News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Pseudo-public space in London. Parent comment

Re:Pseudo-public space in London by Kurtz79 on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @11:27AM (#14848455)
"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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by izacus on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:43PM (#14849277)
> 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?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by Kurtz79 on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @02:09PM (#14850313)
The problem is not with the policeman, it would be with the victim that would be unable to receive compensation, if the former defaults.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by Cerium on Wednesday July 26, 2017 @10:26AM (#14856404)
As someone else said, the police should be required to hold malpractice insurance.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by michaelmrose on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:38PM (#14849202)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by BearGoesChirp on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @04:35PM (#14851617)
>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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by heartbreak on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:26PM (#14849058)
> What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?

Malpractice insurance?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by literallycancer on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @02:12PM (#14850330)
>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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by BearGoesChirp on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @04:36PM (#14851628)
If their income isn't enough, can you invoke the 13th Amendment (in the US, where most the bad cop stories come from)?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by nightcracker on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @05:43PM (#14852132)
This entire problem's solution already exists with malpractice insurance.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Pseudo-public space in London by urethrafranklin on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @01:35PM (#14849924)
The property owner is at least partly culpable, wouldn't you think?
[ Parent | on HN ]