Because it would put them in a situation where they have to choose between their livelihood and protecting the public even in circumstances where we all agree on the action they should take. The best officer acting in total good faith and directly in the publics interests would be in the same situation. Deciders have to have the right to make and carry out difficult decisions, and real life is messy.

Does this override their constitutional rights to free speech and free association? Because that is the question. Id say no, as public sector unions have been busted before even on essential services like air traffic controllers.

They can shoot, they're insured. But if they have a track record of poor decision-making, that's where an actuary is going to say you're uninsurable.

Yes. Should the Minneapolis Police Dept be allowed to go on strike this afternoon? Why or why not?

Except an actuary is going to raise rates on payouts regardless of how valid the decision was leading to that payout.

We dont live in a system where people arent allowed to do something as a default. They are allowed until proven otherwise. If you want to restrict their right to strike you have to cite the law saying they cant. So they should and are allowed for that reason, unless there's a law im not aware of.

No one cares if they strike.

This post was edited by RedFromWinter on Jun 3 2020 06:54am

What happens when you get in a car accident? Your rates go up. What happens if you keep totalling out cars? They won't cover you. This is for good reason.

There needs to be a law that says the police must protect and serve? So in the middle of a riot, you think they should be allow to go on strike? Should the military be allow to unionize, and then go on strike when there's a war? Do you understand how asinine that is?

You didnt answer the criticism, and regardless of if insurance drops them or not having to consider a significant rate increase while you make a decision to protect the public is still an obvious moral hazard we should avoid.

Has it ever been an issue where the police went on strike during a riot? Seems like youre using a problem that doesnt exist to take away first amendment rights.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 3 2020 09:42am

It lacked significant merit. Ever heard of no-fault insurance?

How about a riot that came about because they went on strike? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Police_Strike

Sadly this is the reality that makes everything a whole lot more complicated. Full removal of their immunity is not feasible.

I do believe that something needs to happen so that police officers will be held accountable when they deliberately escalate a situation by using more violence/force than what's necessary. The person who murdered George Floyd is a very good example of that.

just make a list of guidelines of what holds they can use, controlled by what situations (2 on 1 cops, 3 on 1 cops, unarmed, with knife, etc).

qualified immunity is needed, but qualified immunity subject to unending discretion by prosecutors not so much.

I don't really believe that this is feasible. Your suggestion may have kept George Floyd alive, but that cop may just as well have done something else to kill him instead.
If you want to give guidelines on exactly which physical force is allowed in exactly which situations, this will probably become far too complicated to be practical, and leave loopholes and grey zones that can be exploited at the same time.