Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

When a person has to be paid restitution due to a public servants' actions while they are on duty, they should have to pay it.

It's not fair that innocent taxpayers have to foot the bill and it would make the public servant think twice about their actions.

Not a terrible notion, but your average cop doesn't have millions to spare, likely not even hundreds of thousands to spare, to pay their victim or their victim's family when said brutality leads to death.


Some states do have laws where an officer's pension can be taken away if they break certain rules, to act as a deterrent.

I feel like if the person gets a settlement, the taxes should pay for it because otherwise the victim will be waiting years for any kind of substantial monetary sum. Once the payout is sent though, the cop needs to be held liable to the state. Punish them. Harshly.

The only way brutality will stop will be if there are real consequences for doing so.

Originally posted by Klaw
When a person has to be paid restitution due to a public servants' actions while they are on duty, they should have to pay it.

It's not fair that innocent taxpayers have to foot the bill and it would make the public servant think twice about their actions.


So... Defund the Police ?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not a terrible notion, but your average cop doesn't have millions to spare, likely not even hundreds of thousands to spare, to pay their victim or their victim's family when said brutality leads to death.


Some states do have laws where an officer's pension can be taken away if they break certain rules, to act as a deterrent.

That is why they should be required to carry their own insurance, like doctors. And if they cannot get insured, because of their conduct, then they cannot work in law enforcement.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is why they should be required to carry their own insurance, like doctors. And if they cannot get insured, because of their conduct, then they cannot work in law enforcement.

Not a bad idea at all.

But doctors generally make more, so the insurance would have to be fairly priced for those cops who do their duty without abuse, or we'd need to pay them more.

Do good things, get rewarded, do bad things, get fined/pay tax.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So... Defund the Police ?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not a bad idea at all.

But doctors generally make more, so the insurance would have to be fairly priced for those cops who do their duty without abuse, or we'd need to pay them more.

So, pay them more?

Originally posted by -Pr-
I feel like if the person gets a settlement, the taxes should pay for it because otherwise the victim will be waiting years for any kind of substantial monetary sum. Once the payout is sent though, the cop needs to be held liable to the state. Punish them. Harshly.

The only way brutality will stop will be if there are real consequences for doing so.

So if I'm ordered to pay you $100,000 and I can't pay, the Government can force someone else to pay it since you'll have to wait years for the money?

Indeed, that's why police and only the police should have to pay for their crimes.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That is why they should be required to carry their own insurance, like doctors. And if they cannot get insured, because of their conduct, then they cannot work in law enforcement.

This is something we should explore further.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I feel like if the person gets a settlement, the taxes should pay for it because otherwise the victim will be waiting years for any kind of substantial monetary sum. Once the payout is sent though, the cop needs to be held liable to the state. Punish them. Harshly.

The only way brutality will stop will be if there are real consequences for doing so.


It would be a good start to define what is brutality.


Its been generally accepted a police officer can assume any citizen is an immanent threat to their life, and respond with lethal force. This may seem ridiculous, but hasn't happened in a vaccume.. In my own state we have people murdering each other over literally nothing at all. One person stabbed to death over a sports game. One person shot for yelling at a person for leaning on their car. In the news years ago, a former sheriff shot a kid at a movie theater in the middle of an argument when the victim flung popcorn at him.


My point is, we want to hold officers accoutable and have them act reasonable, and aren't really factoring in the kind of public they're charged with policing.

Originally posted by Klaw
So if I'm ordered to pay you $100,000 and I can't pay, the Government can force someone else to pay it since you'll have to wait years for the money?

Indeed, that's why police and only the police should have to pay for their crimes.

Using tax money that's already been collected is not "making me pay for it".

Please don't twist my words.

Originally posted by cdtm
It would be a good start to define what is brutality.


Its been generally accepted a police officer can assume any citizen is an immanent threat to their life, and respond with lethal force. This may seem ridiculous, but hasn't happened in a vaccume.. In my own state we have people murdering each other over literally nothing at all. One person stabbed to death over a sports game. One person shot for yelling at a person for leaning on their car. In the news years ago, a former sheriff shot a kid at a movie theater in the middle of an argument when the victim flung popcorn at him.


My point is, we want to hold officers accoutable and have them act reasonable, and aren't really factoring in the kind of public they're charged with policing.

Well sure, you can do that.

I fear that what you say is "generally accepted" really only applies to a small minority of people. Or at least, that's who it's been accepted be.

We're supposed to hold the police to a higher standard. That's kind of the point in the first place.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Using tax money that's already been collected is not "making me pay for it".

Please don't twist my words.

Using tax money collected from people to pay for police settlements is making people who are not liable pay for it.

"you can't have that particular $0.000001 of my money that you already have, because i have loud opinions about things that I don't really understand"

REEEE?

Originally posted by Klaw
Using tax money collected from people to pay for police settlements is making people who are not liable pay for it.

I don't agree.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I don't agree.

Why are taxpayers liable?

Originally posted by Klaw
Why are taxpayers liable?

I've already asked you to stop twisting my words.

They're not liable. The state is. If the police go outside of what are supposed to be their moral or ethical responsibilities, and are representatives of the state, then the state has failed the person that's wronged. And it's up to the state to compensate that person.

If you give me ten dollars and i buy a bar of chocolate and a can of coke, you didn't buy them. I did. When you gave me that money, it became my money.

When I pay taxes, the government is supposed to use that money for the betterment of society. If a member of the state fails in their duty, then it's the duty of the state to compensate that person. If they have some magic, wonderful fund they can use instead to pay that person, then sure, do that, but either way there has to be a way to discourage the practice of people like the police going beyond their bounds and wronging the public.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Using tax money that's already been collected is not "making me pay for it".

Please don't twist my words.



Well sure, you can do that.

I fear that what you say is "generally accepted" really only applies to a small minority of people. Or at least, that's who it's been accepted be.

We're supposed to hold the police to a higher standard. That's kind of the point in the first place.

Police officers are also human beings. It isn't really reasonable to expect anyone to risk their life when the probability of random acts or violence is high because of the area they patrol.


Really, its the same sort of double standard we use for our politicians vs family, where we expect our significant other to prioritize the husband/wife/kid over strangers in a community, yet expect leaders to be place the public needs against personal needs.

By the same token, we essentially want peace officers who think nothing of sacrificing their own lives for a public service.

Originally posted by cdtm
Police officers are also human beings. It isn't really reasonable to expect anyone to risk their life when the probability of random acts or violence is high because of the area they patrol.


Really, its the same sort of double standard we use for our politicians vs family, where we expect our significant other to prioritize the husband/wife/kid over strangers in a community, yet expect leaders to be place the public needs against personal needs.

By the same token, we essentially want peace officers who think nothing of sacrificing their own lives for a public service.

Firemen are humans too. Doctors are humans too. All of them could end up in a dangerous situation at the drop of the hat, but they do it anyway because that's the career they've pursued. If a person isn't going to be trusted to do what their job requires, then why are they doing it in the first place? The pension?

That is not the same. Not remotely.

Take the money from the police pension fund. They'll police themselves after that. (For lack of a better word)

Sounds good to me.

Originally posted by truejedi
Take the money from the police pension fund. They'll police themselves after that. (For lack of a better word)

Sounds good, but I'm curious: Is that not paid for by taxes?

True, but it is managed by the police. It's losses are police losses. It isn't guaranteed by the taxpayer.

Originally posted by Klaw
Using tax money collected from people to pay for police settlements is making people who are not liable pay for it. The same tax payers that are paying the settlements are the ones who paid/funded their training and arming. They/we did this in exchange for the benefit of their protection. We cant fund them and reap the benefits then disavow responsibility when something goes wrong.

Originally posted by truejedi
True, but it is managed by the police. It's losses are police losses. It isn't guaranteed by the taxpayer.

Oh okay, I see what you mean. Ideally yeah. When their behaviour starts hurting the bottom line of those around them, people are going to be more interested in making sure their colleagues don't act like idiots. That in turn will lead to an uptick in general behaviour being better.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So... Defund the Police ?

since nobody seemed to notice, this bit of snark ended the thread. every single act of police brutally ever committed in the u.s. was paid for thanks to your tax dollars/police salaries. next time do threads better, op

Originally posted by Raptor22
The same tax payers that are paying the settlements are the ones who paid/funded their training and arming. They/we did this in exchange for the benefit of their protection. We cant fund them and reap the benefits then disavow responsibility when something goes wrong.

That's an interesting take that I hadn't thought about.

Originally posted by cdtm
Police officers are also human beings. It isn't really reasonable to expect anyone to risk their life when the probability of random acts or violence is high because of the area they patrol.


Really, its the same sort of double standard we use for our politicians vs family, where we expect our significant other to prioritize the husband/wife/kid over strangers in a community, yet expect leaders to be place the public needs against personal needs.

By the same token, we essentially want peace officers who think nothing of sacrificing their own lives for a public service.

Yes, it is. It is literally their ****ing job. Do not want a dangerous job? Go do something else.

Originally posted by -Pr-
Oh okay, I see what you mean. Ideally yeah. When their behaviour starts hurting the bottom line of those around them, people are going to be more interested in making sure their colleagues don't act like idiots. That in turn will lead to an uptick in general behaviour being better.

The "good apples" are doing nothing to stop the "bad apples" now, and they already have plenty of incentive to do so. The only way this stops is if police have to carry their own insurance, and are individually responsible. This notion of collective responsibility does not work.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Yes, it is. It is literally their ****ing job. Do not want a dangerous job? Go do something else.

There is a line between danger and self sacrifice.

I expect no one to care any less for their life then I care for my own. No matter their profession.

Asking a police officer to be absolutely 100% certain someone is holding a gun, is asking them to be shot. Because in the time it takes to verify whether its a phone or a gun, you will be shot.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE


I like this idea

Originally posted by cdtm
There is a line between danger and self sacrifice.

I expect no one to care any less for their life then I care for my own. No matter their profession.

Asking a police officer to be absolutely 100% certain someone is holding a gun, is asking them to be shot. Because in the time it takes to verify whether its a phone or a gun, you will be shot.

Not if it's a phone.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The "good apples" are doing nothing to stop the "bad apples" now, and they already have plenty of incentive to do so. The only way this stops is if police have to carry their own insurance, and are individually responsible. This notion of collective responsibility does not work.

As much as I disagree with parts of your post, the insurance thing would be a good idea, sure.

Originally posted by Klaw
That's an interesting take that I hadn't thought about. they already do that, you dipshit!

Originally posted by jaden_2.0
Not if it's a phone.

And therein lies the problem.

An officer has no way of knowing which is which. Thats why you actually follow instructions, instead of arguing or ignoring them.

Originally posted by cdtm
There is a line between danger and self sacrifice.

I expect no one to care any less for their life then I care for my own. No matter their profession.

Asking a police officer to be absolutely 100% certain someone is holding a gun, is asking them to be shot. Because in the time it takes to verify whether its a phone or a gun, you will be shot.

That is an argument for stricter gun laws, not for police to continue to shoot people with impugnity.

Originally posted by cdtm
And therein lies the problem.

An officer has no way of knowing which is which. Thats why you actually follow instructions, instead of arguing or ignoring them.

Best to go with the 1980s cop movie "shoot first, ask questions later" policy then. 👍