[Unpopular Opinion] Why I don’t feel bad if/when civil lawsuits come from taxpayer money

[TAW122]

Throughout the years and in almost every police/law enforcement brutality or abuse related videos, often there are comments in the comment section denouncing police abuse, brutality, and other acts of excessive (often unjustified) force against the subject, suspect, or victim. I do agree that the brutality and other excessive acts are wrong and deserve condemnation. However, when it comes to civil suits and those money comes from taxpayers, here is where my opinion is unpopular, contrary to the public's opinion.

While I do agree that law enforcement and cops deserve to be held to a higher standard and that greater accountability is the goal, and that the damages that the victim gets should come from the individual cop/law enforcement officer's pockets, pension, or paycheck, (or even the department itself), part of the reason why I don't feel as bad when it comes from the taxpayer's money (collectively, though not specifically any individual themselves) is because the very same taxpayers (at least most of them) are indirectly complicit in the abuse and some vocal ones even go out to outright defend law enforcement (obviously not all, and obviously not all abusive acts), therefore, when they feel the brunt of their own (collective) taxes being paid to the victim (albeit indirectly), it does affect them in a small way. I don't hold the position solely due to vindictiveness, but more from a nihilistic and pessimistic stance, along the lines of "they (the citizens) reap what they sow." Perhaps even naively, I do believe that if enough outrage comes from the fact that these bad actions continue to happen and happen frequently (at least enough to be a scourge on society in general), people may inadvertently wake up and really be motivated to push for change, especially when it's their (collective) tax dollars that are going towards the victim. Sure, they'll try to push for more police accountability and perhaps even money directly from the corrupt officer's pockets, department, but also over time get more people to push against these bad actors.

There are likely more factors and other issues that are intertwined with the main problem of corrupt police, cops, and law enforcement, as well as abuse of power, but this article is mainly focused on my unpopular opinion and why I hold the stance that I do.

 

[TAW122]

To elaborate and clarify on my point, here is a somewhat well known case years ago. There was a man named Daniel Shaver who was in on a trip to another state (whatever he was doing is irrelevant to my point) and someone mistaken his BB gun (he works as a pest control technician) as a real firearm and long story short, the police were called to the hotel where he was (story linked here) and he was wrongly shot and killed. Sadly, the officer who fired the shot and those who were involved in the case were not held accountable (the officer got an not-guilty verdict). However, in the end the Shaver family ultimately settled the matter with the city of Mesa, Arizona for about $8 million USD for Shaver's widow and $1.5 million USD for Shaver's parents.

Specifically, my "unpopular" opinion is where I don't feel bad when civil lawsuits, settlements (including out of court), comes from the taxpayer's money because the very same taxpayers are indirectly complicit in supporting the same department and people who caused the harm (towards Daniel Shaver and his family). Now it is unpopular because most people especially in the city of Mesa, Arizona even if they are against what the officer did, they do blindly support the police (at least more than zero, therefore, non-zero), so even though $8 million and $1.5 million came from the city (which is also a portion of the taxpayer's taxes, albeit a small amount for each tax paying citizen), it still punishes them indirectly. People may be upset at the opinion I hold, but I digress.

Mathematically putting this into perspective, suppose the population of Mesa, Arizona is about 510k residents (and suppose about 400k of them are taxpayers of varying incomes, then about $330m of the city's budget comes from taxes and other sources of income. So about 2.8% of the budget was paid out to the Shaver's family (including the widow of Daniel Shaver), and probably a very minute (but non-zero) fraction comes from each taxpayer in the city of Mesa, Arizona. Then suppose there are at least 60% of them who supported the police just in general and defend the police against anti-police sentiments and such, then they are being slightly punished (their taxes being taken to payout the Shaver family for the loss) for their indirect complicity in supporting the very department that caused the wrong. So in essence, as a result, my opinion is unpopular because very few people actual think the way I think, and therefore, the very same people who defend the police in general if they complain about their taxes going towards a random family (not even in Arizona but from Texas) then they reap what they sow.