all 16 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 62 points 1 week ago* (6 children)

At least they're losing their jobs fort it! That rarely happens for anything else they do.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They just get a new one somewhere else. There is no bad cop do not hire list.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Now if only they could be arrested and see prison time for it...

    You know, like anybody else would get for abusing public trust and misusing their employer's equipment in order to commit the crime of stalking.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago (1 child)

    identified at least 24 similar cases nationwide of officers using automated license-plate reader (ALPR) cameras like Flock to stalk romantic interests over the past two years. Nearly all of those officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    Stupid incorrect emphasis on the headline writer's part. The issue is the panopticon and abuse thereof; the fact that some of the perps are facing some minor consequences (compared to the criminal stalking charges they deserve) should not be the important takeaway.

  • source
  • parent
  • Wait? Actually losing their job? That’s the most surprising part.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 1 week ago

    That's surprisingly great news.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    Does this power only work for license plates?

    I know facial recognition is something they want, but I want to know if it works well enough for them to abuse? Or no?

  • source