Off of taxpayer money sadly. Imo we really need a fix for this. When cops are grossly negligent the money should come out of their aggregate pension fund (or at least partially).

▲

JumpCrisscross 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> we really need a fix for this. When cops are grossly negligent the money should come out of their aggregate pension fund

This is on us as voters. If we didn’t piss our pants every time a police union sneezed, we’d realize wholesale restarting police departments is precedents in even our largest cities.

▲

SunshineTheCat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, this is the key point. Tax payers get a nice big bill while the people who caused the problem get a nice paid vacation while they conduct an internal "investigation" that typically finds they did nothing wrong.

▲

vkou 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There is a fix to it. Elect people who will hold them accountable.

As long as you keep electing clowns that let the police do whatever they want, the police will... Do whatever they want.

▲

theLiminator 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah, of course they need to held accountable, and we need to vote in people who will do so. What I'm suggesting is an alignment of incentives that will ensure that police will try to do their best to not be negligent.

Of course there's a balance that has to be struck so that police are empowered enough to act. So perhaps something like settlements against the police being 30% borne by the police pension fund and 70% by taxpayers is sufficient. I think this will also make police very enthusiastic about bodycams and holding each other accountable.

▲

kelnos 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm usually a big supporter of labor unions, but police unions in the US generally have an outsized amount of power, and even when mayors etc. want to hold police accountable, the union ends up bending the mayor over a barrel.

I'm not sure what the solution is here. Forbid police from unionizing? That would probably have some bad consequences too.

▲

rectang 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“Tough on crime” -> lenient on police -> innocent grandmas in jail.

▲

GuinansEyebrows 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

despite this being something practically everybody wants, the fact that it hasn't happened is not a coincidence and speaks to the power of police unions/guilds and their lobbying arms. outside a few toothless instances, those groups are extremely good at reframing these attempts and mobilizing their bases to vote against the broader public interest.

it sucks.

▲

vkou 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> despite this being something practically everybody wants,

No, everybody does not want police accountability. Half the population will fall on a grenade to prevent that. They know that the purpose of the police is to keep the undesirables in line, and they never envision that they will ever fall in that category.

The brutality is the point for them.

▲

GuinansEyebrows 5 hours ago | parent [-]

oh, i generally don't disagree with you on that point; i specifically meant that when presented with the question "do you want your tax dollars to pay for police liabilities?" the answer is probably almost always "no".

	▲	vkou 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sure. But when you ask "Do you want the police to be unable to do their job and live in a lawless hellscape ran by gangbangers and ISIS cartels?, the answer is also 'No.' The problem is that the mass media sets the framing of acceptable discourse, and that mass media is in large part an ideological monoculture. And even when it's not, it is happy to present absolutely insane batshit lunacy as 'one of the two sides' of an issue.

▲

lotsofpulp 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Almost all taxpayer funded pension funds are already underfunded. It makes no difference if the funding decreases or increases, the government employee will still get their benefit. The government would have to go through bankruptcy to get the benefit amount reduced.