From what I could tell from the article, an officer submitted a warrant request to a judge and the judge approved it. That request was potentially incomplete because it left out the fact that the victim here didn’t actually make the meme. On the other hand I’m not sure whether omission matters since it would still be protected speech if he made it.

So I would place a good amount of blame at the feet of the judge, who should be more knowledgeable about legal questions. I think cops should have a general understanding of the law but I doubt the legality of online memes comes up much.

So I don’t think it is catastrophic that the police came to the judge with this issue. The problem is the judge rubber stamping something that should’ve been rejected.

Second problem I see is that this took 37 days to resolve, which is also incredibly slow. So it really magnified the earlier mistakes.

That said, I’m not against liability for cops in general. I just think in this particular case I blame the judge more.

That's a lot of liability for police. They would likely buy insurance against it.

How would this work? Where do the money for their pension fund come from? Would taking money from it result in them receiving smaller pensions?

I agree, and any time there is a security breach, bug or other employee-caused calamity at a tech company that results in a lawsuit or settlement, the money should come out of employee 401k accounts, stock options, etc. These people need to police themselves. By aligning incentives it will encourage the good developers and force out the bad ones.

What if a majority of taxpayers voted for that sheriff?

We already have a system for this; it is used by doctors:

- Individual Officer liability insurance.

You scrap Qualified Immunity; and instead claims could be made against the specific Officer's insurance. This would be a nationwide insurance system, and their premiums would follow them as an individual from job to job/location to location.

If departments want to compensate Officers for liability they CAN, but ultimately it would come out of that department's payroll/budget unlike now where lawsuit settlements don't even hit the police department's balance sheets at all.

Those taxpayers are free to elect people who will hold the police to a higher standard.

The police are an organ of society (if you don't live in an authoritarian shithole), so the society that gives them the power of pit and gallows is ultimately accountable for their behaviour.

Accountability for police in the United States? That'll never happen.

Exactly, what's to stop police officers and judges from giving each other retirement payouts by locking each other up?

> By aligning the incentives right, it will mean good cops will force out the bad cops quickly.

While that would be nice, it seems like extremely wishful thinking.

Maybe ask a wrongful termination lawyer how things would actually play out?

US police absolutely hate accountability and fight any effor to impose it very hard.

What does your username mean?

> The fact that taxpayers and not the police themselves have to pay the settlement is the worst part of this.

Oh boo hoo. The official in question here isn't some rank and file rando, it's the sheriff who the taxpayers in question duly elected.

I guarantee you they'll elect him again. $91 per resident is a small price to pay for a guy who's willing to arrest their political enemies.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

> Every settlement against the police should be taken from their pension fund.

So... collective punishment?

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/gciv-1949/art...