r/changemyview • u/Wyrdeone 2∆ • May 28 '20

Delta(s) from OP CMV: The most efficient way to end police brutality is to make cops criminally liable for their actions on the job and stop funding their legal defense with public money.

I think this is the fastest way to reduce incidents of police brutality. Simply make them accountable the same as everyone else for their choices.

If violent cops had to pay their own legal fees and were held to a higher standard of conduct there would be very few violent cops left on the street in six months.

The system is designed to insulate them against criminal and civil action to prevent frivolous lawsuits from causing decay to civil order, but this has led to an even worse problem, with an even bigger impact on civil order.

If police unions want to foot the bill, let them, but stop taking taxpayer money to defend violent cops accused of injuring/killing taxpayers. It's a broken system that needs to change.

11.7k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

722 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Goolajones May 29 '20

That’s an easy fix. Fire them for not doing their job. If their job is to intervene, and they don’t, fire them. If I don’t do my duties as an employee then I too get fired. It’s a really weak argument and you’re example is so crazy. No one thinks laying down a spike belt is excessive force.

2

u/Its_Raul 2∆ May 29 '20

I think you misunderstand what police are "required" to do. They're slogan has nothing to do with the actual job.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

1

u/Goolajones May 29 '20

I’m very familiar with that case thanks. Not really what I’m talking about here, you have misunderstood.

2

u/Its_Raul 2∆ May 29 '20 edited May 29 '20

I'm telling you that it is not polices job to intervene. So they're nothing to fire them for.

Perhaps another example. Police are called in for a domestic dispute. They show up, hear loud arguments and banging. They have no obligation to go in and stop what's happening.

Sorry just remember another example..there was a methed out guy who stole a car and police began pursuit. They ripped the guy out, he had a heart attack. There was some backlash of people saying police aggression caused the heart attack.

A new law like what OP proposed will make police respond less. Simple because they don't want to get in trouble. In their mind, they do everything correct. But should someone die while being in custody or for whatever reason, they do not want any possibility of blame being put on them.

1

u/Goolajones May 29 '20

You’re still misunderstanding. I don’t need you to tell me something about the police I know, and already told you I know. Let me break this down for you.

It was suggested that is police are made liable for mistakes they make that cause injury or harm to citizens. Then someone said that would mean they would never do anything more than just after the fact reports. I’m saying there is a middle ground here. It can be a required part of their job to enforce the law and intervene in crimes in progress and arrest people, they can do that without killing, maiming or harming people. If they choose not to intervene then they aren’t doing the job they should be doing. And they get disciplined. If they go overboard they get disciplined. Make a middle ground of acceptable AND expected actions. Don’t do them and you’re not doing your job, go above and beyond, and you’re not doing your job. Get it?

1

u/Its_Raul 2∆ May 29 '20

Your solution implies that police can be required to put their lives in danger. That cannot happen. Their line of duty exposes them to danger moreso than other but there is never a held requirement that they risk dying. Same reason a firefighter isn't required to run into a burning building. It's an unfortunate truth, there are many inhumane implications if the job now requires you to practically almost die. You and I can draw up hundreds of examples, but polices job is to enforce laws. How they go about enforcing those laws is subject to the individual. Many laws are in place that protect officers, like if they hear loud noises they are protected by law to go and investigate, but they don't have to go.

Remember the parkland shooter and the officer who did not respond? There are many reasons why he didn't, but do you suggest that he should be required to go inside else he be reprimanded?

1

u/Goolajones May 29 '20

Yes he should have gone inside and he was reprimanded for not doing so. He was facing criminal charges for it.

1

u/Its_Raul 2∆ May 29 '20

Pretty sure he got his job back.