This triggers riots and protests, which require the police to work overtime.
They get paid for causing all these problems, and well paid. Their overtime costs must be tremendous. And who ends up paying? We do.
We should claw back police overtime pay for any protests or riots that are caused by the police themselves. I think that's fair and equitable.
Their abuse is literally publicly subsidized.
Lawsuit settlements for the police committing human rights abuses should come out of the police pension fund.
No, they should come out of taxpayer funds. The principal is responsible for the actions of their agents.
If the public authority doesn't properly screen, train, supervise, and discipline police to protect civil rights, it is their responsibility and the responsibility of the public who chooses that authority.
Absolving the public authority and the public of responsibility just means that there is reduced incentives to address systemic problems.
The deep seated issue is the principle agent problem around elected officials. The police threaten the politicians, who don't want to rock the boat, to get a lopsided contract that makes them virtually immune to any oversight. This is why we're literally at "defund the police" - citizens are finally crying uncle and demanding that their city's entire contract be thrown away and redesigned.
Most people don't want to defund their police. Per the latest Monmouth poll, about 60% favor the police (compared to ~11% for congress) and most people see the police as their protectors.
Police don't get a lopsided contract by threatening politicians and that's a grossly inflammatory claim. Contracts are negotiated like any other, and given that most people don't want to spend their time being spit on and attacked, it turns out you get to ask for a fair bit of protection in that contract.
> Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy
Blaming anyone else is a fundamental misunderstanding of Democracy. Everyone pretends to like Democracy until they realize not everyone shares their opinion, and then all of a sudden pull out the insults and attacks on fellow voters.
> Per the latest Monmouth poll, about 60% favor the police (compared to ~11% for congress) and most people see the police as their protectors
Unfortunately this instance of corruption is a tough nut to crack. The sheer majority of people will never be victims of the police, just as most people will never be victims of any violent criminal. Hence the focus on video evidence and actually discussing the issue now that it has the spotlight, getting more people to care about these unaccountable criminal gangs calling themselves police. It's called solidarity and the rule of law - caring about what is right even when it does not affect you personally.
>> Blaming voters is a fallacy of late-stage Democracy
> Everyone pretends to like Democracy until they realize not everyone shares their opinion
You just seem to be going on a tangential rant here. I was referring specifically to this tendency to ascribe a democratically-chosen action as the responsibility of everyone who was given a chance to vote. I personally do not hold up Democracy as some sort of ideal, but rather Liberty.
No, they don't. You can't contract out of criminal sanction, for one thing. You could be indemnified from civil sanction, but QI makes that mostly moot anyway.
And, to the extent they do, those contracts are negotiated with and approved by local elected officials. Work—and, yes, this takes convincing others—to change those officials minds or change the officials, and you change what contracts get negotiated, or even of the police department continues to exist. Cf. Minneapolis (especially, but not exclusivelt) right now, Camden in 2012, etc.
The idea that citizens don't have control of local police through local government is wrong. Normally, local citizens are between actively approving and tacitly tolerating the behavior of police rather than actively seeking change, but they absolutely do have the power should they choose to exert it.
You're just nitpicking the word "contract". The arrangement with the cities generally result in public prosecutors do not bring charges against the police. That's part of the de-facto contract, even if it is not written down.
> The idea that citizens don't have control of local police through local government is wrong. Normally, local citizens are between actively approving and tacitly tolerating the behavior of police rather than actively seeking change, but they absolutely do have the power should they choose to exert it.
I've been caring about unaccountable police for well over a decade, so forgive me if I don't see myself as having much power to change anything. The vast majority of people will never be victims of the police, so as long as police keep up the illusion of providing safety, they will continue to be supported by the masses.
For what I was referencing specifically, look at Minneapolis city council members' descriptions of what happened to their districts when they previously tried to reign in the police. Yes, those same council members are now at a breaking point where enough is enough, and do actually have the power to act in concert and change things. This doesn't invalidate my description of where the vast majority of cities are with respect to the police unions. And the police unions know this, which is why their instinct is to start riots when citizens protest.
It's not part of a contract, which is binding and enforceable, and which once and while in place, citizens have very restricted ability to change via the political process. It's part of the policy of the existing elected officials, which is very much amenable to public pressure and elections. Given the context of the discussion is whether or not citizens have the power to effect these things through the political process, pointing out this difference is not “nitpicking”, as the difference is on the exact question being discussed.
Examining the problem constructively, then each aspect does have different details to pay attention to. But they also have similar shapes with momentum and indirection. Civil and administrative penalties need to be fixed through the explicit contract, which takes a contract cycle and can be derailed behind the scenes by corrupt officials. Criminal penalties need DAs willing to uphold the law, which takes an election cycle and can be derailed behind the scenes by corrupt officials. Analogously to what you said - once a DA is in place, "citizens have very restricted ability to change via the political process".
The biggest issue is that a small chance of a twenty million dollar payout in case of an egregious murder isn't worrisome to a municipality, and specifically to its politicians who's liability is limited to possibly losing their job. Meanwhile if they do advocate for reigning in the police, the union will most certainly make them lose their job at the next election. So while we can talk about municipalities being responsible for the paramilitary forces they're creating in the abstract, this is clearly not an effective mechanism for reigning them in.