[elicash]

I’ll cut against the grain here and say it’s ABSOLUTELY appropriate for taxpayers to pay the bill here.

It’s pretty toxic that people don’t want to take responsibility for their own government in a democracy. In this case, it’s especially bad, given the sheriff is elected by the people directly. But I’d go even further and say even where control is less direct, we need incentives for voters to take this stuff seriously.

[ryandrake]

Taxpayers should get a line item on their tax bills that specifically counts the amount of their bill that went toward settlements arising out of police misconduct, so they can see in numeric terms what they're voting for.

[rchaud]

This is a country where people are fine with more of their taxes going into police budgets every year.

Adding a line item to their property tax bill showing how much is paid into settling lawsuits will not make people think that they should demand more accountability. They will think that it should be harder to take legal action against the police.

[ryandrake]

I didn't think about that, and sadly, you're probably right.

[horsawlarway]

I'd vote for that in a heartbeat.

I think part of the problem here is that this is usually hidden from visibility (intentionally) by officials because it reflects negatively on them.

It may make the news for a day or two, never get seen by the majority of voters, and get swept away later under the deluge of distraction most "infotainment pretending to be news" provides.

---

Go further and just list all government settlements/court judgements underneath the elected official in charge of the branch responsible.

[_jab]

While $835k is undoubtedly a lot of money for this man, split among Tennessee's 7M residents, this works out to be less per taxpayer than the sales tax on a latte.

Still, this idea bears merit for other reasons. Americans routinely underestimate how much money is spent on Social Security, healthcare, and debt payments, and overestimate how much money is spent on education and infrastructure. More clarity into that could help build real political momentum to actually balance the budget.

[cogman10]

It was the county sheriff and thus the county that was sued, Perry County.

Perry County is home to 9,126 people as of 2025. Which means this was $91 per resident.

[teeray]

> what they're voting for.

If citizens had granular voting power (i.e. liquid democracy), this would make more sense. As it stands you get to vote for team red or team blue once in a while and hope that their votes impact that line item you’re concerned about.

[ndsipa_pomu]

Seems like the problem is only having two teams. People should be voting for anyone who's not team red or team blue in this case as otherwise things are not going to get better and both teams will have a race to the bottom (I'd say there's already a winner in that race).

[atoav]

Yes, and if you're not happy with the way the president and the government treat your money you should ensure they are (A) not voted in again and (B) pressure new candidates to use the full extent of the law to punish them.

And quite frankly even if you're a hard-line rightwinger, the way this administration treats your money is so objectively bad, you have to be brainwashed to deny it.

[vitally3643]

Police aren't elected. Nor are judges in most cases.

There is literally no legal mechanism for anyone to hold a police officer responsible for anything. This is enshrined in the highest levels of the law and there is literally no way to undo it without a constitutional amendment or a supreme court decision. Citizens also have no influence over either of those mechanisms. Literally nobody has influence over the supreme court.

This isn't a matter of voting. The police are literally outside of the law and above consequence. This was set up by a panel of unelected judges without any possibility of influence by the people.

Do you seriously not undersrsnd how any of this works? This is not a problem that can be fixed with votes. This problem exists outside of the law and out of control of any and all elected officials. A constitutional amendment is the only conceivable way in which the people could overturn this decision.

[kvnhn]

Sheriffs are elected officials, at least in most states.

[autoexec]

This seems to imply that voters elected someone because they campaigned on violating civil rights or breaking the law. That's rarely the case (Joe Arpaio is one exception). If an elected official breaks the law and/or violates the constitution they are still the one responsible for their actions, not the voters. If voters continue to elect someone with a record of breaking the law and ignoring people's rights that's a problem too, but not one that higher taxes due to fines and settlements is going to fix.

[anigbrowl]

I fully agree, but you will never hear a candidate for sheriff call out an incumbent for being a shitty person. They're cops first, and public officials second, so both candidates will say they'll bring down crime more, but they will never betray the tribe by suggesting that law enforcment institutions can harbor criminal behavior.

[autoexec]

It would be nice if someone ran against Sheriff Nick Weems using this case in their ads and speeches as an example of why Weems is unfit for the job and a liability for tax payers, but if someone did they'd have to be prepared to move away if they lost the election because otherwise they risk being retaliated against by someone who has already proven that they don't care about people's rights.

It'd be better for law enforcement to be a licensed position and for civil rights violations like this to result in loss of their license which would strip them of their ability to work in the field anywhere in the US.

That'd solve the whole resign->move over one town/county->repeat cycle for officers too

[MisterTea]

> but if someone did they'd have to be prepared to move away if they lost the election because otherwise they risk being retaliated against by someone who has already proven that they don't care about people's rights.

This is the big problem. A cop friend once told me that even he will not report abuse because he, and his family will be targeted by his fellow officers. They will do everything to make your life hell if you mess with them. One example is your license plate ends up in a database that gets you pulled over frequently and other forms of passive harassment.

The cops are just another gang, one that we call "the good guys." But honestly, not that many are good at all. Most are just ass holes looking for a power trip and carrying a gun is boner material for these cretins. The few decent or good people either leave or keep their head down and tow the line.

[JoshTriplett]

> One example is your license plate ends up in a database that gets you pulled over frequently and other forms of passive harassment.

And then, if institutions are functioning as they should, you sue them in a higher court above their jurisdiction to make them stop.

[MisterTea]

You make it sound easy but the fact is you have to be repeatedly harassed first before making any claims. Then you have to document that. So you have to eat, or at least take a few good bites from that shit sandwich before you can get the ball rolling.

[Der_Einzige]

The real red pill is to accept that everything you just said also applies to teachers.

[hirpslop]

I agree with a caveat: the offending agency’s budget should be impacted rather than the general fund. The cost of lawsuits ideally would be itemized in the budget and publicized to show which agencies have legal waste. Otherwise the drag on taxpayers is obscured which gives cover for yet more malfeasance and political opportunism.

[avs733]

I'm with you and have said this a long time. We* are responsible for the government that acts in our name and we should bear the costs of its abuse. The Sheriff did not have the power of arrest that he abused here when we has a regular citizen. We gave him that power and we are responsible for its misuse. That is not to say the Sheriff should not be punished and our criminal laws and criminal system are woefully inadequate for a myriad of reasons at punishing abuse. There is a term for what the Sheriff did - kidnapping. That is never gonna happen, but the civil litigation and damages is rightly against Sheriff Nick Weems not Nick Weems.

* We does not mean everyon every time - it means the people from whom an official vests their power.

[jawns]

I'd say it would be more fitting that the individual people named in the suit had to pay the bill. But in that absence of that, having taxpayers pay the bill is the next best way to wake people up about the true cost of incompetent public servants.

[stevenwoo]

Part of the problem is the decisions of the US Supreme Court have codified a lot of unwritten rules to favor law enforcement/status quo - we would need a radical change in our form of government to undo this (the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices is one obstacle, along with the political nature of the job, the difficulty in removing a justice, that all bring to mind some sclerotic bureaucratic mess from a dystopia.) This overrides the influence any voter can have with local issues - their local and state governments cannot override these rulings with impunity.

[unethical_ban]

You're on the right track - the services of government should be more accountable to the people, and the people should hold some responsibility for the actions of their government.

For police in particular, the unions prevent a lot of police accountability, and because of the power that police wield over the population, I am comfortable saying I support unions EXCEPT police unions. At best they should be ballot initiatives.

If I go further down my rabbit hole of systemic issues, I think citizens should be more involved in community policing in large populations.

[autoexec]

> For police in particular, the unions prevent a lot of police accountability, and because of the power that police wield over the population, I am comfortable saying I support unions EXCEPT police unions.

Police unions don't have the power to stop state prosecutors from filing charges on officers, or the power to stop a jury from finding an officer guilty, or the power to stop a judge from sending a cop to prison for their crimes. Those are the main problems standing in the way of police accountability.

Where police unions do end up giving too much protection for police it's in contracts that get approved by government officials when they shouldn't have been. Police unions can ask for unreasonable things, but when they do our governments should be telling them to fuck off instead of rubber stamping whatever they ask for.

Police, like almost all workers, still need unions though. Police can still be subjected to things like unpaid overtime, unsafe working conditions, insufficient training, low wages, and poor benefits. Police should be able to unionize to prevent being exploited. Local governments should refuse to cave to their unions unreasonable demands such as those that prohibit anonymous complaints, or purge disciplinary records to prevent identifying repeat offenders, or reject body cameras, or allow officers to use paid vacation time to cover unpaid suspensions.

Police unions get a lot of attention as being the main thing preventing police accountability but they really aren't. The problems are much deeper and eliminating the unions will not solve them.

[GuinansEyebrows]

> Police unions can ask for unreasonable things, but when they do our governments should be telling them to fuck off instead of rubber stamping whatever they ask for.

the rub: police unions are highly political machines and heavily involved in electing rubber-stamp politicians. it's a quid-pro-quo relationship that we seem to have a very hard time breaking out of in the united states.

re: police requiring unions: i have to disagree with you. american policing originated from two antilabor arms: slavecatchers and union-busters. they wield power over non-police union labor and implement it on every level from the individual to the systemic. they are class traitors by choice and by definition and do not deserve protection, because they are the physical arm of the body we require protection from.

[autoexec]

It falls on We the People to make sure our elected officials are working for us and not giving police unions whatever they want, but we will probably need election finance reforms to make it harder for the unions to influence the outcomes.

Police departments have already been found to do things like force officers to work an unsafe number of hours, commit wage theft in the form of unpaid overtime, engage in harassing and inappropriate behavior including sexual harassment, and the use of tasers on officers. Officers need unions to prevent abuse and exploitation and to ensure that they have protection from retaliation when they report on their fellow officers. Even abusers are sometimes abused. If we want good, honest people to work in police departments, we need to create work environments where they can and will want to. We can chase out those who aren't fit for the job as we go while still leaving good officers protected where they should be.

[GuinansEyebrows]

respectfully, i disagree. if they want labor representation they should not operate in service of the capital class.

[MisterTea]

> If I go further down my rabbit hole of systemic issues, I think citizens should be more involved in community policing in large populations.

This is something I have thought of too. We are all interested in living in a safe society; However, there are many people who know damn well they can get away with all sorts of idiotic behavior because the cops aren't looking, but everyone else is. So give everyone else a method to discourage that behavior.

[casey2]

Whatever political capital is gained fighting police unions will swiftly be lost when they run ads and start committing or letting crime get through.

The very first step that needs to be taken is cities decoupling citations/fines from their operating budget, either by putting them towards victim compensation funds or some other non-discretionary fund.

[marcusverus]

> I’ll cut against the grain here and say it’s ABSOLUTELY appropriate for taxpayers to pay the bill here.

It's one thing to agree that he should be compensated (I agree), but the figure doesn't make much sense. Per the article:

> During his stay in jail, Larry lost his post-retirement job and missed his anniversary — as well as the birth of his grandchild.

That's all pretty rough, but I fail to see how it entitles him to the lavish sum of $800,000. That's roughly half a lifetime's earnings for the typical worker!

> we need incentives for voters to take this stuff seriously.

I have a sneaking suspicion that setting public money on fire is not the best mechanism to achieve this outcome.

[pseudalopex]

What would be the best mechanism?