i'm speaking more about guidelines to be used in hindsight for prosecution. as it stands now prosecutors depend almost entirely on medical examiners reports, or they bend to pressure one of two ways. charge due to a mob, or no charge due to pressure from police union. if there were something that said "when u have 3 officers detaining a suspect in handcuffs if they end up dead due to an unapproved hold we will charge as a requirement and then let the facts bear out in court" it would be a better system.

similar system have been used in domestic violence cases, where a call to cops requires an arrest. all this does is require a charge, then let courts bear out the fact. could even add qualifiers if its on body cam or a cell phone video.

Only certain states use no-fault insurance for autos, and those are states that more or less legally mandate it. Insurance companies aren't exactly pleased to have no-fault. Additionally, it raises costs significantly for the good drivers. Michigan in particular has some of the highest insurance rates in the nation.

Do you have any examples that aren't over 100 years old now? Also, it seems pretty insulting. Police are good enough to keep the peace but not good enough to bargain for working conditions? Also, the police aren't the only ones providing this service. They are just one competitor in the security market. People can still buy private security while the police exist, and frequently do.

I live in one myself. You make a claim though, and your rates still go up. Too many claims and you're uninsurable.

I don't feel I need one. Police are not "just one competitor." As it pertains to using force on people, they are the market. Private security doesn't get to enforce laws.

So an officer going through the normal motions of his job in totally uncontroversial ways, acting in only the public's best interest, has to make the decision to protect the public and see his livelihood threatened, or not protect the public.

Honestly, there's no reason for me to even continue. This is a moral hazard that can and should be avoided.

Absolutely. No more high speed chases through neighborhoods for a burned out taillight.

Cool, the fact that you've got to keep using examples that I've said shouldn't be covered just shows you're not interested in being honest. I've said multiple times now we need to have reasonable limitations to avoid overstepping (destroying an entire house to arrest a shoplifter) but retain protection from liability for things that cops have to do (take down armed and dangerous criminals).

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 3 2020 12:29pm

They already aren't... but they are. That's the problem. What you said you want to change to, is really the system we have. Because lawyers.

This post was edited by Santara on Jun 3 2020 12:56pm

We need to design an implantable chip that can be remote detonated, require anyone entering law enforcement to have one embedded in the sinus cavity, and give the authority to a citizens commission to push the button if the cop breaks a law or makes any mistakes.

Wow, that's about as lazy of a position as one can take. "We can't make meaningful change without totally destroying the system, cuz lawyers". Just, a beautiful symphony of laziness.

Here's an even better idea... Use the same chip but put it in every citizen instead. If you break the law, the chip goes off.

No need for police force at that point, right?