General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOnly one way to stop police from hurting: Make them pay out of their own pockets if it can
be proven that what they did was wrong. That will stop most of it, if not all of it.
marybourg
(12,584 posts)as well as causing defendant police officers to simply declare bankruptcy. Simplistic remedies are ones that were rejected decades ago for lack of practicality.
ret5hd
(20,480 posts)Care to share?
Calculating
(2,955 posts)Like you know, virtually every other job.
Buckeye_Democrat
(14,852 posts)The last time I checked, that's excluded from bankruptcy.
I worked with a guy who never drove a car. Another coworker explained that he couldn't get a driver's license until his criminal penalties for an at-fault accident were paid, which would be impossible given the huge penalties. And the penalties could never be discharged by bankruptcy either.
jayfish
(10,037 posts)for a LEO job because he/she isn't sure they will be able to conduct themselves in a controlled manner then GOOD.
Ferryboat
(922 posts)Wont be able to get coverage if there is a pattern of unnecessary roughness.
Malpractice insurance. Like medical professionals have to have.
NCjack
(10,279 posts)who are criminals. Solve that problem and big improvements will result.
2naSalit
(86,307 posts)crickets
(25,949 posts)dalton99a
(81,374 posts)Abolish it. Kill it dead.
unblock
(52,106 posts)An emt has to perform at a level consistent with their training and the standards required for any situation and procedure they perform. If an emt is not trained in how to do a procedure properly and safely, they need to not do it.
Otherwise they are liable, definitely their employer and sometimes even as an individual
Emts have to be *better* than the average person on the street. Emts are expected to be experts in what they do.
The police is the opposite. They are allowed to take action that ordinary people would certainly have civil and possibly criminal liability for, but they are protected both by police-specific legal concepts like qualified immunity and practical challenges such as police covering for themselves and political reluctance to go after even really rotten police officers.
Police should be held to a standard of care when it comes to de-escalation. They should not be allowed to use guns as a first or nearly first resort.
And they should be require to be *right* if they fire shots. No killing people and then finding out they were just pulling out their wallet. If you take someone else's life into your own hands, you have a responsibility to make sure it's for good reason. "Oops sorry" is not good enough.
abqtommy
(14,118 posts)and incarceration. Yes, I know of the hazards that child molesters and police officers face when housed
among any general prison population. Perhaps an understanding of Zero Tolerance will result...
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)SWBTATTReg
(22,056 posts)or something gets stolen? There are lots of very good officers out there who do give a damn about their communities, and this proposing to abolish the police is going to solve all problems? And even worse, you don't propose an alternative for the so called 'abolished' police force?! I sure wouldn't want you in my neighborhood, being that you don't really seem to care about your fellow neighbors perhaps, and that your efforts to 'abolish' the police force is unwarranted, unjustified and an overreaction, IMHO.
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)SWBTATTReg
(22,056 posts)write up (to abolish the police), other than to throw up a smokescreen and tell me to go out 'there' in Internet land and look myself for justification when I clearly asked you to justify your own proposal to abolish the police, w/o sufficient cause.
You also told me to accept w/o question the loss of my property, simply because most property crimes go unsolved? Wow. What a justification for having a police department. You seem to think that the police work in a vacuum when most officers will tell you that having a community on their side really helps them too (and you too), in their crime fighting efforts, after all, it does take an entire community working together to resolve issues.
Anyone with a reasonable mind can already figure out that we don't want abusive police officers working (and I'm in MO, where a lot of this crap has happened, protests and/or police actions, quite a bit), and you tag your statement with 'getting rid of people dedicated to state violence' seems like a good start!
What a grand statement! And how are you going to enforce such a decree, go and have a 'hunger' games type of event, and the officers that pass are awarded or what? How are you going to gauge one's affinity for violence vs. others? Maybe you have ESP?
WhiskeyGrinder
(22,304 posts)It's not a recent development. One of the most useful resources I've directed people to in the past is www.mpd150.com, which is an outstanding project that took the 150-year anniversary of the Minneapolis police department as an opportunity to assess it critically, and to explore what abolition might look like in the neighborhoods of Minneapolis.
jayfish
(10,037 posts)then the the police are just clean-up. Are there beat cops out there keeping an eye on everyones stuff that I'm not aware of?
SWBTATTReg
(22,056 posts)suspect behavior is noticed). It does take an entire neighborhood to address issues, and they do act on people's calls, I've done this before, call on suspect behavior, and they were immediately in the area and apprehended the guy. That's what I said before, that they work hand in hand w/ the community too, and not just by themselves.
DFW
(54,268 posts)If Blake is paralyzed for life, then so should the killer cop who tried to murder him.
I know, it sounds like the code of Hammurabi, but there is NO justification for firing 7 shots into a guy's back with his 3 kids looking on unless he has a loaded gun pointed at you. NONE. I don't know what it would take to quell my rage if I were anywhere near involved personally. I'm pretty much seething already, and I'm 5000 miles from there and not at all related.
SWBTATTReg
(22,056 posts)employees would need to qualify and pay for a bond, prior to gaining employment anywhere. Thus, if they move elsewhere, they would have to either reapply or perhaps their bond would still be in effect. Their conduct on the job would justify the price that they pay for the bonding service, e.g., low incidents of violence etc., they would pay a lower price, vice versa, if they have a troubled past, w/ lots of suspect incidents of violence higher than normal (it does occur, legitimately if a suspect isn't following lawful orders, is drunk, etc.), then the bonding rate would be higher. Obviously there would come a point where rates would get too prohibited/too high, and thus, the individual wouldn't be able to work in the field anymore.
crickets
(25,949 posts)of the various ways to curb police misconduct without "defunding" the police.