|
| ▲ | jazzypants 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| They could just buy insurance. You know, like doctors, lawyers, and a wide variety of other professionals that deal with liabilities in their field. Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers. |
| |
| ▲ | drbscl an hour ago | parent [-] | | > They could just buy insurance.
> the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers. I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin. | | |
| ▲ | switchbak 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Change the incentives, you change the behaviour. Granted, this might have lots of unintended consequences, many of them bad. | |
| ▲ | vajrabum 24 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Make the police officer like the Doctor pay for their own insurance. | |
| ▲ | infinite_spin 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Malpractice insurance might increase the cost of policing, but I'd wager the malpractice itself is costing tax payers even more. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | array_key_first 43 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As it currently stands the police already do almost nothing. Any kind of push back or critique of the police leads to inaction by the union. Meaning, police twiddle their thumbs and take your tax money because they can. It's a very effective technique from them to get what they want, because ultimately we need them and we can't actually force them to work. |
|
| ▲ | voidfunc 38 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Good. The police do too much as it is. Every interaction with the police is a dice roll to see if someone lives or dies. |
| |
| ▲ | switchbak 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Hey I have plenty of reasons to distrust the police - more than most, but this statement is a bit over the top. |
|
