232
submitted 11 months ago by gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] dlpkl@lemmy.world 65 points 11 months ago

Make. Police. Financially. Liable.

[-] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 27 points 11 months ago
[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If they had to carry “malpractice” insurance (even if through their union) it would become self-correcting. Any payouts would come from that, and not tax money. Can’t get insured? Can’t get hired. Driving up union dues? Can’t get hired.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

That's kinda how it works now, except the city's are usually the one with the policy.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago

That’s kinda how it works now,

If officers or the union were paying the insurance premiums then taxpayers wouldn't be paying $700m as the headline claims. So its not how its working now if the city is paying.

except the city’s are usually the one with the policy.

And that's TWO problems. The city shouldn't be paying the insurance, and each officer should have their own policy. One bad officer's claims should not affect the premiums paid by good officers.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

I don't disagree with you at all. I'm just pointing out that the settlement money doesn't come directly from the city's budget.

[-] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

settlement money doesn’t come directly from the city’s budget.

You're suggesting only the insurance company pays all of this?

Insurance companies don't operate at losses by design. If Chicago isn't paying more than this in premiums already, they will soon. Its still the city/taxpayers that pay eventually instead of the officers or union.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Licensed and BONDED.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

No, make the unions. Then they won't protect corrupt cops.

[-] notannpc@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Considering they paid out, I feel like the headline should say “people who were framed by cops”. The time for ambiguity was before the judge awarded these victims their money.

[-] massacre@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

You've really hit the most salient point here. The payouts and making cops financially liable is all good discourse, but they really buried the lede. If Chicago has payed out almost 3/4 of a Billion in 23 years to people cops have framed, think of just how systemic this corruption is. I mean, I imagine some payouts might be pretty big, but you're talking hundreds, probably thousands of incidents! That makes it pretty much part of the job if it's happening that frequently.

[-] SeaJ@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago

Surprisingly Jon Burge is only a small chunk of that.

[-] blazera@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

Its money that was awarded in court rulings, its disingenuous to call it 'people who say they were framed'. Its people that were in fact framed.

[-] theodewere@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

that's a lot of money to spend on shitty policing

[-] Nougat@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

That's just shy of $30.5M each year.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

If cities were corporations and citizens were shareholders, we'd have sweeping reform overnight.

[-] Froyn@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

If cities were corporations and citizens were shareholders, we'd have sweeping reform overnight.

this post was submitted on 08 Dec 2023
232 points (99.6% liked)

News

23296 readers
3203 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS