How about firing them and sending them to jail?

bartread 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I like your way better. I like your way a lot better.

A: It’s actual justice, and

B: Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers.

▲

ProfessorLayton 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Otherwise it just becomes another way for insurance companies to make money - in this case by charging swingeing fees that will come out of public coffers.

I believe doctors pay out of pocket (At least the ones that setup their own private practice do), so it would incentivize them to keep costs low so they can pocket the money.

▲

bartread 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What’s the salary difference between doctors and cops of similar experience levels on average in the US?

	▲	lovich 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Surprisingly on par, some of the guys are making more than faang engineers https://cthrupayroll.mass.gov/#!/year/2022/full_time_employe...
	▲	ProfessorLayton 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I don't know and it's not the point of my comment? I'm only talking about how it aligns inscentives.

▲

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

At this point with how the police use their unions to support the lawlessness and casual violence the police engage in repeatedly, I think most precincts would benefit from pulling a Camden and firing all the fuckers to replace with actual competent officers who aren’t toeing the line of rebelling against the state or oppression of the people.

For reference for anyone who hadn’t heard of this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camden_County_Police_Departmen...

▲

rurdia 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Then no one would want to be a police officer.

Could also just give the death penalty for any attempted or successful swats (though finding the perpetrator might be difficult). And maybe improve legislation and technology related to it.

VPN service providers might be thrilled if using a VPN for gaming became mandated by law. Game developers less so if P2P becomes outlawed.

	▲	moshun 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The kind of people who don’t want to become police officers because they’re worried about being held accountable for their actions? Those are exactly the kind of people who should never be allowed become police officers. If we were really interested in Justice we’d build the system specifically to eliminate those kinds of people before they got anywhere near badge and a gun.
	▲	OutOfHere 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Could also just give the death penalty for any attempted or successful swats Nope, because innocent people would then inevitably get framed for it. Just fix the real problem which is the out-of-control police response

▲

msteffen 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I'd say that by the time you're considering jail, it's too late—these situations are better avoided than rectified.

Per the article, one of the officers was evidently particularly stupid—he failed police academy once and was disciplined for entering a women's restroom because of crimes he imagined could be happening in there. No one wanted to say "you're too stupid to be making high-stakes judgment calls", so they let him keep trying until he was running into an alleged emergency "with no plan," where he shot an innocent person eight times...and then handcuffed him...

I think actuaries have a way of employing statistical realities that would, in a legislative context, precipitate too much defensiveness and bickering to ever be the basis of a rule. Like I think it was quite a while before neuroscience could fully explain why insurance companies wouldn't cover rental car drivers under 25, instead of 16 or 18.

An insurance company would give departments a reason to say "anyone who has ever failed police academy gets pepper spray and that's it." Departments can decide how to deploy that person.

(Ideally that person wouldn't be a cop at all, but departments will probably always be pushing to hire. This way the argument is between departments and the comparatively highly-informed insurance market, and not voters)