▲ 263 ▼ Police Keep Losing Their Jobs For Using Flock Cameras To Stalk People (www.motherjones.com) submitted 1 week ago by VetOfTheSeas@discuss.online to c/thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world 16 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 18 points 1 week ago (1 child) They just get a new one somewhere else. There is no bad cop do not hire list. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) There is no bad cop do not hire list. This is why cops should be required to carry malpractice insurance. Then the insurance companies will compile and maintain this 'bad cop' list. Just like car insurance companies refuse to cover or charge exorbitant rates to cover unsafe drivers, police malpractice companies would track cops and refuse to cover or charge exorbitant rates to cover ones with a track record of malpractice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I feel like this is good on paper, but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? It would be up to the insurance companies to decide which cops are high risk, using any data they can scrape together. Lost civil court case settlements would be a huge one, of course. Any cop found liable in civil court for abuse of power/violation of civil rights/etc would quickly see their malpractice insurance rates skyrocket ... or have insurance companies start refusing to cover him altogether. But they'd probably also factor in accusations and complaints, department disciplinary measures (if public), maybe even things like age and gender of the cop (since they change auto insurance rates based on that). They might also have some kind of questionnaire/psychological assessment during their application process. Maybe they'll even browse through the cop's social media for any red flags that are associated with a high likelihood of civil court cases. Oh, and also consider the record of the department they're working in, of course -- since the data shows cops working in problem departments are more likely to end up having civil court case judgements/settlements. The beautiful part of it is that all of this would be done without spending taxpayer money on it, and the insurance companies would be highly resistant to police corruption/coercion because insuring high-risk officers and paying civil court penalties for them would cut into profits. They have a high profit incentive to make sure they correctly identify high risk cops and don't let any slip through the cracks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) There is no bad cop do not hire list. This is why cops should be required to carry malpractice insurance. Then the insurance companies will compile and maintain this 'bad cop' list. Just like car insurance companies refuse to cover or charge exorbitant rates to cover unsafe drivers, police malpractice companies would track cops and refuse to cover or charge exorbitant rates to cover ones with a track record of malpractice. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I feel like this is good on paper, but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? It would be up to the insurance companies to decide which cops are high risk, using any data they can scrape together. Lost civil court case settlements would be a huge one, of course. Any cop found liable in civil court for abuse of power/violation of civil rights/etc would quickly see their malpractice insurance rates skyrocket ... or have insurance companies start refusing to cover him altogether. But they'd probably also factor in accusations and complaints, department disciplinary measures (if public), maybe even things like age and gender of the cop (since they change auto insurance rates based on that). They might also have some kind of questionnaire/psychological assessment during their application process. Maybe they'll even browse through the cop's social media for any red flags that are associated with a high likelihood of civil court cases. Oh, and also consider the record of the department they're working in, of course -- since the data shows cops working in problem departments are more likely to end up having civil court case judgements/settlements. The beautiful part of it is that all of this would be done without spending taxpayer money on it, and the insurance companies would be highly resistant to police corruption/coercion because insuring high-risk officers and paying civil court penalties for them would cut into profits. They have a high profit incentive to make sure they correctly identify high risk cops and don't let any slip through the cracks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] plz1@sh.itjust.works 1 point 1 week ago (1 child) I feel like this is good on paper, but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? It would be up to the insurance companies to decide which cops are high risk, using any data they can scrape together. Lost civil court case settlements would be a huge one, of course. Any cop found liable in civil court for abuse of power/violation of civil rights/etc would quickly see their malpractice insurance rates skyrocket ... or have insurance companies start refusing to cover him altogether. But they'd probably also factor in accusations and complaints, department disciplinary measures (if public), maybe even things like age and gender of the cop (since they change auto insurance rates based on that). They might also have some kind of questionnaire/psychological assessment during their application process. Maybe they'll even browse through the cop's social media for any red flags that are associated with a high likelihood of civil court cases. Oh, and also consider the record of the department they're working in, of course -- since the data shows cops working in problem departments are more likely to end up having civil court case judgements/settlements. The beautiful part of it is that all of this would be done without spending taxpayer money on it, and the insurance companies would be highly resistant to police corruption/coercion because insuring high-risk officers and paying civil court penalties for them would cut into profits. They have a high profit incentive to make sure they correctly identify high risk cops and don't let any slip through the cracks. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 2 points 1 week ago* but who is the arbiter of that? Lost civil court case settlements? It would be up to the insurance companies to decide which cops are high risk, using any data they can scrape together. Lost civil court case settlements would be a huge one, of course. Any cop found liable in civil court for abuse of power/violation of civil rights/etc would quickly see their malpractice insurance rates skyrocket ... or have insurance companies start refusing to cover him altogether. But they'd probably also factor in accusations and complaints, department disciplinary measures (if public), maybe even things like age and gender of the cop (since they change auto insurance rates based on that). They might also have some kind of questionnaire/psychological assessment during their application process. Maybe they'll even browse through the cop's social media for any red flags that are associated with a high likelihood of civil court cases. Oh, and also consider the record of the department they're working in, of course -- since the data shows cops working in problem departments are more likely to end up having civil court case judgements/settlements. The beautiful part of it is that all of this would be done without spending taxpayer money on it, and the insurance companies would be highly resistant to police corruption/coercion because insuring high-risk officers and paying civil court penalties for them would cut into profits. They have a high profit incentive to make sure they correctly identify high risk cops and don't let any slip through the cracks. permalink fedilink source parent