Defunding the Police?

[DBT]

Heard a suggestion that compulsory personal insurance may be a way to modify police behaviour. Ever higher premiums imposed based on the number, degree or severity of substantiated (not frivolous) complaints the officer accrues. Just like surgeons and other health professionals.

Who would pay for the insurance? Cops don't make all that much. And the vast majority are good cops who don't break the law or violate their oath.

Income should allow for basic cover....so as an officer accrues negative points they are penalised by increases in cost of insurance. Which is a motive for not doing the wrong thing, to be more careful how they deal with people.

 

[DBT]

How does that work? Does it relate to individual officer behaviour? Does it penalise an officer for bad behavior?

The employer is responsible for the torts of its agents. True for ABC company. True for the police department.

How well has that worked out? Given the current situation, not very well.

 

[atrib]

Oh, noes. Consequences.

When police officers murder someone there certainly should be.

And burning down the neighborhood seems a wise choice.

Nobody is claiming it is a wise choice. But to some people who live their lives being systematically abused by the police, and watch helplessly as their neighbors and relatives get killed in police encounters without any consequences for the cops, it may seem like the only choice.

 

[crazyfingers]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/police-union-reform-protests/index.html

It's time for some union busting of a different sort.

 

[Trausti]

And burning down the neighborhood seems a wise choice.

Nobody is claiming it is a wise choice. But to some people who live their lives being systematically abused by the police, and watch helplessly as their neighbors and relatives get killed in police encounters without any consequences for the cops, it may seem like the only choice.

Yeah, don’t think that was going through their minds as they snatched up the Air Jordans.

 

[Trausti]

How does that work? Does it relate to individual officer behaviour? Does it penalise an officer for bad behavior?

The employer is responsible for the torts of its agents. True for ABC company. True for the police department.

How well has that worked out? Given the current situation, not very well.

Works out fine. Ya gotta understand, no plaintiff attorney will go along with just suing an individual officer. It’s the department that has the money. Same with suing an employee. You get a judgment, so what? Employee doesn’t have any assets. But ABC company does. Or at least a large liability policy.

 

[DBT]

How well has that worked out? Given the current situation, not very well.

Works out fine. Ya gotta understand, no plaintiff attorney will go along with just suing an individual officer. It’s the department that has the money. Same with suing an employee. You get a judgment, so what? Employee doesn’t have any assets. But ABC company does. Or at least a large liability policy.

You say that it works out fine, yet given the evidence that police appear to routinely abuse their power and position, behaving badly, and the situation where it appear that trust in police officers appears to be at an all time low, widespread demonstrations against deaths in custody, etc, it could be argued that it is not working out fine.

 

[Trausti]

How well has that worked out? Given the current situation, not very well.

Works out fine. Ya gotta understand, no plaintiff attorney will go along with just suing an individual officer. It’s the department that has the money. Same with suing an employee. You get a judgment, so what? Employee doesn’t have any assets. But ABC company does. Or at least a large liability policy.

You say that it works out fine, yet given the evidence that police appear to routinely abuse their power and position, behaving badly, and the situation where it appear that trust in police officers appears to be at an all time low, widespread demonstrations against deaths in custody, etc, it could be argued that it is not working out fine.

That has nothing to do with civil liability. If someone alleges a police officer violated his civil rights, the department will always be a defendant. The department will provide the officer with legal representation and fund any settlement/judgment.

 

[Trausti]

What Would Efforts to Defund or Disband Police Departments Really Mean? - The New York Times - "Much is not yet certain, but here’s what is known so far about some efforts to defund or abolish police departments."

What are some of the ideas for rethinking policing?

Some proposals call for ending no-knock warrants and military-style raids. Others seek to restrict the flow of military-style gear to police departments and change police tactics used against protesters. One group described an idea for policing in which attendees look out for one another but emergency workers are standing by in the background, handing out water and ready to step in if needed.

Has this been done anywhere?

Some cities have already made changes to policing. In the city of Austin, Texas, 911 calls are answered by operators who inquire whether the caller needs police, fire or mental health services — part of a major revamping of public safety that took place last year when the city budget added millions of dollars for mental health issues. In Eugene, Ore., a team called CAHOOTS — Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets — deploys a medic and a crisis worker with mental health training to emergency calls. Camden, N.J., revamped its policing in 2017 with officers handing out more warnings than tickets and undergoing training that places emphasis on officers holding their fire.

Defund the police? Here’s what that really means. - The Washington Post

To fix policing, we must first recognize how much we have come to over-rely on law enforcement. We turn to the police in situations where years of experience and common sense tell us that their involvement is unnecessary, and can make things worse. We ask police to take accident reports, respond to people who have overdosed and arrest, rather than cite, people who might have intentionally or not passed a counterfeit $20 bill. We call police to roust homeless people from corners and doorsteps, resolve verbal squabbles between family members and strangers alike, and arrest children for behavior that once would have been handled as a school disciplinary issue.

Police themselves often complain about having to “do too much,” including handling social problems for which they are ill-equipped. Some have been vocal about the need to decriminalize social problems and take police out of the equation. It is clear that we must reimagine the role they play in public safety.

That's all very welcome, even if talk about defunding or disbanding cops seems very careless to me. But I do agree that a lot of police departments need a *lot* of revision.

During the Jacob Frey struggle session, his interrogator gave no nuance by what "defund the police" means. Abolition. No police. The media's effort to run interference, notwithstanding.

 

[DBT]

You say that it works out fine, yet given the evidence that police appear to routinely abuse their power and position, behaving badly, and the situation where it appear that trust in police officers appears to be at an all time low, widespread demonstrations against deaths in custody, etc, it could be argued that it is not working out fine.

That has nothing to do with civil liability. If someone alleges a police officer violated his civil rights, the department will always be a defendant. The department will provide the officer with legal representation and fund any settlement/judgment.

Well that's the problem. As the officer feels protected by the department it reduces his sense of personal responsibility or liability....the department will take care of the issue. Whereas personal insurance and personal liability tends to promote more caution because of the consequences and the cost to the officer, higher premiums, being sued for damages, etc, coming out of their own pocket.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And then there's shit like this: cops slashing tires.

Apparently they were ordered to do that.

The officers strategically deflated the tires to “stop behaviors such as vehicles driving dangerously and at high speeds in and around protesters and law enforcement,” said Minnesota Department of Public Safety spokesperson Bruce Gordon. The troopers reportedly targeted cars that “contained items used to cause harm during violent protests” such as rocks and concrete. The Anoka County Sheriff’s Lt. Andy Knotz said deputies were following directions from the state-led Multiagency Command Center.

So what? They're admitting to vandalism. Whoever gave the order and everyone involved in carrying it out should be convicted of the vandalism and the city should pay for all the tires and related costs. They had no evidence the specific cars were going to do anything illegal.

 

[Jarhyn]

Apparently they were ordered to do that.

So what? They're admitting to vandalism. Whoever gave the order and everyone involved in carrying it out should be convicted of the vandalism and the city should pay for all the tires and related costs. They had no evidence the specific cars were going to do anything illegal.

I mean, Trausti is pulling a Nuremberg defense, here. Do you really think there's hope there?

 

[Trausti]

Apparently they were ordered to do that.

So what? They're admitting to vandalism. Whoever gave the order and everyone involved in carrying it out should be convicted of the vandalism and the city should pay for all the tires and related costs. They had no evidence the specific cars were going to do anything illegal.

I mean, Trausti is pulling a Nuremberg defense, here. Do you really think there's hope there?

If you read an earlier response I commented that I was just pointing it out. Not defending it.

 

[Trausti]

You say that it works out fine, yet given the evidence that police appear to routinely abuse their power and position, behaving badly, and the situation where it appear that trust in police officers appears to be at an all time low, widespread demonstrations against deaths in custody, etc, it could be argued that it is not working out fine.

That has nothing to do with civil liability. If someone alleges a police officer violated his civil rights, the department will always be a defendant. The department will provide the officer with legal representation and fund any settlement/judgment.

Well that's the problem. As the officer feels protected by the department it reduces his sense of personal responsibility or liability....the department will take care of the issue. Whereas personal insurance and personal liability tends to promote more caution because of the consequences and the cost to the officer, higher premiums, being sued for damages, etc, coming out of their own pocket.

If your goal is to have no cops at all, that'll do it.

 

[DBT]

Well that's the problem. As the officer feels protected by the department it reduces his sense of personal responsibility or liability....the department will take care of the issue. Whereas personal insurance and personal liability tends to promote more caution because of the consequences and the cost to the officer, higher premiums, being sued for damages, etc, coming out of their own pocket.

If your goal is to have no cops at all, that'll do it.

It's not my goal, nor is it my idea. It was one means of modifying bad behaviour by police being proposed. Health professionals, for example need to take out indemnity insurance;

What is medical and professional indemnity insurance?

''This section provides an overview of the Indemnity Insurance Fund schemes which include the Medical Indemnity Programs for eligible private medical practitioners and the professional indemnity schemes for eligible midwives in private practice.''
''Medical and professional indemnity insurance is a specialised form of cover that provides surety to private medical practitioners, eligible privately practicing midwives, and their patents in the event of an adverse incident caused by the practitioner’s negligence. Affordable and stable indemnity insurance translates to stable fees for patients, and allows the medical workforce to focus on the delivery of high quality services.''

So if doctors, midwives, etc, can do it why not police officers? If they don't do the wrong thing they have no problem with rising insurance cost. They are not penalized for occasional understandable errors that may happen in the course of their duty, only unacceptable behaviour .

 

[ruby sparks]

totally agree but this country isn't really good at nuance. i think the only two messages we'll see are "the police WILL murder you if you're black/brown" or "the libtards want to abolish polish so you all in big trouble now".

ReFund the police! fund the training and psych evals. train them to actually walk the neighborhood and get to know people. etc etc etc.

But isn’t there also a more nuanced approach, just more of it or less of it depending on location?

absolutely, there is a more nuanced approach and i believe that's the correct approach in every case. however, here in the US, we seem to have lost the ability to maneuver such complex topics in an intellectual manner so we revert to our extremes and refuse to admit we might be wrong or that the other side might have a point.

Indeed.

The USA does seem to be a country of ever-growing extremes (of all sorts) in recent decades. There seems to be very little (or at least not enough) middle ground, even here on this forum, which is a bit disappointing to say the least, given that it’s meant to be a forum for rationalism.

I will say this though, the Floyd death seems to have produced a slightly more even-handed response. Many who I might have thought of as possibly a bit one-sided (possibly on the ‘right’) have moderated somewhat and it is good to see. Kudos to them.

Maybe those on the so-called ‘left’ here could reciprocate, and acknowledge that their ‘opponents’ often have a point, when they are conversing with them I mean.

The ‘all cops are bad’ rubbish is no better than the ‘there is no significant racism’ rubbish, imho.

Some of this is just the internet effect though, I guess. Reasonable people with moderate opinions who see the value in compromise and agreement probably spend less of their valuable time participating in pointless, anally-retentive, online ding dongs.

I hope.

If there isn’t in fact a majority of such people out there, we’re all in even more trouble.

 

[ZiprHead]

Seven Reasons Police Brutality Is Systemic, Not Anecdotal

These stories are a small selection of recent police brutality reports, as police misconduct has become a fixture of the news cycle.

But the plural of anecdote is not data, and the media is inevitably drawn toward tales of conflict. Despite the increasing frequency with which we hear of misbehaving cops, many Americans maintain a default respect for the man in uniform. As an NYPD assistant chief put it, “We don’t want a few bad apples or a few rogue cops damaging” the police’s good name.

This is an attractive proposal, certainly, but unfortunately it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Here are seven reasons why police misconduct is a systemic problem, not “a few bad apples”:

1. Many departments don’t provide adequate training in nonviolent solutions.

2. Standards for what constitutes brutality vary widely.

3. Consequences for misconduct are minimal.

4. Settlements are shifted to taxpayers.

5. Minorities are unfairly targeted.

6. Police are increasingly militarized.

7. Police themselves say misconduct is remarkably widespread.

 

[laughing dog]

In order to market the idea so that it does not alarm the idolators of the police and their kneejerk dupes, I think the term "refocusing the police" would make such discussions more fruitful.

 

[laughing dog]

Apparently they were ordered to do that.

So what? They're admitting to vandalism. Whoever gave the order and everyone involved in carrying it out should be convicted of the vandalism and the city should pay for all the tires and related costs. They had no evidence the specific cars were going to do anything illegal.

Especially there are simple and easy methods to deflate tires without causing irreparable damage. Just letting the air of one or two would do the job just as well.

 

[Worldtraveller]

Late to this thread, but I see the usual authoritarian bootlickers saying it can't be done, and that chaos would result, yadda yadda. This is (shockingly) a lot of the same rhetoric (and same posters) who say universal healthcare can't work, in spite of it working better than our system in so many other places.

So, when it comes to defunding the fascists in police uniforms. I just want to note that it has worked. That's in the US, for those too lazy to read.