While this is definitely needed, I don’t think it’s a starting point.
IMO, a good place to start is instituting policies requiring LEOs/PDs carry liability insurance. Similar to doctors and other medical practices (in the US). An officer is found guilty or misconduct or violating a citizen’s right? Penalties are taken out of their insurance and their premium increases. Can’t afford the premium? Guess who’s looking for a new job?
The way I see, the pigs can keep their criminal immunity, but civil matters will have a more direct financial incentive for them to behave like they have morals.
I mean, if it works, it works. We’ve addressed a lot of societal problems via liability-based approaches. ADA ramps and disability access come to mind. It’s not a perfect solution, but it’s often a lot more tractable than trying to change the culture of an entire industry or profession. Activists spent decades trying to persuade architects and building owners to make their spaces accessible. But they simply didn’t want to change. Designing public buildings with ramps and elevators can have real drawbacks, both practically and aesthetically, and the building industry didn’t want to change. Congress could have made it illegal to not have ramps, a misdemeanor or felony, but who is legally responsible for a non compliant school? And does this sound like a law police would spend a lot of time enforcing? Are they going to devote resources to cracking down on inaccessible buildings?
In the end, it was simply easier to empower disabled people to be their own advocates. Let them sue building owners who won’t make their structures accessible. No need to convince a prosecutor or bureaucrat that disability access is worth their time. The people most affected can lead the charge instead.
Overall, the approach has worked quite well. While not perfect, it has radically changed the degree of accessibility for disabled people to public buildings and spaces.
That’s another “market economy” solution.
Maybe start with the training. It’s ridiculously short in the US compared to European countries where the training takes usually multiple years, before you’re allowed to go on your own
Police have unions (They function as professional organizations, but legally they are labor unions) largely to block legal changes like this. To defeat them, you’d need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA. This would have knock-on effects for all US workers, as unions fight for and uphold labor protections that benefit those outside their ranks. For instance, two day weekends and 40 hour work weeks.
It seems clear to me that ending QE - Which is merely a judicial policy, it’s not even law - Is by far the more potent, simple, and safe avenue of attack. But I’m interested in your thoughts on the above proverbial gun that police unions hold to the head of every US laborer.
No, you can have selective limits, tied to how much risk the job imposes on the surroundings (like universal regulation on any job requiring being armed). Unions are supposed to be about worker power against the employer, not against society.
To defeat them, you’d need to somehow pass legislation on the state and federal level that mortally undermines the power of all labor unions in the USA.
I think you could narrow it from “all labor unions” to “all public-sector unions.” Unfortunately this still end up affecting teachers, firefighters, and various city workers.
How would you strip police unions of their pensions without also destroying the savings of every other labor union in the US? Dissolving labor rights is not the right way to fight an anti-labor force, it’s very “fighting fire with fire”.
