upvote
It's absolutely not the slightest bit crazy if you've paid attention to how cops behave at any point in the last history of the country. 100% agree about personal responsibility. You must understand that when the cops says that oversight means they can't do their job, that means they view their job as bullying, harassing and killing citizens, so yea, we should put a stop to that. 1312
reply
> It's absolutely not the slightest bit crazy

Imo, speaking like this normalizes their behavior - it was crazy then and it's crazy now.

reply
GP isn’t entirely wrong, our governing apparatus has made this something to be expected.
reply
I will not put the blame on the bobbies, that's too convenient. Someone had to order them to do this. That's who needs to be permanently ousted from all levels of government and their voting rights rescinded.
reply
Nobody has to order people to do anything if it's in their self interest. Yes corruption flows downhill, but until they flip, just following orders isn't a defense.
reply
Just following orders of course does not excuse anyone but I would rather not play whack-a-mole. That is how they expect us to play "The Game" by throwing one of their tools under the bus.

I prefer to work my way up the chain of command first and find the head(s) of the snake. Sure, punish the cops but don't let their corrupt chain of command play The Game otherwise we all just lost and the problem just repeats.

reply
Lmao no this is just American police chiefs doing what they love to do, guarantee this whole thing starts and ends in that PD
reply
From the PDF looks like Trinidad City Councilwoman Marie Bannister and Trinidad Police Chief Charles W. Gregory, may have started this. The Texas governor [1] needs to start pruning both up and down from there. Actually the governor should take full control of that county, oust everyone and fix the water problems.

[1] - https://gov.texas.gov/

reply
[redacted] all police but don't pretend it isn't crazy. Not every country is like this.
reply
I hear you, but there has to be some balance between full immunity and no immunity at all. The one thing that comes to mind is rich and powerful people, because they have unlimited resources to sue and ruin the lives of cops, judges and politicians, which would lead to these officials avoiding to hold rich and powerful individuals accountable even when they have committed crimes.
reply
I'm not a lawyer, but what you're describing sounds to me like an example of strategic lawsuits against public participation, just where the targeted "public" isn't a member of the general public but a public servant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
reply
These lawsuits need to be charged against the police pension funds, not the city coffers
reply
I agree with you
reply
"would"? There is currently a disparity in how rich and poor people are policed.

I get the point that there should be some limited immunity so they can do their jobs. Debatable, but worth the debate.

The argument about the repercussions of eliminating immunity is logical. It just seems like one of those things where there are multiple factors contributing to undesirable outcomes, and that makes it necessary to talk to experts.

reply
You're so close! Instead of patching the issue maybe let's solve the root problem of spiky power distribution among humans. We don't need to make sure cops have immunity to prosecute powerful people. We need to not have powerful people.

(though realistically speaking yes there's probably some level of procedural immunity that probably makes sense, similarly with business bankruptcies not ruining the people who start the business)

reply
Weird that you're getting downvoted for this. You're spot on.
reply
I agree with you, but most people aren’t ready to engage with basic anarchist arguments
reply
I don't know if anarchy helps in this situation, I actually think you need robust social systems with buy in from citizens to prevent the natural accumulation of power. The fundamental problem is that there's a diminishing cost to acquiring power as you acquire power, this relationship should be inverted. The more powerful you are the harder it should be to get more powerful.

This is basic engineering, you don't want runaway feedback loops, the underlying system is unstable so we need a control system.

reply
We need to not have powerful people

What does this even mean?

reply
It's very easy to get started on this, you tax the shit out of people who have a lot of money because the old adage is true.
reply
Even if you could achieve that, there would still be rich people. Musk would still be a billionaire even if he had to pay 90% tax.

Plus, many powerful people in government are not that rich.

reply
Make currently powerful people less powerful and currently powerless people more powerful.

C'mon, HN users forgot how to think? Forgot to ask Claude?

reply
To do that you first need to become more powerful than those powerful people, right?
reply
Well, no, you just a need a coalition that collectively is more powerful.
reply
Exactly which types of politicians, judges etc would be targeted by liability do you think? The unrighteous politicians? The judges in favour of those in power?
reply
I mean that when someone files a lawsuit to defend their civil/constitutional rights and wins, the penalty must be paid by the offenders and not taxpayers. For example the police who made the arrest and their supervisors.
reply
This entire debacle weirds me out. Surely the police is aware of the water issues. They drink from the same tap as the locals do. What would a sane person call arresting people that publicly call out that your water supply is obviously contaminated?
reply
That would not necessarily be the case in my town. We have police who don't live in the county and fireman who don't live in the state. (Los Angeles)
reply
In my experience (I sued my town for violating my first amendment rights), the city will have insurance that will cover any damages or settlement they have to pay. Their premiums will likely go up, but the impact to taxpayers is probably minimal.
reply
Perhaps in the first order, but when premiums go up and go up across all policies due to the acceptability of litigation... Everyone pays eventually.

Its a bit like saying driving dangerously is OK because you have insurance. Until everyone drives dangerously and insurance is sky high for all.

That said, they should be sued.

reply
Even making them pay their own lawsuit insurance premiums would be enough to stop 90% of abuse.

No change will happen until cities stop using police revenue for discretionary spending.

reply
Just more actions from free speech loving Republicans. Exactly like that guy in Tennessee who got $800k.
reply
Nazi Germany wasn't chaos, just a lot of people following "cut-and-dry" protocol.
reply