There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

notannpc ,

Considering they paid out, I feel like the headline should say “people who were framed by cops”. The time for ambiguity was before the judge awarded these victims their money.

massacre ,

You’ve really hit the most salient point here. The payouts and making cops financially liable is all good discourse, but they really buried the lede. If Chicago has payed out almost 3/4 of a Billion in 23 years to people cops have framed, think of just how systemic this corruption is. I mean, I imagine some payouts might be pretty big, but you’re talking hundreds, probably thousands of incidents! That makes it pretty much part of the job if it’s happening that frequently.

blazera ,
@blazera@kbin.social avatar

Its money that was awarded in court rulings, its disingenuous to call it 'people who say they were framed'. Its people that were in fact framed.

Froyn ,

If cities were corporations and citizens were shareholders, we'd have sweeping reform overnight.

Froyn ,

If cities were corporations and citizens were shareholders, we'd have sweeping reform overnight.

theodewere ,
@theodewere@kbin.social avatar

that's a lot of money to spend on shitty policing

Nougat ,

That's just shy of $30.5M each year.

SeaJ ,

Surprisingly Jon Burge is only a small chunk of that.

dlpkl ,

Make. Police. Financially. Liable.

Cosmonauticus ,

Make them licensed too

reddig33 ,

If they had to carry “malpractice” insurance (even if through their union) it would become self-correcting. Any payouts would come from that, and not tax money. Can’t get insured? Can’t get hired. Driving up union dues? Can’t get hired.

EatYouWell ,

That’s kinda how it works now, except the city’s are usually the one with the policy.

partial_accumen ,

That’s kinda how it works now,

If officers or the union were paying the insurance premiums then taxpayers wouldn’t be paying $700m as the headline claims. So its not how its working now if the city is paying.

except the city’s are usually the one with the policy.

And that’s TWO problems. The city shouldn’t be paying the insurance, and each officer should have their own policy. One bad officer’s claims should not affect the premiums paid by good officers.

EatYouWell ,

I don’t disagree with you at all. I’m just pointing out that the settlement money doesn’t come directly from the city’s budget.

partial_accumen ,

settlement money doesn’t come directly from the city’s budget.

You’re suggesting only the insurance company pays all of this?

Insurance companies don’t operate at losses by design. If Chicago isn’t paying more than this in premiums already, they will soon. Its still the city/taxpayers that pay eventually instead of the officers or union.

Froyn ,

Licensed and BONDED.

EatYouWell ,

No, make the unions. Then they won’t protect corrupt cops.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •