"End qualified immunity. Get cops to carry individual malpractice
insurance. Take the billions normally paid out in settlements and give
cops raises to cover the insurance. Can't get insured? You're not a cop
anymore."
This might be the most simple, direct, and effective solution to weeding out bad cops I've seen. Not only does it place the responsibility where it belongs, on the individual, it is a market based solution. The only refinement I would give would be to incentivize cops by giving them a set pay increase to cover the insurance, (indexed to inflation and to general rate increases) then allowing them to keep the difference if their rates go down because they have no claims.
12 comments:
I've only begun considering this proposal, and yours as well. It feels wrong. I will say this at this point: shelve this idea for now and come back to it later after improvements in hiring and training are established (and effectiveness is documented). It might not be necessary then.
I actually really like it. I think that it takes away the power of the unions to protect bad cops. I think it takes away the power of the city power structure to put incompetent cops on the force because of affirmative action. (Mohammed Noor) I think that insurance companies are all about accurately assessing risk, and that it makes total sense to bring that to bear here. Finally, it puts a degree of responsibility on the cop that might not be there now.
The only down side that I can see is that cops might choose self protection over going into a fluid or confusing situation. That might result in some additional civilians harmed by criminals, but no one on the left seems particularly bothered by that.
Like the fake news headline that Rashard "Loved his family", maybe he did, but beating them is a strange way to show that love.
I think the biggest problem is the job itself, that it lends itself to situations in which even the best and most experienced may choose badly in times of duress. I believe cops HAVE to be allowed to do their job with absolutely NO pressure regarding potential fallout from a situation that goes sideways despite their best efforts. And what's especially troubling is that those who suffer from police decisions are those that brought about the situation entirely.
I think it was Dylan Roof toward whom some point as having been treated differently during his arrest. They refuse to acknowledge that he offered no resistance. I suppose some think the true reason is that the arresting officers agreed with Roof's racist positions. But the main point here is that no combative actions were taken by Roof during his arrest. In most cases where death of the suspect occurs, that's not at all how suspects act. In cases where suspects were not truly combative, arresting officers took a movement as a sign of resistance and in that brief moment had to decide if they were in mortal danger.
Bad cops will certainly default to the self-defense argument. But better vetting, routine psych evaluations and routine training will weed out most bad cops. And by "bad" cops, I refer to truly evil jerks and also cops who just aren't suited for the job for one reason or another.
As to unions, not being a union guy personally, I believe cop unions need to be reformed as well so as to prevent them from defending truly bad cops. Unions need to work with the department on behalf of the citizenry, not the cops only. If they're protecting any of the bad cops from proper disciplinary action, they are enemies of the people and to good cops as well. Yet, good cops need advocates in warding off wrongful actions against them, as well as acting on behalf of cops for better conditions. Frankly, that's my position on all unions, all of which would improve their reputations if they had any concern for the companies where warranted as well as the public served by them.
I've been consistent in saying that in cities like MPLS, where the city government, the police union, and the MPD have fostered a climate that has gotten us to this point, that every option for reform should be considered.
The fact that it appears that certain parts of the problem are being protected and their responsibility denied certainly doesn't help. Yet, it's time for out of the box solutions.
"Out of the box" is always a legitimate place to search for better ideas once the box has been found wanting. I'm just concerned that this climate is far too conducive to that which belongs in a box of its own due to the consequences those "out of the box ideas" would likely bring. Said another way, at present emotions are high and implementing change for the sake of change is bad practice.
For example, I strongly oppose the move to eliminate choke-holds of ANY kind. It's the same reason I opposed "enhanced interrogation techniques" after 9/11. I NEVER want the bad guys to think they won't suffer if they choose to act against lawful orders. To remove by law certain techniques, the bad guys would gain an advantage in believing there is one less way they'll suffer accountability for their criminal behavior. That can't be. It doesn't mean they need be employed, but to have them in the quiver for those instances when they're the best means of subduing an a**hole is essential for the sake and safety of officers doing their job.
Thus, all "reforms" have to be directed primarily in the hiring process, followed by the training process...those two being linked with regard to ultimately being stocked with true professionals who get the job done right. Raise the standards for hiring and training, reversing any lowering of standards purportedly intended to given minorities a chance as if none of them were capable.
I have a correction. I opposed eliminating what were at the time called "enhanced interrogation techniques". More specifically, I oppose publicly stating that one technique or another has been outlawed, be it interrogation techniques or submission holds, which emboldens the criminal by their codified elimination.
Art,
Again, I agree with you in therms of the principle that miscreants should always have to assume something worse than they might actually get, but the reality is that that sort of wholesale change would have to be made public record.
Based on what we've seen up here that "knee on the back" has not been an encouraged technique for some time. But, even if it was encouraged, protocol would have had Chauvin off Floyd's back and Floyd sitting up long before he would have been at risk. In the Floyd case, it seems clear that Chauvin "could" have used the "knee" technique to subdue Floyd without killing him.
Unfortunately, Chauvin chose to ignore his training and protocol. He used a technique that had been banned by the MPD for some time, and then he used the technique incorrectly.
At this point, as we look at GA, it's clear that following procedure and protocol when being confronted with a deadly weapon (or the means to obtain one) isn't enough to keep a LEO from politically motivated prosecution.
What you say is true with regard to Chauvin. But that just underscores my point. The knee in the back has its just uses. All "lawful" techniques can be abused, so what's the point of outlawing them when good cops might have legitimate need of them? There doesn't need to be any public proclamation about what is or isn't allowed. There only needs to be obedience to the law and respect for cops trying to do their jobs on our behalf...even on behalf of those they must confront, for ultimately each of us may find ourselves engaging with law enforcement in some manner at some point in our lives.
If Chauvin is truly the "bad cop" he seems to be, there's no argument that he should have been gone long ago, or at least his behavior corrected by a real threat of legal action. At this point, it would be difficult to know if he was a jerk when he became a cop or became a jerk at some point in his career after years of abuse by civilian jerks with whom he routinely came in contact. The latter is incredibly possible for every cop on the force and with good reason. It's no different than anyone succumbing to temptations. But in this case they must be removed, retrained or in some way addressed for the sake of the general public and the reputation of law enforcement.
In the case on the "knee" technique, I've seen too many trainers and use of force experts who have been clear that the technique has a higher risk of harm than other options, and should be discontinued. Just because all techniques can be misused, doesn't mean that they are all equally appropriate and safe.
However, in this case, it's a moot point. The MPD had already forbidden the use of the technique previously. It's irrelevant to speculate about degrees, he was clearly using a technique that had been forbidden for some time. The minute he put his knee in Floyd's back, he was wrong.
I agree that it's incredibly difficult to be a LEO, and that they are forced to make decisions that the rest of us can't fully understand. But the antidote to that is training, and if the cops aren't going to follow their training, then there is a significant problem.
It seems obvious that Chauvin should have been gone before this, or at least had significant discipline. Yet, the larger system that should be handling that sort of thing, knew that the 3rd precinct was corrupt and rotten for years and stood by without taking action. To allow people to frame this is solely a "bad cop' issue allows those in positions of responsibility for the MPD to escape accountability.
what's going to happen here is that the people who allowed the problem to fester for 40+ years are going to claim that they are the people to fix the problem that they used for political gain for decades.
The funniest things out of all of this is that the (DFL side of the) state legislature thinks that by ramming a thrown together bill through in a week long special session, they'll be off the hook politically. I agree that this needs to be addressed expeditiously, but to think this can be fixed in a week long special session already filled with other business is absurd.
Agreed with the vast majority of everything you say. However, I continue to stand by my preference that all weapons and techniques be available for enforcing the law. Cops of high character are less prone to abuse any if it, or to allow their skills with them to erode. And as always, there's not much fear of a cop with character using any of them on the law-abiding, so I'm not concerned about those who meet an untimely end as a result of their use after having invited their use by acting criminally.
I agree that cops of high character pose less of a risk of abusing their power, unfortunately we see enough cops without high character who do abuse their power, that there probably need to be limits on the available options.
What's interesting is that Dan was silent when I pointed out the origin of the Kente cloth he was so proud of his DFL hacks for culturally appropriating. It's bad to fly the CSA flag because they bought slaves, but it's perfectly fine to wear something that symbolizes the groups that captured and sold the slaves.
Post a Comment