It's an unpleasant story, but the ending seems OK.
Cops play the role of corporate lackey (like they do everywhere, in the USA and everywhere else), treat citizen badly, with probable significant racist component, and end up shooting him with a taser and arresting him. All bad so far.
But then he sues, and they settle for $100,000.00.
That's pretty much how that story should end.
Officers Lori Hayne, Michael Johnson and Bruce Schmidt, who not only used excessive force but also perjured themselves in their official reports, paid not one penny of that settlement, faced no criminal charges, and didn't even have any adverse employment consequences.
So long as we refuse to hold police officers responsible for their actions they will continue to act as though they are above the law. Because they are.
But in a legitimate democracy, the citizenry cannot be "victimized" by "public servants that don't serve them".
If you hire some servants, and those servants don't serve you, and you don't get some new servants... whose fault is that?
But you're right on the essential point: the democratically elected government (== citizenry) involved here is paying an arguably reasonable price, but the individuals responsible probably are not.
so who's fault is that? usually not the victim. or at least the most direct victim, since obviously, society as a whole is hurt by this sort of thing (just not as much as the person who's wrongly harassed/injured/killed by the cops).
but maybe your point stands, because is that really a "legitimate democracy"?
Restitution, legally, covers monetary losses. It should not be taken to mean that all is well when the bills are paid. You can't pay away a black eye.
Not really. The police decided to act like corporate lackeys and TAX PAYERS paid a $40,000 settlement to a person who was physically injured by their misconduct. There are several ways this story should end that are not that
1) the settlement should not cost the tax payers money
2) the cops, or at least the property owner, should pay the settlement
3) those officers should not be officers anymore AND they should be held to some level of personal responsibility for their actions
4) there should be consequences for the police brutally attacking someone who asserts their (legal in MN) right not to identify themselves to police officers
Second, if officers are forced to seek out indemnification on the open market these policies will be underwritten. Bad risks will be forced off the job through unaffordable policies. Whereas blanket indemnification by the taxpayer has no selection effect at all.
Maybe market magic would be more efficient, I doubt that in practice it would particularly show up.
I also wonder if cutting the above market clearing compensation would come for free, or if there are real reasons for it.
Edit to add: also, notice that you've addressed something different than what I said; you argue that it could cost less, not that the public would avoid paying.
Here's a law review article that reports the results of a national study on police officer indemnification: http://www.nyulawreview.org/sites/default/files/pdf/NYULawRe...
My study reveals that police officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct.
In what percentage of cases would you guess that automobile insurance premiums rise where a driver is found liable for an incident and the insurance company is forced to pay out?
So sure, there's a good possibility that requiring police to carry individual liability insurance would lower costs. The public would still ultimately fund the premiums on that insurance.
What would happen if the cop responsible for the act could not cover the settlement money ?
The one affected by brutality would be doubly screwed.
The Police as a whole should be held accountable, and victims should be ensured compensation, they are by all accounts being brutalized by the state, and the state is run with taxpayers money.
Agreeing with the rest though.
Malpractice insurance?
This insures that the city who is guilty of hiring the miscreant ends up with the onerous duty of collection and the victim is compensated hastily.
What happens to normal mortals when they can't pay their debts. Are policemen really so much above the law that they don't have to pay their debts either?
Then you seize their property and sell it until there's enough to cover the settlement. Just like any other debtor. If they don't have enough property, you seize portions of their income.
Should a debt ordered by a court due to deliberately taking actions that harm another be treated differently than a debt occurred through a consensual transaction? If so, could the courts be given more power to seize resources (not just money) from the one owing the debt?
There are a lot of things that I would consider immoral to do to recover a debt that results from a consensual transactions that I wouldn't view as immoral to do to recover a debt incurred by criminal actions.
yes. that. that seems so obvious, but it also never seems to be the way things actually play out.
Maybe a better ending would move the needle at least slightly in favor of preventing this kind of thing in the future.
Among several things that ought to happen in an ideal world, perhaps we could give non-lawyers clarity on what is a public or private space: If a corporate tenant wants to regulate a private space this way, it has to clearly separate it from the public with some specification of doors, gates, etc. Otherwise, it will be considered public in a conflict like this one.