531
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2026
531 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
87970 readers
3532 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
In a just world, the officer, the police department, and Flock would all owe her compensation. I'd put the amount at about 10x the fine for the offense.
The problem is that any fees cops get for doing stuff coming out of tax money.
In a way I understand why, but it just bullshit at the end of day.
It should come out of their operating budget.
A proposal I've seen floated a few times is to require police to carry liability insurance individually and give them a stipend for an average/reasonable amount. This is usually paired with changes to qualified immunity to make lawsuits and insurance claims easier.
The idea is that risky behavior from police costs them money personally.
Fuck the stipend. They'll abuse that too.
Make it the chief instead and we got a deal
¿Porque no los dos?
I'm wanting to say I like this idea, but...
It just freaking sux. There are good cops out there who don't need to be pumped into one insurance ideology (fraud) - but til the bad cops get the punishment they deserve there is no good solution.
This is a general problem with the whole system - including unaffordable healthcare. If healthcare would be free; freakton of lawsuits wouldn't happen.
Without those lawsuits the insurance would go down, lawyers would not clog up the system with 'got hurt in an accident' cases - and this would reflect all parts of society.
I believe the cops not getting punished for being bad is just one of the hundred symptoms of the system failing.
Even in the fantasy world where the majority of cops are good, nothing changes for them. They carry insurance, the stipend pays for it, and they don't have claims because they don't do stupid shit like this. The bad cops have tons of claims, the insurance becomes unaffordable, and they have to quit.
I mean doctors and other healthcare providers have malpractice insurance. For me, it’s a requirement to maintain my license.
LMFAO.... Good cops get abused in the police force. They never last. Sometimes they get harassed for life because they tried to stand up for what's right.
ACAB
Break it down; 2% cop 5% department 25% flock
The extra 20 from flock goes back to taxpayers who had to pay the department's portion.
That adds up to 30%. Maybe you meant 25/50/25.
I'd have to know more before breaking it down. If Flock told police departments that these alerts are up to date and reliable, I might assign them up to half the blame. If there were clear that the information could be a few days old, then I'd set it smaller, but not to zero because I think offering an "alert" product to law enforcement for minor administrative offenses based on stale data is irresponsible.
Similarly for the department and the officer, I have to ask whether there's a policy about how to handle this sort of thing. If there's a bad policy, the department gets most of the blame. If the officer decided to ignore a valid insurance card and trust a third-party database, the the officer gets most of the blame.
Oops, I wasn't really doing the math as I went
Originally I was adding up to your 10x + a adding in bunch extra for flock, but somepoint my brain switch that 10x to 10%. Oh well, the specific numbers dont really matter.
I think greater responsibility should be placed on the department to encourage firing. If the burden is mostly on the officer, than the department bean counters won't care as long the officer can write more "valid" tickets to offset the bogus ones.
Its also like if a waiter drops a tray of food on someone causing injury. Who is financially responsible to the injured person, the business or waiter? I think most of would agree that the business is. The business is fully within their rights to fire that waiter, but they can't withhold pay for the damages. If the business can prove the tray was intentionally thrown, then they can sue the waiter. But, the injured party should never have to talk to the waiter.
Should the be the same for an officer, if they make a mistake it's on the department to make it right with the affected parties. If the department proves the officer maliciously broke protocol or law, then they can sue them separately. The victim of the officer's actions should be made "whole" by the department, then the department and officer can figure it out on their own.
This is how it works now, but who pays the department's legal bill? Municipal tax payers. It's zero accountability. Each cop should be insured like doctors and engineers. That's the only way to make it work that isn't just wasting taxpayer dollars.