4 ms·
>In this case, it seems obvious that the police should have to pay Do they ever? Even if they were guilty, wouldn’t it be on taxpayers to pay? If it is so, th
by torben-friis 1y ago
>In this case, it seems obvious that the police should have to pay
Do they ever? Even if they were guilty, wouldn’t it be on taxpayers to pay?
If it is so, then any investigation about potential wrongdoing should be separate from reimbursing the victim - they suffered damage by a public entity without personal fault, and that should be covered whether protocol was followed or not.
That way, there is no public economic incentive to declare police innocent, which is an extra plus.
- hahahacorn 1y agoWhat? The incentive issue of police mishaps being paid from taxpayer funds is entirely independent. > any investigation about potential wrongdoing should be separate from reimbursing the victim I explicitly stated that insurance should reimburse the victim and then the insurance company can pursue damages for police wrongdoing after.
- torben-friis 1y ago>I explicitly stated that insurance should reimburse the victim and then the insurance company can pursue damages for police wrongdoing after. I meant public funds, regardless of insurance. As in, if you (or the insurer) need to pursue damages then state payment is tied to wrongdoing. My point was that if public action results in a loss it should be reimbursed period. A citizen doesn’t care (only) that protocol was followed, they care about a broken house either way.