxpayers wallets: 1) When a repeatedly problematic officer sees their premiums raised a lot, they’ll likely leave the profession. Removing the most egregious repeat-offenders will most likely lower the taxpayer’s bills. 2) Taxpayers in areas with sudden high judgments against them will be somewhat subsidized by taxpayers in other areas. This at least doesn’t suddenly victimize the taxpayers in areas where they are already victimized by police. 3) Police might be afraid of higher premiums, and change their practices to avoid judgements - thus lowering the taxpayer burden. Any changes in how police do their jobs to avoid higher premiums could have positive or negative externalities. - Would certain officers in the “in-group” get assigned lower-risk work and bank more take-home due to lower premiums, and others would be discriminated against by being assigned high-risk patrol areas and face higher premiums either as a result of their specific assigned duties or as a result of occasional interactions that are more likely to occur in those areas? - Would police officers be even more hesitant to rush into Uvalde High than they already are to stop active shooters? - Will police officers learn new techniques that are equally or more effective at reducing crime than current abuse-of-power techniques, or will they just avoid policing as much as they can to minimize the risk to their premiums and give criminals a permissive environment to operate in? Ideally we want to find a way to incentivize professional, courteous, AND effective policing to get the most value from tax-payers dollars. Many people believe courteous policing leads to effective policing, and many people believe the opposite (that more extreme / “rough” policing leads to more effective crime-reduction). For that reason alone I think it might be difficult to get private insurance requirements enacted. But I do think most people can agree that IF it’s possible to have courteous AND effective policing at the same time, that would be ideal.

zenogantner 2y ago
It's cheaper for a (large enough) state to just damages/settlements, rather than paying insurance contributions. Many countries manage to have (mostly) courteous and effective professional police forces without using an insurance/private lawsuit based framework such as the one you suggest.
sdwr 2y ago
Love the thought that went into this. I subscribe to the broken window theory of policing. Letting officers get away with small violations opens the door to bringing their ego to the job, and an "us vs them" mentality.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  Is that Open Window Theory, or Open Door theory?
mindslight 2y ago
I'd say you're putting the cart before the horse. Currently there aren't very many insurable events, because there is essentially no liability. Correcting basic liability is the first step to reform. When a citizen is unjustly harmed, if an officer is not following written departmental policy then that officer should be personally liable, with the department as a jointly-liable fallback (for enabling them). If the officer is following written department policy, then only the department should be liable. This creates an incentive for municipalities to create written procedures that except situations like these (based on both the mens rea vindictiveness, and also the fact the victim had obviously broken no laws). Note that I'm not proposing some radical departure from known territory, but rather something that is still less than the general liability dynamic that applies to everyone else. Then if individual officers want insurance they can seek it out themselves, or if a municipality is worried about capitalization issues they can insist on it during negotiations.

jokoon 2y ago

Maybe people have learned how to exploit this for money It's easy, they just provoke cops who tend to not follow the law until they got a case. If I could get wrongly arrested by a cop or even hurt to gain 300k, that would be worth it, and I would imagine people would learn the law and observe cops to make it happen. It's very malicious, but it seems the gains are high.

arresin 2y ago
There is a small but non zero chance of being shot.
- ethanwillis 2y ago
  That's a risk I take every single day I go outside. Where I live there's over 100 shootings a year on the interstate alone in the loop around my city.
  - more_corn 2y ago
    Wow. When I was a kid I once asked my stepdad why people who live in super dangerous inner city neighborhoods didn’t move. His answer (some people can’t afford to move) didn’t satisfy me at the time. I thought to myself “bus tickets cost fifty bucks”. As a child I didn’t understand the nuances of life, but I also think there’s some power in childish naïveté.
fred_is_fred 2y ago
There is absolutely a set of people doing this. You can find their clips on YouTube. Here's one example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOA2VgqxzQ&pp=ygUbZ29kIGJsZXNzIGhvbWVsZXNzIHZldGVyYW5z https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsOA2VgqxzQ&pp=ygUbZ29kIGJsZ...
- RockRobotRock 2y ago
  Have you seen this channel? https://youtube.com/@audittheaudit?si=Q9r2ARA71itTa3Lw https://youtube.com/@audittheaudit?si=Q9r2ARA71itTa3Lw There are definitely “auditor” types who are provocative but that’s a small minority

kelipso 2y ago

In the end it's the government's fault (which implies the taxpayer's fault) for having a system where they hire these types of cops.