Insurance driving police reform.

[SavannahMann]

For a long time police departments have resisted public pressure and even legislative efforts to drive reform. Now the reform is happening. But not because of public perceptions or pressure from special interest groups. Not because of community organizers or BLM. It is because of money. Specifically. Insurance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/

The name of the game is evolve, adapt, or die. And cities which don’t evolve and adapt. Are losing their cops.

Southern California town disbands police force after 86 years

Southern California town disbands police force after 86 years

www.mercurynews.com

Yes. That is an old news story. But it was mentioned in the article posted above as an early example of insurance driving changes.

The cities and counties have a choice. Change the way you do the policing. Or lose the cops.

The times are changing. And it seems the Police Departments are changing too. Not because of threats to their safety. But to the bottom line.

The St. Ann police department as one example mentioned in the article. Resisted and rejected demands from community activists. Told the police reform crowd to pound sand. Then the Insurance Company told them that the rates were going way up if they didn’t knock it off. The Chief was given a choice. Lose ten officers to afford the insurance. Or change. Change while unpleasant was a lot better than stubbornly losing nearly a quarter of his police force.

 

[shockedcanadian]

For a long time police departments have resisted public pressure and even legislative efforts to drive reform. Now the reform is happening. But not because of public perceptions or pressure from special interest groups. Not because of community organizers or BLM. It is because of money. Specifically. Insurance.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/interactive/2022/police-misconduct-insurance-settlements-reform/

The name of the game is evolve, adapt, or die. And cities which don’t evolve and adapt. Are losing their cops.

Southern California town disbands police force after 86 years

Southern California town disbands police force after 86 years

www.mercurynews.com

Yes. That is an old news story. But it was mentioned in the article posted above as an early example of insurance driving changes.

The cities and counties have a choice. Change the way you do the policing. Or lose the cops.

The times are changing. And it seems the Police Departments are changing too. Not because of threats to their safety. But to the bottom line.

The St. Ann police department as one example mentioned in the article. Resisted and rejected demands from community activists. Told the police reform crowd to pound sand. Then the Insurance Company told them that the rates were going way up if they didn’t knock it off. The Chief was given a choice. Lose ten officers to afford the insurance. Or change. Change while unpleasant was a lot better than stubbornly losing nearly a quarter of his police force.

At least your nation tries to evolve, regardless of the reason.

 

[gipper]

At least your nation tries to evolve, regardless of the reason.

I don’t agree. Police departments aren’t changing because of public pressure or legislation by politicians, which should be the process were we a democratic republic. They are forced to change because of money.

I’ll take it, but it’s not the way things should work in the Land of the Free.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

We've seen such changes in police departments in major cities all across the country. The results? Violent crime up to 40% in some cities.

When you weaken the police, you strengthen the criminal element.

So what is the solution? Changing our lawsuit policies to a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for all costs of the defendant associated with the lawsuit.

You'd see how fast we'd stop this bullshit

 

[gipper]

We've seen such changes in police departments in major cities all across the country. The results? Violent crime up to 40% in some cities.

When you weaken the police, you strengthen the criminal element.

So what is the solution? Changing our lawsuit policies to a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for all costs of the defendant associated with the lawsuit.

You'd see how fast we'd stop this bullshit

Yeah we want cops to continue killing people because that prevents crime.

 

[SavannahMann]

We've seen such changes in police departments in major cities all across the country. The results? Violent crime up to 40% in some cities.

When you weaken the police, you strengthen the criminal element.

So what is the solution? Changing our lawsuit policies to a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose your case, you are responsible for all costs of the defendant associated with the lawsuit.

You'd see how fast we'd stop this bullshit

They have that in most states. The loser pays legal fees of the victor.

Remember to laughter of the Right over this gem?

Parents of Colorado shooting victim nearly bankrupt after failing to sue gun retailer used by James Holmes and getting stuck with its legal fees

For Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, losing their daughter Jessi in the horrific 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., was simply the beginning of their plight. While continuing to mourn Jessi, t…

www.nydailynews.com

So that already exists.

For more than two decades I’ve said that change was needed in law enforcement. I certainly wasn’t alone. I predicted cops getting prosecuted in large numbers. I warned that cops could lead the changes. Or they could get run over by the changes.

The cops and folks like you resisted any changes. Now the cops are being run over by the changes that are coming.

St. Ann the city taking most of the article I linked to. They have seen a dramatic reduction in arrests. But serious crimes have remained flat. Perhaps they just need more time to get those violent crimes up.

The problem with your assertion that honest and proper policing results in more crime is that the facts don’t seem to support the idea.

Chicago had the secret warehouse jail. Where they would transport prisoners and refuse the people the right to an attorney. Enhanced interrogations. In other words beating a confession out of the “Suspects” was allowed. And Chicago was never crime free.

During that entire time the folks like you blamed Democrats for the high crime. The cops were regularly breaking the rules. It didn’t make a noticeable difference.

So what does happen with aggressive cops? They roust and harass the people. And then a crime happens. The people don’t say shit. Why should they? The cops aren’t there to help. They are part of the problem.

So witnesses stay silent. Remember the outrage when the crowd stood around and watched a cop getting beaten in the subway? Most of those people were either harassed themselves. Or had family or friends harassed. Why risk themselves to help a cop who would be rousting them if he wasn’t getting his ass beaten.

The violence from prohibition wasn’t ended by violent aggressive cops. It was ended when prohibition was repealed.

The drug war proves my point. A cartel is busted up. And before the cops finish with the press conference crowing about their fantastic work. Another cartel is formed and it is even more violent and determined.

There is just too much money in the game for people to reject it.

How many cartels have been broken by cops and the military? A few dozen at least. More drugs than ever are flowing through our streets. Getting tough isn’t working. But we refuse to consider anything else. Hell it would be cheaper for the Government to buy all the drugs than it is for them to fight the problem. More effective too.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They have that in most states. The loser pays legal fees of the victor.

Remember to laughter of the Right over this gem?

Parents of Colorado shooting victim nearly bankrupt after failing to sue gun retailer used by James Holmes and getting stuck with its legal fees

For Lonnie and Sandy Phillips, losing their daughter Jessi in the horrific 2012 movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colo., was simply the beginning of their plight. While continuing to mourn Jessi, t…

www.nydailynews.com

So that already exists.

For more than two decades I’ve said that change was needed in law enforcement. I certainly wasn’t alone. I predicted cops getting prosecuted in large numbers. I warned that cops could lead the changes. Or they could get run over by the changes.

The cops and folks like you resisted any changes. Now the cops are being run over by the changes that are coming.

St. Ann the city taking most of the article I linked to. They have seen a dramatic reduction in arrests. But serious crimes have remained flat. Perhaps they just need more time to get those violent crimes up.

The problem with your assertion that honest and proper policing results in more crime is that the facts don’t seem to support the idea.

Chicago had the secret warehouse jail. Where they would transport prisoners and refuse the people the right to an attorney. Enhanced interrogations. In other words beating a confession out of the “Suspects” was allowed. And Chicago was never crime free.

During that entire time the folks like you blamed Democrats for the high crime. The cops were regularly breaking the rules. It didn’t make a noticeable difference.

So what does happen with aggressive cops? They roust and harass the people. And then a crime happens. The people don’t say shit. Why should they? The cops aren’t there to help. They are part of the problem.

So witnesses stay silent. Remember the outrage when the crowd stood around and watched a cop getting beaten in the subway? Most of those people were either harassed themselves. Or had family or friends harassed. Why risk themselves to help a cop who would be rousting them if he wasn’t getting his ass beaten.

The violence from prohibition wasn’t ended by violent aggressive cops. It was ended when prohibition was repealed.

The drug war proves my point. A cartel is busted up. And before the cops finish with the press conference crowing about their fantastic work. Another cartel is formed and it is even more violent and determined.

There is just too much money in the game for people to reject it.

How many cartels have been broken by cops and the military? A few dozen at least. More drugs than ever are flowing through our streets. Getting tough isn’t working. But we refuse to consider anything else. Hell it would be cheaper for the Government to buy all the drugs than it is for them to fight the problem. More effective too.

For one your link is a paywall, two, I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Right now cities across the country are having a hard time recruiting new police officers. The one time most desired job in the country is now the least desired job. I know, my city has been looking for new officers for the past year, and have few applicants. But it's happening all across the country. Satan is winning the war now.

Violent crimes on the rise in 2022, following previous unprecedented spike in murders

Data from major cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Washington, D.C, show there has been an increase in violent crimes this year compared to 2021.

www.foxnews.com

A Violent Crisis (Published 2022)

The Brooklyn shooting and other headline-making violence are part of a broader trend.

www.nytimes.com

Los Angeles Murders Are Up 35% in Two Years as Gun Violence Surges

www.bloomberg.com

Veteran officers are taking early retirement while those still working are leaving the profession or heading away from the big cities. As liberal law makers write policies that favor the criminal at the disadvantage of our police officers, they finally say to hell with it and give up. In San Francisco shoplifting is a misdemeanor unless the criminal steals more than $1000,00 of merchandise. The police won't even come out in many cases. It's so bad that all the Walgreen's closed up in the area because again, when you invite crime to your city, you're going to have more crime.

Police Officers Calling It Quits, Retiring Early at Alarming Rate

Police officers across the nation are turning in their badges at an alarming rate.

www.nbcbayarea.com

Cedar-Riverside residents say they feel the effects of MPD officer shortage - MinnPost

Residents say people openly sell and use drugs, lamenting that when they call in the criminal activity, the dealers are gone by the time the officers arrive.

www.minnpost.com

Police face rise in crime amid shortage of officers

Police forces struggle to recruit and keep officers.

spectrumlocalnews.com

 

[SavannahMann]

For one your link is a paywall, two, I don't buy into conspiracy theories.

Right now cities across the country are having a hard time recruiting new police officers. The one time most desired job in the country is now the least desired job. I know, my city has been looking for new officers for the past year, and have few applicants. But it's happening all across the country. Satan is winning the war now.

Violent crimes on the rise in 2022, following previous unprecedented spike in murders

Data from major cities such as Baltimore, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Seattle and Washington, D.C, show there has been an increase in violent crimes this year compared to 2021.

www.foxnews.com

A Violent Crisis (Published 2022)

The Brooklyn shooting and other headline-making violence are part of a broader trend.

www.nytimes.com

Los Angeles Murders Are Up 35% in Two Years as Gun Violence Surges

www.bloomberg.com

Veteran officers are taking early retirement while those still working are leaving the profession or heading away from the big cities. As liberal law makers write policies that favor the criminal at the disadvantage of our police officers, they finally say to hell with it and give up. In San Francisco shoplifting is a misdemeanor unless the criminal steals more than $1000,00 of merchandise. The police won't even come out in many cases. It's so bad that all the Walgreen's closed up in the area because again, when you invite crime to your city, you're going to have more crime.

Police Officers Calling It Quits, Retiring Early at Alarming Rate

Police officers across the nation are turning in their badges at an alarming rate.

www.nbcbayarea.com

Cedar-Riverside residents say they feel the effects of MPD officer shortage - MinnPost

Residents say people openly sell and use drugs, lamenting that when they call in the criminal activity, the dealers are gone by the time the officers arrive.

www.minnpost.com

Police face rise in crime amid shortage of officers

Police forces struggle to recruit and keep officers.

spectrumlocalnews.com

The truth is that a lot of factors are contributing to those trends. Let’s start with the easy one. Money. It costs a lot of money to lock up anyone these days.

California. It costs $112,000 for each prisoner per year in the state prison. And that isn’t money spent on luxury anything.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article251853703.html

This is a breakdown of the spending.

State Correctional Spending Increased Despite Significant Population Reductions

In this brief, we find that the major reasons why CDCR’s costs did not decline in line with the substantial decrease in the populations are: (1) costly operational changes to comply with various federal court orders, (2) increased employee compensation costs, and (3) the payment of costs that...

lao.ca.gov

Most of the money is spent on staff. Guards and such. Additionally compliance with Federal Orders such as the overcrowding limit of 137.5%.

So California is spending more than $10 billion dollars on prisons alone. Let that number sink in for a moment. A single state is spending more than ten billion dollars on prisons.

That doesn’t include jails. And that cost is managed by the cities and counties.

More than 5% of the California budget is spent on prisons and paroles. And there are a lot of other things to spend money on isn’t there? Roads and bridges. Education. The list is long and each one is important.

A new prison to hold more people. That’s going to cost a small fortune. In Nebraska it is estimated to cost some $230 million for a new 1,200 bed prison. That doesn’t hire any staff. You know guards and such. That just builds the structure. Hell it costs twice or three times that in reality. To acquire the land. Fight the lawsuits of people who don’t want the prison to be built there. The process could go on for years.

You are focusing on the first step of the process. The shortage of police. The policies that are letting shoplifters go.

That is only the first part of the problem. So let’s start with the shoplifter. You arrest the guy and take him to jail. As you are booking him in overcrowding means you have to be letting someone else go. A wife beater. Or a guy who was carrying a concealed weapon illegally. In other words. Much more serious crooks.

For every person who goes in. One has to be let out. And this is just the jail.

After a few days you are going to let the shoplifter go. Because he’s now served more time than he would get in a couple years when his case goes to trial. You have finite hours of prosecutors. You have finite space to work with to hold the crooks. And you have a court that is backed up for years in advance.

If you went forward. In a couple years the guy is going to stand before the judge. Even if he’s found guilty his week or so of pre trial detainment is going to be considered time served. He is going to be found guilty and walk out a free man.

California argued before the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to house more prisoners. The Supreme Court said no.



So the choices are build more prisons. That’s not going to happen. Let the more serious offenders go to hold minor criminals. Not a good idea. Or try and focus on the more serious crimes.

It is the same game you played in school when you would take your notional income and attempt to create a household budget. Only this is writ large.

The problems in California, New York, and really everywhere are the same. Too many people in jails and prisons. Too much money to keep them there.

So the simple answer of getting tough on crime can’t work. We don’t have the jail space. We don’t have the prisons to hold them. We just don’t have it. We don’t have the jails or prisons available.

So what can we do? How do we fix this? Where do we hold the crooks that your cops arrest?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The truth is that a lot of factors are contributing to those trends. Let’s start with the easy one. Money. It costs a lot of money to lock up anyone these days.

California. It costs $112,000 for each prisoner per year in the state prison. And that isn’t money spent on luxury anything.

https://amp.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/the-state-worker/article251853703.html

This is a breakdown of the spending.

State Correctional Spending Increased Despite Significant Population Reductions

In this brief, we find that the major reasons why CDCR’s costs did not decline in line with the substantial decrease in the populations are: (1) costly operational changes to comply with various federal court orders, (2) increased employee compensation costs, and (3) the payment of costs that...

lao.ca.gov

Most of the money is spent on staff. Guards and such. Additionally compliance with Federal Orders such as the overcrowding limit of 137.5%.

So California is spending more than $10 billion dollars on prisons alone. Let that number sink in for a moment. A single state is spending more than ten billion dollars on prisons.

That doesn’t include jails. And that cost is managed by the cities and counties.

More than 5% of the California budget is spent on prisons and paroles. And there are a lot of other things to spend money on isn’t there? Roads and bridges. Education. The list is long and each one is important.

A new prison to hold more people. That’s going to cost a small fortune. In Nebraska it is estimated to cost some $230 million for a new 1,200 bed prison. That doesn’t hire any staff. You know guards and such. That just builds the structure. Hell it costs twice or three times that in reality. To acquire the land. Fight the lawsuits of people who don’t want the prison to be built there. The process could go on for years.

You are focusing on the first step of the process. The shortage of police. The policies that are letting shoplifters go.

That is only the first part of the problem. So let’s start with the shoplifter. You arrest the guy and take him to jail. As you are booking him in overcrowding means you have to be letting someone else go. A wife beater. Or a guy who was carrying a concealed weapon illegally. In other words. Much more serious crooks.

For every person who goes in. One has to be let out. And this is just the jail.

After a few days you are going to let the shoplifter go. Because he’s now served more time than he would get in a couple years when his case goes to trial. You have finite hours of prosecutors. You have finite space to work with to hold the crooks. And you have a court that is backed up for years in advance.

If you went forward. In a couple years the guy is going to stand before the judge. Even if he’s found guilty his week or so of pre trial detainment is going to be considered time served. He is going to be found guilty and walk out a free man.

California argued before the Supreme Court that they should be allowed to house more prisoners. The Supreme Court said no.



So the choices are build more prisons. That’s not going to happen. Let the more serious offenders go to hold minor criminals. Not a good idea. Or try and focus on the more serious crimes.

It is the same game you played in school when you would take your notional income and attempt to create a household budget. Only this is writ large.

The problems in California, New York, and really everywhere are the same. Too many people in jails and prisons. Too much money to keep them there.

So the simple answer of getting tough on crime can’t work. We don’t have the jail space. We don’t have the prisons to hold them. We just don’t have it. We don’t have the jails or prisons available.

So what can we do? How do we fix this? Where do we hold the crooks that your cops arrest?

So how much does it cost the state (such as NY and Cali) when people and businesses move out because of the crime? Tax money comes from tax payers. The less tax payers, tax paying businesses, the less tax collections.

When crime gets bad enough, property values go down. The lower the property value, the lower property taxes you pay.

So there's all kinds of ways to look at this, but the bottom line is if you allow the criminals to take over the state, good hard working people and businesses leave like what's going on in SF. Even the railroads have had it. When trains stop, the cars are broken into and merchandise stolen. Amazon boxes are strewn all along the tracks for thousands of feet. I don't know what or if the state earns on trains going through the state, but I'm sure it's something because California is really worried about it.

A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. But there are no deterrents in places like NY or Cali. Take that Bodega worker in NYC for instance. The woman exhausted her funds on her SNAP's card so he pulled the bag of chips she wanted to buy away from her. She ran out and got her ex-con boyfriend to settle the score and this worthless piece of garbage started to beat up this 63 year old Cuban immigrant. He stabbed the customers BF in the neck with a knife in self-defense. Commie states don't recognize self-defense as an excuse so they arrested the worker for murder.

If anything, that's the place to start. Start making laws that favor law abiding citizens and against the criminal element.

 

[dblack]

I don’t agree. Police departments aren’t changing because of public pressure or legislation by politicians, which should be the process were we a democratic republic. They are forced to change because of money.

I’ll take it, but it’s not the way things should work in the Land of the Free.

Actually, in a free society, money is supposed to have more influence over society than government. That's by design.

 

[TNHarley]

Actually, in a free society, money is supposed to have more influence over society than government. That's by design.

LEOs are the govt. They should never be able to have the power they do, to begin with.

 

[miketx]

So when the police have insurance more brutality will follow. Hey we're insured so I can beat your ass for free!

 

[gipper]

Actually, in a free society, money is supposed to have more influence over society than government. That's by design.

It certainly is by design in this country. Money is everything. If you don’t have much of it, you are royally fucked.

 

[SavannahMann]

So how much does it cost the state (such as NY and Cali) when people and businesses move out because of the crime? Tax money comes from tax payers. The less tax payers, tax paying businesses, the less tax collections.

When crime gets bad enough, property values go down. The lower the property value, the lower property taxes you pay.

So there's all kinds of ways to look at this, but the bottom line is if you allow the criminals to take over the state, good hard working people and businesses leave like what's going on in SF. Even the railroads have had it. When trains stop, the cars are broken into and merchandise stolen. Amazon boxes are strewn all along the tracks for thousands of feet. I don't know what or if the state earns on trains going through the state, but I'm sure it's something because California is really worried about it.

A strong enough deterrent works every time it's tried. But there are no deterrents in places like NY or Cali. Take that Bodega worker in NYC for instance. The woman exhausted her funds on her SNAP's card so he pulled the bag of chips she wanted to buy away from her. She ran out and got her ex-con boyfriend to settle the score and this worthless piece of garbage started to beat up this 63 year old Cuban immigrant. He stabbed the customers BF in the neck with a knife in self-defense. Commie states don't recognize self-defense as an excuse so they arrested the worker for murder.

If anything, that's the place to start. Start making laws that favor law abiding citizens and against the criminal element.

I’m going to have to get busy writing those history books. Ones that show Deterrence worked every time. If that was the case, World War One and Two would never have happened. But hey, we can look at crime alone. And if Deterrence worked, then Prohibition would still be the law of the land wouldn’t it?

You are arguing that no matter the cost, we must do this. Then how much are you willing to pay in taxes? Because all of this stuff cost a ton of money. Let me guess, nothing. You just want to shift the money from a sector you don’t agree with. Imagining that billions of dollars will appear like magic when you shut down whatever other programs you want to.

California, we could shift the money from Wildfire protections. Let the state burn.

A few million dollars is shifted, and nothing changes, because that few million wouldn’t even be enough to house more criminals, because they don’t have the prisons now to house all they want to.

It isn’t one thing. It’s never one thing. You can’t just say we need more cops and that will solve the problem. Because then you have at most the revolving door you will moan about how criminals are released almost immediately. Why? Because we don’t have enough jail space. So we need more jails to hold the accused crooks. Before their trials. Great. Where will we get the billions we need to build new jails? Then we need more prisons. A fifteen hundred bed prison will cost another half a billion. And it will take a decade to build because we have to deal with lawsuits from all those good conservative people who don’t want a prison in their back yards.

And the Democrats are just as bad there. I know the story of Ted Kennedy and the wind farm. Enough said.

So in a decade or so, we will be able to house another fifteen hundred convicted criminals. What do we do with them otherwise?

And if deterrence was the answer, the idiot Sheriff and his tent city jail would have cut crime dramatically. It never dropped other than a tiny little blip. Albuquerque remained about the same crime wise.

But that is what happens. So if we can’t house everyone we want to, we have to pick and choose.

Now, the obvious answer is to figure out how to choose. You want them all locked up. We can’t. We don’t have the facilities. So who gets locked up? Murderers? Kidnappers? Rapists, Armed Robbers? Drug Dealers? All felons, and all serious criminals. Now, we get down to the misdemeanors. Well shit, we don’t have much space left for them. I guess we could turn a couple drug dealers and armed robbers loose.

You are treating this like that idiotic joke. We can keep twice the canaries in the truck if we keep half of them flying.

You don’t answer the question. Where do we keep these criminals you are determined to lock up? You don’t answer the question because all you want to focus on is the first phase. The cops on the street. The cops don’t want deterrence.

A city in California wanted to discuss their police policies and practices. They hired an expert. I know the fellow. He has 30 years experience in Prisons, including being a warden of a prison. The city had riots about every day in jail. He helped them get those down. Riots are bad for the prisoners, and worse for the guards. Because the guards get hurt, or killed, or are taken hostage.

Then it was policing. My friend got the cops to open a sub station in a strip mall which was high crime. Sure enough, crime dropped. And the cops hated it. They hated hanging around, they detested walking the beat in the surrounding neighborhood. They wanted to chase people, and catch people. So the substation was shut down after a year, and crime skyrocketed again.

Tell the cops to go back to walking a beat. They’ll quit.

Around me, the highest paid cops are the State Police and the Port Authority Police. A lot of cops try and get on at the Port Authority. Most of them quit within two years. It’s boring. Nothing but reports and checking ID cards. Accident reports, injury reports, and all that. It’s boring. And they crave the action. You can argue that they are deterring crime, but they don’t want that. They want to chase people.

Those gung-ho cops are the problem. They don’t show restraint when using force, and they get the department sued. They get cases thrown out for abuse and brutality. They get the criminal free. They get bad press for the department, and they get their fellow officers in trouble.

The reforms driven by the Insurance Companies is to get rid of those gung ho types. Get rid of them, and change the policies to reflect a more common sense approach.

St. Ann as I said in the OP, has enacted these reforms reluctantly. They have a lot fewer arrests, but the crime rate remains the same. No uptick in violent crime. None.

Reform means looking at alternatives, and finding ways to do the job better.

The cops who are quitting, are probably those violent cops who get the departments sued. The ones who won’t learn and won’t do the job the way it is supposed to be done.

 

[dblack]

It certainly is by design in this country. Money is everything. If you don’t have much of it, you are royally fucked.

It's safer than state power. No matter how much money he has, Jeff Bezos can't force a single thing on me. Biden can.

 

[Anathema]

Given the option between a Woke PD or NO PD , I’ll take NO PD, thank you very much.

 

[dblack]

I've been very adamant in opposing the trend to privatize public risk (primarily efforts to force people to get insurance - car insurance, health insurance, gun owner insurance, etc ....). But I don't necessarily have a problem with this issue. If a city wants a band of violent goons for their police, such that it puts them at greater risk of being sued, and subsequently causes their insurance rates to go up. Ok. How's that a bad thing? Seems like a reasonable check on unreasonable state power.

 

[gipper]

It's safer than state power. No matter how much money he has, Jeff Bezos can't force a single thing on me. Biden can.

That matters not. Bezos has enormous political power, as do all the billionaires. Hardly fair in the land of the free and all men are created equal.

 

[dblack]

That matters not. Bezos has enormous political power, as do all the billionaires. Hardly fair in the land of the free and all men are created equal.

The "created equal" thing means we all have equal rights. It doesn't mean we all have equal power in society.

 

[gipper]

The "created equal" thing means we all have equal rights. It doesn't mean we all have equal power in society.

If you think you and I have the same rights as Bezos, I’ve got a bridge I’ll sell you real cheap.