Not really. The $100,000 comes out of general funds. So the citizenry is victimized twice -- once by having public servants that don't serve them and again by having to pay for their misdeeds.

Officers Lori Hayne, Michael Johnson and Bruce Schmidt, who not only used excessive force but also perjured themselves in their official reports, paid not one penny of that settlement, faced no criminal charges, and didn't even have any adverse employment consequences.

So long as we refuse to hold police officers responsible for their actions they will continue to act as though they are above the law. Because they are.

It should come from the insurance the police are they themselves required to purchase. Uninsurable, get a different job.

I disagree with the last sentence. Should being in the police be the privilege of the not-so-poor ? This is what it was like in the middle ages.

OK. I mostly agree.

But in a legitimate democracy, the citizenry cannot be "victimized" by "public servants that don't serve them".

If you hire some servants, and those servants don't serve you, and you don't get some new servants... whose fault is that?

But you're right on the essential point: the democratically elected government (== citizenry) involved here is paying an arguably reasonable price, but the individuals responsible probably are not.

Perjuring themselves can't be interpreted as a legitimate job function. Just as the city would sue an accountant to recover embezzlement, the individuals responsible for this liability should have reimbursed the municipality.

"Legitimate democracy" is a long lost true scotsman if you take it to mean a perfectly functioning democracy. Constantly being under threat of violence and arbitrary harassment from an armed force legitimized by the government undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. When you get beaten up for protesting, harassed for speaking your mind or fitting some fundamentally class-based stereotype, you can't exercise the command and influence you would be entitled to in a legitimate democracy.

the specific people who are most hurt by bad law enforcement also tend to have the least power to "get some new servants."

so who's fault is that? usually not the victim. or at least the most direct victim, since obviously, society as a whole is hurt by this sort of thing (just not as much as the person who's wrongly harassed/injured/killed by the cops).

but maybe your point stands, because is that really a "legitimate democracy"?

You're double-counting - if the restitution is fair, then the unlawful arrest isn't a net victimization. Restitution just means a transfer of unfairness from taxpayers to those their police department victimizes.

So if I beat you to a pulp and then pay your expenses and cover your losses, would you consider that a zero sum in terms of victimization? What sum of money would be necessary to get you un-assaulted and un-beaten up?

Restitution, legally, covers monetary losses. It should not be taken to mean that all is well when the bills are paid. You can't pay away a black eye.

>But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00.

Not really. The police decided to act like corporate lackeys and TAX PAYERS paid a $40,000 settlement to a person who was physically injured by their misconduct. There are several ways this story should end that are not that

1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money

2) the cops, or at least the property owner, should pay the settlement

3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions

4) there should be consequences for the police brutally attacking someone who asserts their (legal in MN) right not to identify themselves to police officers

Eh, but on the other hand, the tax payers are the ones who keep voting in governments that do not hold members of the police force accountable (and who hired policemen that do this to begin with). Such is the beauty of democracy: as long as there is no deception involved (and it doesn't seem like in this case, there was), the voters get exactly the government they deserve.

"1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money"

What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

The one affected by brutality would be doubly screwed.

The Police as a whole should be held accountable, and victims should be ensured compensation, they are by all accounts being brutalized by the state, and the state is run with taxpayers money.

Agreeing with the rest though.

> What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

What happens to normal mortals when they can't pay their debts. Are policemen really so much above the law that they don't have to pay their debts either?

The problem is not with the policeman, it would be with the victim that would be unable to receive compensation, if the former defaults.

As someone else said, the police should be required to hold malpractice insurance.

Basically the most reasonable strategy is that the employer which is the public is on the hook for the immediate cost and has the privilege and duty of recovering the money from the guilty.

This insures that the city who is guilty of hiring the miscreant ends up with the onerous duty of collection and the victim is compensated hastily.

>What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Should a debt ordered by a court due to deliberately taking actions that harm another be treated differently than a debt occurred through a consensual transaction? If so, could the courts be given more power to seize resources (not just money) from the one owing the debt?

There are a lot of things that I would consider immoral to do to recover a debt that results from a consensual transactions that I wouldn't view as immoral to do to recover a debt incurred by criminal actions.

> What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Malpractice insurance?

>What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Then you seize their property and sell it until there's enough to cover the settlement. Just like any other debtor. If they don't have enough property, you seize portions of their income.

If their income isn't enough, can you invoke the 13th Amendment (in the US, where most the bad cop stories come from)?

This entire problem's solution already exists with malpractice insurance.

The property owner is at least partly culpable, wouldn't you think?

> 3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions

yes. that. that seems so obvious, but it also never seems to be the way things actually play out.

If you try to make the police financially responsible they will price that into their decision to do that job; there's no way to really separate the public purse.

First, in many places the police are paid more than the market clearing rate for various reasons. So there's room to cut compensation without having shortages in applications.

Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.

I don't take it as a given that bad police get blanket indemnification. They lose jobs all the time.

Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up.

I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it.

Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.

Indemnification just means that they don't have to pay out civil judgments against them. It doesn't mean they don't lose their jobs, though I'd definitely push back against "all the time" even there.

Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...

My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.

Right, but losing a job is very similar to no longer being able to get an insurance policy that allows service in a jurisdiction, in terms of the costs that will be transferred to the public.

If you had to guess, in what percentage of 1983 (civil rights) cases that a municipality settles or loses do they fire the police officer(s) responsible?

In what percentage of cases would you guess that automobile insurance premiums rise where a driver is found liable for an incident and the insurance company is forced to pay out?

Honestly, I'm gonna go with my edit above. I didn't say that there was no money to be saved, I said that there is no way to stop the public being the payer.

So sure, there's a good possibility that requiring police to carry individual liability insurance would lower costs. The public would still ultimately fund the premiums on that insurance.

Sure there is: As with other professions with potential for high liability, police could be bonded. This would price high-risk individuals out of those positions.

Just like the other reply, you presume that high risk individuals aren't already prevented from taking the positions.

Taxpayers cover the bill, police (and the corporate tenant) vindicated, they all move on and everything else pretty much stays the same?

Maybe a better ending would move the needle at least slightly in favor of preventing this kind of thing in the future.

Among several things that ought to happen in an ideal world, perhaps we could give non-lawyers clarity on what is a public or private space: If a corporate tenant wants to regulate a private space this way, it has to clearly separate it from the public with some specification of doors, gates, etc. Otherwise, it will be considered public in a conflict like this one.

Lol yea I forgot that just paying out money solves all injustice and policing issues