cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/15313778

Officers showed up at the home and found a man struggling with a woman over a knife. An officer opened fire and struck the man, killing him at the scene. Only later did they discover the man who was killed lived at the home and was struggling to fend off the woman who had broken into his home.

Police say Brandon Durham, 43, had called 911 and reported multiple people outside his home shooting, then told the 911 operator that someone had entered his home through the front and back doors and he was locking himself in the bathroom.

He also told the 911 operator that he was home with his 15-year-old daughter, according to police. Officers kicked open the door after arriving on scene and hearing someone screaming as well as damage to vehicles parked outside the property, police said.

  • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Yup.
    Each officer needs to be personally accountable or this will never change. They need to be charged for the crime they commit.

    But yeah, i know I’m just preaching to the choir. Everyone knows what’s going one. It’s frustrating.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 hours ago

      Not happening, until qualified immunity is revoked. Did you know of the ~38k firearm deaths a year (yes including suicide). Approximately 1k of them a year are via police?

    • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      18 hours ago

      I like the idea of requiring indemnity insurance. Preferably paid for by the city.

      Bad cops get higher rates; horrible cops get dropped because it’s too expensive to maintain.

      (Similar to malpractice insurance required for doctors and surgeons.)

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        14 hours ago

        I agree except for the “paid by the city” part. That would mean that the tax payers foot the bill for them.

        Much better to make cop “unions” pay for it so they actually have to use their vast funds on something other than protecting criminals in uniform from the consequences of their actions for a change.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          14 hours ago

          That’s always going to be true, though. All you would be doing is making the job suck a bit more. (Or they get a pay hike to compensate.)

          All you would be accomplishing is making it that much harder to get done. Once the insurance is in place, then you can start taking the excess payments out of the cops pockets, (and reward the well behaved cops with a bonus, since they’d presumably get a discount,)

          The first step is to get the insurance done, though.

          • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            12 hours ago

            you would be doing is making the job suck a bit more

            Fine by me. There are far too many cops. The ones most motivated by money and impunity quitting because they’re being held criminally and financially responsible for their crimes is the mother of all win–wins in my book 🤷

            Or they get a pay hike to compensate.

            Not likely since wage per cop is the one police expense that the center right to fascist spectrum of municipal governments don’t want to increase.

            Besides, cop “unions” aren’t ACTUAL unions that are funded mostly via union dues. They’re political pressure groups funded mostly by donations from the rich people whose property cops exist to protect from the masses.

            All you would be accomplishing is making it that much harder to get done

            Not really, no. Can’t get harder than impossible and the future politicians who would be willing to do it all would be just as willing to do it my way as yours, if not more. Let’s not commit the classic neoliberal mistake of making unacceptable concessions before we even start negotiating.

            Once the insurance is in place, then you can start taking the excess payments out of the cops pockets

            Yeah no, that’s not how it works. At least not when we still have Neoliberals in charge. They’ll do a tenth of what people ask for and then declare the matter settled forever.

            Real transformative change doesn’t happen in tiny bits. There’s always regressiveness chipping away at progress, leading to it all fallen to the ratchet principle if we don’t go far enough on the first try.

            Incrementalism isn’t the “reasonable” path. It’s the path of least resistance from the owner donors who corrupt politicians care the most about to the detriment of everyone else.

            and reward the well behaved cops

            Don’t forget the unicorns and the good billionaires! 🙄

            • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              7 hours ago

              Fine by me. There are far too many cops. The ones most motivated by money and impunity quitting because they’re being held criminally and financially responsible for their crimes is the mother of all win–wins in my book 🤷

              1. actually, there’s not enough cops. That’s part of the problem. Most departments are running shitloads of overtime to make minimum staffing.

              This affects on duty behavior in a lot of ways. Tired cops make mistakes, they fuck up. They’re irritable. Sleep deprivation makes you stupid.

              Being short staffed also means they’re not available for continuing training, which takes a back seat to things like actually doing cop stuff, being in court, report writing.

              1. being short staffed means leadership is unwilling to put in the effort necessary to fire the worst offenders. They literally need every warm body they can get.

              And sure, you could reduce the minimum staffing levels; but then you start having problems where cops are going from volatile domestics to answering phone calls because a cat was shitting in someone’s flowerbed and dispatch didn’t realize it was just a cat, or never mind simply having the time to sit with an EDP and talk them out of it.

              Cops are far from perfect. But trust me, the world with fewer cops would be worse.

              Not likely since wage per cop is the one police expense that the center right to fascist spectrum of municipal governments don’t want to increase.

              Besides, cop “unions” aren’t ACTUAL unions that are funded mostly via union dues. They’re political pressure groups funded mostly by donations from the rich people whose property cops exist to protect from the masses.

              Whatever. They’re still powerful organizations and they’re still representing cops as a union. And they’re still going to oppose anything that takes from their people.

              When you’re finished with your rhetoric, maybe you can come up with a plan to get your superfund-duper-big-changes done. You know. The ones that are somehow more possible than the “impossible incremental” changes.

      • pack@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        16 hours ago

        A lot of places self insure, but some already buy insurance as you describe. Qualified immunity is a pretty high bar to get over, but some people do get settlements. I’d argue insurance should have to be bought by the officer, or their union to have any effect on their behavior.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Most of those, it’s the department’s insurance (and most places have that,)

          Malpractice insurance is a thing for doctors- they have to have it. It’s an individual obligation; frequently hospitals will cover it for them (and offer plans,) but those plans are managed by a third party- the kind of third party who hates paying out.

          What this really means is that doctors who have a history of skirting best practices and getting dinged are more expensive to cover; where doctors that are more competent/less likely to fuck up… get reduced premiums.

          Guess what kind of doctor gets to told “yeah sorry, we’re not hiring you”?

          Translate that to cops… officers get dropped or dinged for relatively minor excessive force incidents- usually before they get to the point of barging in and killing some one.