My apologies on the delay for this response. Generally, most responses are not time-sensitive; this one is. Unfortunately, it arrived just a couple of hours after my primary computer died, and my backup computer is permanently deficient in authoring tools. I’m finally caught up …
A reader writes concerning the suggestion that police officers provide their own insurance:
[…] I’m not ready to hand civil law enforcement over to private insurance company who can suspend coverage for reasons that don’t really make sense! That and I shudder to think of the increasing volumes of training police enforcement has to go through (e.g., “and now we turn to the practice section of how to adjust the handcuffs on a mom you stopped for a suspected DUI so that you can verify and then help her to deliver her baby safely before EMT arrives on-scene…)
To the first argument, I would respond that virtually every state has an insurance regulatory entity that should be capable of regulating the behavior of insurance company in this regard. Policies they enforce could be a matter of public comment and debate, as needed.
To the second argument, there may be some merit in what my reader suggests would happen. However, if the defund movement is implemented, a terrible name for what is basically the removal of certain responsibilities from police shoulders, then there would be time for more training.
And, again, it would fall under the purview of the insurance regulatory authority.
That said, in light of last night’s police killing of Rayshard Brooks in Atlanta — who was sleeping off too much alcohol in his car at a Wendy’s parking lot — it isn’t liability insurance that stops that tragedy. There needs to be a response force that doesn’t carry guns so that the escalation has a ceiling that does not involve deadly force.
I agree! The problem may be deciding if they should be front-line, or on-call – and, if the latter, whether police culture would encourage or denigrate their use.
I understand that “defunding the police” can range from 0% to 100%, but the point of that discussion is not about zeroing out law enforcement; rather, it is all about rethinking law enforcement to find a better balance. For example:
* Bobby’s in England don’t carry guns — there is a whole lot less police killings as a result;
Technically, this is not true, at least as of 2017: “And yet more than 90 percent of [London’s] police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun. Most rely on other tools to keep their city safe: canisters of mace, handcuffs, batons and occasionally stun-guns.” [NBC News] And this technicality is useful, as the article continues: “Some of these gun-wielding officers patrol the city in pairs, others are members of crack response teams — units dressed in body-armor, helmets and carrying long rifles — who are called to the scene of violent incidents like these.” It suggests a strategy for a police force that doesn’t rely on deadly force for incident management, but has it available.
In a response to a different post of mine, a reader had a strong reaction against disarming police officers. I have not yet posted a reply.
* The “Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets” (CAHOOTS) of Eugene Oregon. CAHOOTS is a part of the 911 system such that they will be selected as the first responders — ahead of police — for situations involving mental health. Eugene Police Officers say ” [CAHOOTS provides] resources not available to the ordinary cop…They are an invaluable resource”.
I appreciate the pointer! Some solid, on the ground experience showing that 911 operators can effectively select which first responder is appropriate is reassuring.
Indeed, when I think through the 911 calls I have placed over the years, a non-police response would have been better for the situation I faced. To be clear, I was THANKFUL and GLAD that the St. Paul Police officers showed up quickly, listened to my report and they took action. BUT the response would have been likely better had it been a social worker trained in the particular circumstance — to not only identify and diffuse the immediate issue right then and there, but also for the longer term follow-through. In my book, the police officers are way, WAY over-booked with responsibilities for a range of civil enforcement and actions for which liability insurance would only respond by adding more and more training paperwork, never truly addressing the underlying social and community needs…
Nor do I believe the insurance proposal, jocular or not, was meant to deal with all situations, but rather with the specific problems of inappropriate violence and gypsy cops. The first is dealt with by pricing the cop out of the market, as the employer would have to pay the officer more and more to cover the cost – at some point, they just kick them off the force as being too expensive. The cops covering for cops situation could be dealt with by using a banned list concept for those cops who coverup the misdeeds of other cops. No insurance for them, period.
And the insurance companies, in their relentless pursuit of financial efficiency, would maintain a shared (I should hope!) database of cops’ records, thus mitigating the gypsy cop problem.
I completely agree with my reader that cops, as they themselves acknowledge, are overly burdened with responsibilities. My concern is that, as we consider how to rebuild police forces, the wrong principles will be used by influential people, maliciously or not. For example, parsimony is a poisonous principle.
I hope to expand on this on the near future.
