[jazzypants]

I think you would find that they would make far fewer illegal mistakes if they actually had to deal with the consequences of those mistakes.

Qualified Immunity didn't exist as a concept until the 1960s, and it was put in place to shield policemen enacting racist policies and corrupt cronies of Nixon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

[hk1337]

I think we would see far fewer actions at all for fear of being sued.

[jazzypants]

They could just buy insurance. You know, like doctors, lawyers, and a wide variety of other professionals that deal with liabilities in their field.

Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.

[drbscl]

> They could just buy insurance. > the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.

I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.

[infinite_spin]

Malpractice insurance might increase the cost of policing, but I'd wager the malpractice itself is costing tax payers even more.

[JuniperMesos]

I'm not necessarily opposed to requiring something like malpractice insurance for being a cop, but I'm genuinely not sure how that would affect the cost of policing compared to the status quo (and I'd be skeptical of any research attempt to estimate it without actually trying it). But I'm also not necessarily opposed to spending more taxpayer money on policing in return for better policing.

[vajrabum]

Make the police officer like the Doctor pay for their own insurance.

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

The doctor's own fees just rise. You, the patient pays for it. There's this 10-20% of revenue parasite on the entire industry, and you're paying that while complaining that prices are too high.

Now you'll do the same thing with police, as if police wages and salaries won't increase proportionally, but 20 years from now you'll wonder why that costs so much. It's bizarre how economically imperceptive everyone is.

[jazzypants]

No, the people who can't afford their insurance wouldn't be able to work as policemen. Ideally, they would also eventually lose a license of some sort-- just like the doctors who commit malpractice.

We are already paying increased taxes to deal with all the lawsuits we already incur because these people know they are above the law and they think it isn't their problem.

[switchbak]

Change the incentives, you change the behaviour. Granted, this might have lots of unintended consequences, many of them bad.

[array_key_first]

As it currently stands the police already do almost nothing. Any kind of push back or critique of the police leads to inaction by the union. Meaning, police twiddle their thumbs and take your tax money because they can. It's a very effective technique from them to get what they want, because ultimately we need them and we can't actually force them to work.

[voidfunc]

Good. The police do too much as it is.

Every interaction with the police is a dice roll to see if someone lives or dies.

[switchbak]

Hey I have plenty of reasons to distrust the police - more than most, but this statement is a bit over the top.

[kortex]

I agree with voidfunc. A lot of what police do could be offloaded to other occupations. A lot of needless deaths could be prevented if there were more rungs on the escalation ladder between "do nothing" and "folks with guns show up". Like the same vibe as firefighters and EMS but just like for mild social disruption.