They should also be trained better (certainly longer than 1 semester), actually study the law they have to enforce, and pass a bar-like exam: They should be exceptional people.
Instead, we have a system that prunes people that are 'too smart' to be cops (https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...).
Qualified immunity only attracts bullies, and opportunists. Qualified immunity rewards bad behavior, it does nothing to promote good behavior.
Do not excuse evil.
> I think most intelligent people are going to model out the expected outcome of their career choices at least intuitively
And yet we have doctors who face exactly the same risks as is being proposed. Your argument is flawed and 1-dimensional. People choose their careers on many factors.
If we make it so good cops are rewarded (by having cheaper insurance), we have more good cops. That’s a win.
Qualified immunity must go.
It makes no sense to hold police personally liable for doing exactly what they are trained and instructed to do.
We don't hold individual construction workers personally liable if they are following a certified blueprint and the building code.
Being a police officer shouldn’t excuse you from doing crime, come on.
Again: higher standards. And you should be asking yourself why you are okay with lower standards than “police should at least not be shooting innocent people in their sleep after entering the wrong house”
We really need better training for police: hopefully we at least agree on that…
There is a lot more than police brutality, and brutality isnt protected.
Higher education would increase their market value. Private insurance would also make their wages higher since the city wouldn't have to have a slush fund to payout for their mistakes.
Higher standards also mean higher pay.
No, it's not. This isn't an argument. Other countries do not have qualified immunity doctrine and there is no shortage of police. The police should be held to a higher standard to everyone else, which is why comparing a construction worker to a police officer is a bad one.
No one wants to sue a police officer for doing their job.
They want to sue them when they commit crimes. No one should be above the law: especially those that enforce it.
Im fine with cops being sued for abuse, I dont think they should be personally liable for doing their job as trained.
This means a different qualified immunity standard. Most countries have abundant protections for police operating in good faith as they were trained.
Further, US Qualified immunity doesnt protect police against tort claims assault, battery, negligence, or wrongful death. Those arent constitutional suits. You can sue cops for that just fine.
Im getting the impression that you are using QI as a proxy for a whole host of things you dont like.
Doctors have malpractice insurance specifically for cases like this. I see zero reason why police should not be forced to have that as well, which comes out of their retirement funds for when they fuck up. Do you believe doctors should have qualified immunity for just doing their job?
> US Qualified immunity doesnt protect police against tort claims assault, battery, negligence, or wrongful death
Yes it does. You would have to be utterly willfully ignorant of the history of qualified immunity and how it's been used in the US to say otherwise. Qualified immunity has been used to set the bar incredibly high for being able to sue the police and it's only in extremely exceptional circumstances that you will ever jump over that bar. I fully reject your claim and require you to substantiate it.
If you are familiar with the history of qualified immunity, you may know that there have been multiple standards over the decades. For example, consider the state of qualified immunity at the time of Pierson v.Ray [1].
Do you think you should be able to sue a cop (as an individual) for enforcing a law that is on the books, acting in good faith, because the law is determined afterwards to be unconstitutional? They arent constitutional scholars, and even if they were, they wouldn't get it right all the time.
It is crazy to hold them liable, especially personally, for bad laws.
As I said originally, "Qualified immunity needs a new standard, but it is necessary."
"According to the data, 65 out of the nation's 300 largest cities spend 40 percent or more of their general budgets on policing."
https://www.statista.com/chart/10593/how-much-do-us-cities-spend-on-policing/Like so many other subjects, we have Left and Right pitted against each other to allow this to be the status quo. It would be technically "simple" to reform the police but it will never be easy because people aren't willing to have the challenging conversations of what's wrong and what needs to change.
Of course this is an idealized concept, related to Deming's point that quality control is a manager problem not a worker problem. An issue within police forces today is that not all the "training" comes from above. Police and the military -- and many other people of course -- are immersed in fascist, fundamentalist propaganda.
My hope is the data informs of a few (even one is too many!) problematic individuals among a giant mass of good folks doing their best every day.
Removing problematic individuals (if politically possible!) radically improves the average quality of policing.
With luck and a few years, trust can rebound.
TechDebtDevin•6mo ago
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
mc32•6mo ago
Willy might have been corrupt but at least he took care of crime meaningfully.
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
mc32•6mo ago
Portugal after experimenting with permissiveness is tightening down. We can do it too and save people from perdition.
tiagod•6mo ago
Also, we didn't experiment with permissiveness, we fixed a heroin crisis that was completely out of control. You have no idea how bad it got before we stopped throwing addicts in jail and started providing them with rehab.
Source: I've lived here all my life.
Levitz•6mo ago
bitlax•6mo ago
SturgeonsLaw•6mo ago
bitlax•6mo ago
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
bitlax•6mo ago
As opposed to doing drugs in a public park?
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
Edit: 6 *months more in jail, in above post
bitlax•6mo ago
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
bitlax•6mo ago
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
bitlax•6mo ago
immibis•6mo ago
I have to disclaim I don't know what meth is like, what meth users are like, or what it's like to be on meth, but if 20 people are doing meth and not bothering anyone, and the police officer is keeping watch to ensure they don't bother anyone, that is fine by me. We should treat them like drunk alcoholics, not like murderers (unless they murdered someone).
Separately, we could encourage people to try less harmful drugs than meth. That isn't really possible as long as we give out the same penalties for weed as for meth.
mc32•6mo ago
Meth is very addictive and debilitating. It’s worse than crack. It takes people down. They are no longer able to be productive citizens. They become a burden for families and for society.
Libcat99•6mo ago
mc32•6mo ago
ranger_danger•6mo ago
immibis•6mo ago
BTW, crack cocaine is just cocaine, delivered in a different format. The effects are the same. The disparity in punishment stems from the demographics of the average user of each.
mc32•6mo ago
hsbauauvhabzb•6mo ago
Edit: not to suggest using meth recreationally is a safe, smart or good thing to do.
throw9394944•6mo ago
Maybe meth people should become cops! And we could call Antifa to fight meth cops!
nativeit•6mo ago
sickofparadox•6mo ago
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/15/nyregion/shoplifting-arre... (https://archive.is/VCKkk)
fzeroracer•6mo ago
I've become more and more cynical as I've gotten older and convinced that the police are largely conditioned to never do their job and just collect a paycheck for free, because then they can leverage their refusal into even more pay. It's corruption and kickbacks all the way through, and it's been a consistent trend in multiple cities.
sickofparadox•6mo ago
[1] https://www.traviscountytx.gov/images/county_attorney/Docs/L...
[2]https://theaustinbulldog.org/did-austin-defund-the-police-he...
fzeroracer•6mo ago
sickofparadox•6mo ago
From the second link: "The council appropriated funds for 1,809 sworn officer positions, compared to 1,959 sworn officer positions approved in last year’s budget—a reduction of 7.7 percent. The number of civilian positions (617) and cadet positions (117) remains largely unchanged from last year. The council also zeroed out funding for three cadet classes." This is right at the beginning of the link and follows exactly with what I said in my comment about them reducing headcount and cancelling cadet classes. You cannot have a cadet class with zero funding.