• partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      oh im sure cops would be against it but I bet it would do stellar in a voter referendum.

      Have you seen our voters lately?

      Why not get good cops on your side in getting this in place first and let the actuarial tables be built from those experiences that reflect the system in place?

      • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Mainly because good cops won’t likely go for it. This is something that definately needs to be done top down at the government level.

            • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              I think you missed the part of my post where I communicated the city/department would pay the base premium for the officers. So good cops would pay nothing. Only bad cops that got higher rates from judgments against them would have to fork out the overage in premiums to continue practicing law enforcement.

                • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Why would good cops see the line item growing? It would be a static value to the city/department. Only the bad cops would see growing premiums as it relates to judgments against that particular bad cop. Those growing premiums would be paid by the individual bad cop.

                  • HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    no its just like a house in a flood prone area. if you department and city has a lot of claims yours will be higher than the mayberry cop.