If we can get AI further into this process, we can fully launder all responsibility from the humans ordering these.

There is a fix to it. Elect people who will hold them accountable.

As long as you keep electing clowns that let the police do whatever they want, the police will... Do whatever they want.

Yeah, of course they need to held accountable, and we need to vote in people who will do so. What I'm suggesting is an alignment of incentives that will ensure that police will try to do their best to not be negligent.

Of course there's a balance that has to be struck so that police are empowered enough to act. So perhaps something like settlements against the police being 30% borne by the police pension fund and 70% by taxpayers is sufficient. I think this will also make police very enthusiastic about bodycams and holding each other accountable.

I'm usually a big supporter of labor unions, but police unions in the US generally have an outsized amount of power, and even when mayors etc. want to hold police accountable, the union ends up bending the mayor over a barrel.

I'm not sure what the solution is here. Forbid police from unionizing? That would probably have some bad consequences too.

Malpractice insurance

despite this being something practically everybody wants, the fact that it hasn't happened is not a coincidence and speaks to the power of police unions/guilds and their lobbying arms. outside a few toothless instances, those groups are extremely good at reframing these attempts and mobilizing their bases to vote against the broader public interest.

it sucks.

> despite this being something practically everybody wants,

No, everybody does not want police accountability. Half the population will fall on a grenade to prevent that. They know that the purpose of the police is to keep the undesirables in line, and they never envision that they will ever fall in that category.

The brutality is the point for them.

oh, i generally don't disagree with you on that point; i specifically meant that when presented with the question "do you want your tax dollars to pay for police liabilities?" the answer is probably almost always "no".

Sure. But when you ask "Do you want the police to be unable to do their job and live in a lawless hellscape ran by gangbangers and ISIS cartels?, the answer is also 'No.'

The problem is that the mass media sets the framing of acceptable discourse, and that mass media is in large part an ideological monoculture. And even when it's not, it is happy to present absolutely insane batshit lunacy as 'one of the two sides' of an issue.

yeah - i think the media is certainly culpable, but i also think this speaks to the power of police unions like i mentioned earlier. media is happy to present stories presented to them on silver platters by "respected" institutions because they carry all the hallmarks of legitimacy.

They do, but letting mob rule decide criminal sanction is beyond fucked. See: Any discussion thread of literally any criminal being sentenced, receiving parole, or better yet, committing any crime after being released for serving a different one.

Its almost like they are sick of people commiting crimes.

Nuclear weapons are a MAD red line that will result in total annihilation of the attacker. They are only useful in a defensive capacity.

This kind of aggression, however, does seem to make their value as a deterrent clear.

Observe how nobody is fucking with North Korea like they did with Iraq or Venezuela.

> Nuclear weapons are a MAD red line that will result in total annihilation of the attacker. They are only useful in a defensive capacity.

Also in a "if I'm going down, everyone else is going down with me", which is Ian's strategy in this war (for good reasons). If the IRGC had nukes, and was severely threatened (like, killing the Supreme Leader and threatening to kill all of the replacements until they bend to the US/Israel will), they might have decided to go out "with style".

Yes, but the whole point of having nukes as a deterrent is that the US wouldn't have arbitrarily killed their leader in the first place. "If i'm going down, everyone else is going down" is the feature, not a bug.

To be clear I don't like the idea of MAD one bit. But this is indeed how it's meant to work.

Isn't this exactly what the Samson Option represents?

I'm sure that if Iran had the backing of the Western world, and had their surplus of armaments funneled it's way, it would be bombing army bases and refineries and airfields and factories and port facilities in the US.

Unlike Ukraine, it does not, so it seems to be focusing on cyber vandalism and blowing up oil infrastructure in US vassal states, and other low-cost, high-ROI activities.

Relatively speaking, I don't care about oil facilities or cyber-vandalism, I care about school children and hospitals and sick people.

You get something far worse in the US. Which is a government that no longer feels any need to either pass or be bound by laws.

Ah yes, the country whose supreme court struck down its global tariffs and then forced the federal government into refunding all the money back is truly no longer bound by its own laws.

Did the government pass any laws to steal those 130 billion dollars from Americans? I can't recall that it did.

Are there any consequences for the people who did it?

The government has long ceased to govern by law. It now governs from the bench, and from executive order, because laws are too troublesome to actually pass.

America operates on a strong executive common law system not whatever system you are imagining.

I took business law more than a decade ago and the professor basically said do what you want (money wise) if you can pay for it. This is the English legal system and is how it's always worked. Liability is purely monetary and the law only applies to those who can show standing to do anything about it.

Hyperbole beyond belief there

That mechanism exists, it's called congress, the problem is that half the country is dancing in the streets over this.

Or at least, it's going to vote the fuckers doing this in again in November.

When subpoenaed, you'd be obligated to tell the court who you gave the knife to.

But if you'd like to tell the fall, I'm sure some prosecutors wouldn't dig too hard to find the guilty party.

It seems in this case they’re not asking, they’re accusing and saying I need to prove otherwise. I think that is substantively different

Edit: subpoena is not a criminal charge afaik is what I’m saying

If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty of theft.

If they used the car with your permission, you should either be responsible for what they do with it, or be able to point to the person who was using it.

> If someone used the car without permission, they are guilty of theft.

Sure, but I still don't know who they are, so I can't give their name over for either investigating the theft or reassigning the speeding/red light/parking fine.

Except that requiring you to testify in order to absolve yourself of guilt violates your Fifth Amendment right not to testify in a trial against you. It is up to the government to prove you did something, not up to you to prove you didn’t.

You can not testify all you want, but you should still be on the hook for your vehicle getting tickets, just like you are on the hook for your vehicle accruing toll fees.

If your car was magically stolen and returned, and you have no idea that it happened, or who could have done this... Well, that's certainly an interesting legal argument that you could make to a judge. I doubt he'll believe you.

In the old days it certainly happened. Joyriding. Take someone's vehicle for a spin, put it back. Illegal but nowhere near as serious a penalty. Car security systems have gotten a lot better since then.

What's the alternative? No rules at all? Immediate death penalty for anyone who runs a red in front of a cop? Seizing and auctioning off the car? Deporting the offender to Texas? Something else? Revoke their license?

Wow dude. Calm down.

"What's the alternative?". Maybe a more thoughtful law.

Perhaps a scaled fine system? (The second fine costs 2x the first fine, the third fine costs 3x the first fine, etc)

Maybe after 10 fines you get a point on your license?

Maybe the state has to prove it was you driving so they setup more (but discreet) cameras at intersections?

I say we set the delay to red and green to be 0 state wide and use the cameras to fine people who don't start moving within a short amount of time after they get green.

Betcha red light running drops like a rock after that.