Now you are REALLY dating yourself. Dude, there's no such thing in school these days as "Social Studies." And if there is, it is nothing like what it meant back then. You, Mr Cat, are from the time when there were four simple subjects in school. "Math" "Science", English", and "Social Studies/History". Oh, and P.E., but that was just BS President Council on Physical Fitness from the Eisenhower/Johnson/JFK blowhards. Assholes.
If these mass lawsuits were working as a deterrent I'm not seeing the evidence. MN has a population of 5.6 people. Now everybody in the state has to give the Floyd family $5? Doesn't make a lot of sense. He was 46 years old. There's a life expectancy of 79 at that age. Even if you gave them $150k/year that's about $5 million. With this lawsuit you're holding all citizens of MN responsible.
If you are a logical person, then you realize that there's something you're not getting. Again, research for yourself what you're missing, if you want. Btw, you've made a typical logical fallacy: We don't know "how the lawsuits" are working, without going back in time and seeing what would happen without "the lawsuits." IOW, we don't, and can't, know whether things would be worse without the lawsuits.
You would see a decline if they were working as intended. Just as the death penalty doesn't deter murder, these lawsuits don't deter cops from making poor decisions. Most people have the "it won't happen to me" mentality.
Again, even if you don't see a decline; how do you know that it wouldn't have been worse without "the lawsuits?" And if it would have been worse without "the lawsuits," then the lawsuits made things better. They made the alleged increase less that it would have been. Do you not comprehend this logic? I picked this up about you; this is why I chose not to explain the theory behind the lawsuits to you. I now see I am also wasting my time even explaining to you the simple concept that we can't know how things would be without lawsuits; because we can't go back in time to find out. Believe as you wish.
I get your logic. There's no way to isolate the situations. Like many situations in politics, there's no definite conclusion. Hence political debate is logical. However, it's as if you're suggesting we need to go solely on theory. I don't think we should ignore all data, because it doesn't follow the scientific method. It never does in economics.
I agree to some degree. The voters are too stupid to realize payouts are coming out of their pockets and then go demand change at the voting booth so the system isn't working as intended. The payout system needs to be funded by police pension plans and department funding in order to see real reform. This is how you defund the police into real change.
Great. Don't take so long to think logically next time. This is true in most, if not all, situations. All debates aren't logical. And all debaters aren't logical. What theory did I suggest we go on? Where did I suggest we ignore data? What data are you referring to?
This doesn't work. Innocent cops rely on the pension as well, and would be unduly punished. What will gutting the police budget do as a result of a huge award/settlement? It will force the tax payers to cover anyway. Same situation we have now. Just as the banking system can't be allowed to fail; neither will policing be allowed to fail. And neither will the fire department. And neither will healthcare. Get the picture?
Folks, Police Chiefs are elected, or appointed. If they are appointed, they are appointed by an elected official. IOW, The tax payers are ultimately responsible, directly, or indirectly, for the actions of their police departments. If residents don't want to pay large settlements/awards for police brutality, then the onus is on them to do something about it.