Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
1) Any taxpayer who does not want his or her hard-earned money put toward police brutality/wrongful death settlements (currently $100,000,000 per year in New York City alone and counting);
2) Any one of the great majority of law enforcement officers who actually treats citizens (of all colors) with respect, cares about the people in their community, performs his or her duties without causing undue harm to those in their charge, does not otherwise power trip or abuse their authority and is tired of having their personal character and profession defined by a sensationalist media hyperfocusing on the actions of a relatively few number of psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists and garden variety idiots who manage to sneak into the system, don the uniform and make life more difficult for their fellow officers; and
3) Any one of the great majority of persons of color who positively contribute to society, their communities and families, do not lead abject lives of crime and violence, who simply want to be the individuals that they are, building and leading happy, fulfilled lives like everyone else, and is tired of having their personal character and very personhood defined by a sensationalist media hyperfocusing on the actions of a relatively few number psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists and garden variety idiots who manage to make life more difficult for the rest of us.
My proposal is this: when a wrongful death/brutality action involving an officer is lost or settled, rather than the entire payment coming from the municipality's budget, half of the proceeds owed to the aggrieved party should come from the overall fund used to pay accruing and matured pensions of those within the law enforcement community (beat cops on up to top brass). If at any point pension funds dip to a predetermined floor amount, everyone takes a hit to their proportionate share of the overall fund to make up for it (similar to an assessment in a condominium community). In my opinion, it is nearly impossible for a bad apple to go completely unnoticed by the peers and supervisors with whom they spend so much time. However, the existing system does not properly incentivize those in the best position to prevent the bad apple from wreaking havoc on the public from doing so. I would be willing to bet a pretty penny that by imposing a consequence felt by all, it would force police to truly police themselves.
No longer would those in charge fail to properly discipline or discharge officers showing red flags of progressively egregious behavior. No longer would so many individual bad apples feel carte blanche to take out his or her frustrations in life on whatever citizen happened to be unlucky enough to cross their path that day. No longer would fellow officers look the other way, stand by, cover for or otherwise tolerate one of their own disrespecting or brutalizing a civilian.
Instead, bad apples are dismissed before they have the opportunity cause substantial damage (one can be retrained to remember to use the proper TPS reports and such, maybe even how to employ more tact when engaging with the public, but someone who has reached adulthood without knowing how to keep themselves from reacting to provocative behavior/speech or reign in his own violent impulses should not carry a deadly weapon or be in a position of authority). Instead, an officer will remind himself to remain calm, professional and not take the bait when some street punk runs his mouth. Instead, an officer will intervene and deescalate a heated verbal exchange between his partner and a civilian before it turns physical.
If you feel what I have just proposed seems radical, consider that the "sink or swim together" method of accountability is not a remotely novel idea, and in fact already exists within many facets of our society. For example, an employee perpetrating a fraud upon the public can open his personal coffers as well as those of his company to massive financial liability, even if no one else was aware of it. An attorney who discovers that his partner has stolen escrow money but turns a blind eye is legally just as culpable as the thieving partner. Though he did not steal a dime, he and the firm may be forced to pay back victims anyway. Also, a lookout during a robbery who never sets foot in the store or possesses a weapon can be charged with murder (and sued civilly for wrongful death) if his accomplices shoot and kill the store clerk, even if the lookout was told beforehand there would be no weapons or violence involved. If we expect other professionals and even criminals to be held responsible for those they are in bed with, why not police?
I believe the persistence of police misconduct is not attributable to any unique pathology, rather it flourishes for the exact same reason any human being repeatedly pursues a particular behavior: the reward (behaving in any manner you see fit with impunity) continues to outweigh the risk (losing resources, employment and/or doing prison time). Protests cannot change this. Lectures cannot change this. "Internal discipline" cannot change this. Retraining cannot change this. The only thing powerful enough to overcome the wall of blue is the loss of green.
These cops tried to do the right thing about a co-worker, but were thwarted by the system. While your idea has merit , it's simply not fair under the current system.
That is ridiculous. They have insurance for those things, just like hospitals have malpractice. It is the insurance company who pays it. I feel no sympathy for insurance companies and can't imagine taking good working people's pensions in order to save an insurance giant from having to make good on it's contract. How on earth is it fair to the majority of good cops who risk their lives every day to have to pay for a few bad apples?
I work in a religious affiliated nursing home, your tax dollars certainly help pay for it...however we do not have any pensions...so if a CNA drops a patient and the family sues, should all the CNAs in the building be sued, even the ones who weren't working that day, since we don't have pensions? Or is your idea to have this only apply to those with public pensions, and only those industries who don't are exempt from being held responsible for their co-workers??? How can you in any fairness apply this to only certain people? Either people everywhere are held responsible for their co-workers doing a bad job, or none are, you can't have it both ways.
That is ridiculous. They have insurance for those things, just like hospitals have malpractice. It is the insurance company who pays it. I feel no sympathy for insurance companies and can't imagine taking good working people's pensions in order to save an insurance giant from having to make good on it's contract. How on earth is it fair to the majority of good cops who risk their lives every day to have to pay for a few bad apples?
I work in a religious affiliated nursing home, your tax dollars certainly help pay for it...however we do not have any pensions...so if a CNA drops a patient and the family sues, should all the CNAs in the building be sued, even the ones who weren't working that day, since we don't have pensions? Or is your idea to have this only apply to those with public pensions, and only those industries who don't are exempt from being held responsible for their co-workers??? How can you in any fairness apply this to only certain people? Either people everywhere are held responsible for their co-workers doing a bad job, or none are, you can't have it both ways.
Yep, many larger municipalities have insurance that pays the majority of lawsuit awards. It's not like they are taking it out of the police dept. budget.
"Overcome the wall of blue"??? Health care costs are already taking care of that.
The fact that you think this is "flourishing" is disturbing.
1) Any taxpayer who does not want his or her hard-earned money put toward police brutality/wrongful death settlements (currently $100,000,000 per year in New York City alone and counting);
2) Any one of the great majority of law enforcement officers who actually treats citizens (of all colors) with respect, cares about the people in their community, performs his or her duties without causing undue harm to those in their charge, does not otherwise power trip or abuse their authority and is tired of having their personal character and profession defined by a sensationalist media hyperfocusing on the actions of a relatively few number of psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists and garden variety idiots who manage to sneak into the system, don the uniform and make life more difficult for their fellow officers; and
3) Any one of the great majority of persons of color who positively contribute to society, their communities and families, do not lead abject lives of crime and violence, who simply want to be the individuals that they are, building and leading happy, fulfilled lives like everyone else, and is tired of having their personal character and very personhood defined by a sensationalist media hyperfocusing on the actions of a relatively few number psychopaths, sociopaths, sadists and garden variety idiots who manage to make life more difficult for the rest of us.
My proposal is this: when a wrongful death/brutality action involving an officer is lost or settled, rather than the entire payment coming from the municipality's budget, half of the proceeds owed to the aggrieved party should come from the overall fund used to pay accruing and matured pensions of those within the law enforcement community (beat cops on up to top brass). If at any point pension funds dip to a predetermined floor amount, everyone takes a hit to their proportionate share of the overall fund to make up for it (similar to an assessment in a condominium community). In my opinion, it is nearly impossible for a bad apple to go completely unnoticed by the peers and supervisors with whom they spend so much time. However, the existing system does not properly incentivize those in the best position to prevent the bad apple from wreaking havoc on the public from doing so. I would be willing to bet a pretty penny that by imposing a consequence felt by all, it would force police to truly police themselves.
No longer would those in charge fail to properly discipline or discharge officers showing red flags of progressively egregious behavior. No longer would so many individual bad apples feel carte blanche to take out his or her frustrations in life on whatever citizen happened to be unlucky enough to cross their path that day. No longer would fellow officers look the other way, stand by, cover for or otherwise tolerate one of their own disrespecting or brutalizing a civilian.
Instead, bad apples are dismissed before they have the opportunity cause substantial damage (one can be retrained to remember to use the proper TPS reports and such, maybe even how to employ more tact when engaging with the public, but someone who has reached adulthood without knowing how to keep themselves from reacting to provocative behavior/speech or reign in his own violent impulses should not carry a deadly weapon or be in a position of authority). Instead, an officer will remind himself to remain calm, professional and not take the bait when some street punk runs his mouth. Instead, an officer will intervene and deescalate a heated verbal exchange between his partner and a civilian before it turns physical.
If you feel what I have just proposed seems radical, consider that the "sink or swim together" method of accountability is not a remotely novel idea, and in fact already exists within many facets of our society. For example, an employee perpetrating a fraud upon the public can open his personal coffers as well as those of his company to massive financial liability, even if no one else was aware of it. An attorney who discovers that his partner has stolen escrow money but turns a blind eye is legally just as culpable as the thieving partner. Though he did not steal a dime, he and the firm may be forced to pay back victims anyway. Also, a lookout during a robbery who never sets foot in the store or possesses a weapon can be charged with murder (and sued civilly for wrongful death) if his accomplices shoot and kill the store clerk, even if the lookout was told beforehand there would be no weapons or violence involved. If we expect other professionals and even criminals to be held responsible for those they are in bed with, why not police?
I believe the persistence of police misconduct is not attributable to any unique pathology, rather it flourishes for the exact same reason any human being repeatedly pursues a particular behavior: the reward (behaving in any manner you see fit with impunity) continues to outweigh the risk (losing resources, employment and/or doing prison time). Protests cannot change this. Lectures cannot change this. "Internal discipline" cannot change this. Retraining cannot change this. The only thing powerful enough to overcome the wall of blue is the loss of green.
Your thoughts are welcome
G. F. Y.!!!
Those people have one of the hardest, most dangerous and stressful jobs imaginable! It never ceases to amaze me how people whom have never put themselves in harm's way feel so at ease about criticizing those who serve.
The vast majority of cops are very good people and they don't get paid nearly enough to protect the good citizens, let alone whiny critics who wouldn't make a pimple on a cop's or service member / veteran's backside...
These cops tried to do the right thing about a co-worker, but were thwarted by the system. While your idea has merit , it's simply not fair under the current system.
I agree 100% there may be instances in which the end result would be unfair, but I think those instances would be far less in number than the ones in which the system worked, so the benefit would far outweigh the cost. If you think about it, no system gets it right 100% of the time. So the fact that a policy may be imperfect hardly seems like a reason to dismiss it out of hand, especially if it has the opportunity to address so many of society's ills at once.
That is ridiculous. They have insurance for those things, just like hospitals have malpractice. It is the insurance company who pays it. I feel no sympathy for insurance companies and can't imagine taking good working people's pensions in order to save an insurance giant from having to make good on it's contract. How on earth is it fair to the majority of good cops who risk their lives every day to have to pay for a few bad apples?
I work in a religious affiliated nursing home, your tax dollars certainly help pay for it...however we do not have any pensions...so if a CNA drops a patient and the family sues, should all the CNAs in the building be sued, even the ones who weren't working that day, since we don't have pensions? Or is your idea to have this only apply to those with public pensions, and only those industries who don't are exempt from being held responsible for their co-workers??? How can you in any fairness apply this to only certain people? Either people everywhere are held responsible for their co-workers doing a bad job, or none are, you can't have it both ways.
Yes and no. Insurance policies for these matters, like any other kind of insurance, has a policy cap. This is a big reason why so many municipalities prefer to settle--- aside from the fact that trials themselves are costly, a single wild card jury award may end up taking a large chunk of that policy cap, nevermind the smaller awards that cumulatively would push them over the limit.
First, it is disgraceful that a job as important as safeguarding the health and wellbeing of another does not mandate its workers receive a pension. That aside, I think the "severity" of a checks and balances system should be a reflection of the powers to which the system is charged with monitoring. If a CNA was given discretion under the law to deprive another human being of life and liberty then yes, every CNA should be responsible for the actions of the other. As far as I am aware, a nurse does not exercise control over any individual who does not submit to their care (either themselves or through a guardian), so there is a degree of choice involved. At that point it is a matter of choosing the right caregiver and switching providers/seeking legal redress if the agreed upon standard of care has not been met.
However, everyday citizens have no control over who is enforcing their laws and how they choose to do so (yes, we can elect certain politicians that reflect our values, but practically speaking the election of one candidate over another does not result in substantial change in the day-to-day life for the vast majority of people). A law enforcement officer has the authority to take a person and their property against their will, even take a life. There is no other profession in the country that allows this level of interference without consent. The gravity of this kind of power is so great that the countervailing accountability system must carry equal weight. Otherwise, it is a recipe for abuse. Yes, there are policies and procedures dictating how an officer executes his duties, but if those policies and procedures aren't stringently enforced, they are no more than words on a paper.
The bottom line is: to whom much is given, much is required. Someone who is willing to sign up for a job where he or she may have to decide in a split second whether another human being lives or dies should have enough nerve to stomach being accountable for the actions of their colleagues who also exercise this power. If he or she feels it is too great a responsibility, one is free to simply choose another profession. The system will be all the better for it, since the "hear no evil/see no evil" types will naturally weed themselves out.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
