Comment on Now everyone must pay for someone else's vandalism.

FunkyMonk@kbin.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

• Arrakis@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Aw come on now, we can’t be holding our public servants to account for their actions now can we? You silly billy

  source

  • jhulten@infosec.pub ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    Oh sweetie… They’re not servants of the PUBLIC…

    source

    • c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Well unless by public you mean the public sector of the economy and their property, then yes they’re specifically intended to protect that (alongside private infrastructure owned by their lobbyists and benefactors) at the cost of everyone else.

      source
• superduperenigma@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

  Police should have to carry professional insurance just like doctors carry malpractice insurance.

  Change my mind.

  source

  • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    I don’t think it will work at all. I think it would make the problem much worse, not better.

    Think about that for a second: Police are never convicted, and rarely officially sanctioned. They always get away with it. Insurance will never pay out, so the cost of insuring officers will be next to nothing.

    But, now we have an insurer with a vested interest in clearing the officer of wrongdoing, lest they be forced to pay a claim.

    source

    • pqdinfo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      I think the implicit assumptions about the “Police carry insurance” thing are:

      1. Qualified immunity protections are replaced by insurance carriage
      2. LEOs have to pay their own insurance (presumably with a pay hike that’s the “average” insurance payment

      Without QI, LEOs would be liable. Insurance companies can certainly force LEOs to fight court cases, but the costs of doing so will fall on the insurance companies. An LEO that’s constantly a problem will find themselves in court a lot, and will end up costing the insurance company a lot, regardless of whether it’s just legal fees, or massive damages to their victims in addition to legal fees. So the insurer will force them to pay ever increasing premiums, and eventually they won’t be able to afford to be in law enforcement.

      Most of what you’re saying would undermine the existing professional insurance requirements for doctors etc. Hell, it’d undermine insurance requirements for driving!

      Also remember insurance companies rarely insure just one thing. You may get a carrier that specializes in LEOs, but in practice like most insurers it’ll cover a wide variety of different types of liability insurances, directly or indirectly. So it’s not necessarily in its best interests to defend LEOs regardless of what they’ve done. That just encourages bad law enforcement, pushing up its costs elsewhere.

      source
  • slurpeesoforion@startrek.website ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

    They’d have to work a week of overtime to afford the sky high cost.

    source

    • techwithjake@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨years⁩ ago

      Cause they don’t already abuse the OT system?

      source