Re:Pseudo-public space in London
by maxerickson on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:05PM
(#14848824)
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.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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?
Re:Pseudo-public space in London
by maxerickson on Tuesday July 25, 2017 @12:21PM
(#14849004)
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.