by the same logic, having the innocent tax payer foot the bill doesn't work either. My way at least guarantees some self-moderation via "good" cops not letting bad behavior go unchecked.
MAGAtards arrest man over being black
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
If the people of MN aren't demanding changes from their elected officials than they deserve to pay it imo.
Your attack on pensions wouldn't pass legal muster.
The question becomes: "Since nothing is totally fair to everyone; what's the fairest option?"
The People are the ultimate authority. And it is fairer to spread the bill among a lot of people, vs. just billing several [innocent] police officers.
It is not fair that parents have to be responsible for crimes and damages done by a young child; but it's the fairest solution we can come up with.
If the majority vote one way, and you vote another; and they win. Is it fair that you become subject to the will of the majority, even when it involves you having greater expenses?
Who knows ... but it's the fairest system we have. It's called,
Democracy. Majority Rules.
One possible option is to make cops carry their own liability insurance imo.The city should pay basic coverage and let insurers review the cops record every 6 months.If the insurer raises the rates due to a cops history of complaints or disciplinary actions against the cop than the cop should be responsible for the higher rates.If an insurer says they wont cover a cop because of their record or a large payout that they had to pay because of a cops actions than they cant be cops anymore.That would also stop bad cops going from one police department to another.Just a thought.
Wow! That sounds brilliant!
What's millions in an era of trillion dollar economic bailouts?
It's not a bad idea. The payouts still shouldn't be so high, but it would make cops more accountable for their actions. From what we've seen, it's clear Chauvin shouldn't have been a cop in the first place.
I believe you're going on the theory that punitive lawsuits work. The evidence of punitive punishment just doesn't hold muster. The most studied example on this is capital punishment. It's exceptionally hard for me to believe that voters will change who they vote for or demand change based on these expensive settlements. It's too far-reaching. That is not a motivating factor for the protesting we've seen asking for change. It's impossible to keep everything constant in a dynamic world. Crime isn't controlled so we can't follow the scientific method. We have to make judgements with incomplete data. What I think is working are bodycams. Before it was the cop's word. Now we see the truth and at least now cops can start to be held more accountable. We will never reduce cop crimes to zero just as we will never reduce citizen crimes to zero, but it should reduce them if they're under surveillance and appropriately (not punitively) punished.Great. Don't take so long to think logically next time.
This is true in most, if not all, situations.
All debates aren't logical. And all debaters aren't logical.
What theory did I suggest we go on?
Where did I suggest we ignore data? What data are you referring to?
Last edited: