Claim For Money Or Damages Against The City Of: Fill & Download for Free

The surrender of Jerusalem was the inevitable consequence of the devastating defeat of the feudal forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem at the Battle of Hattin three months earlier. That battle had left Jerusalem defenseless; all fighting men including the knights of the Temple and the Hospital had been called up to halt the invasion that ended in disaster at Hattin, leaving the city itself denuded of troops. Left behind in Jerusalem were non-combatants: women, children, the old and infirm and the clergy. Furthermore, by the time Jerusalem surrendered, these civilian residents of Jerusalem had been joined by as many as 60,000 to 80,000 refugees from other parts of the Kingdom overrun by Saladin’s troops. There may have been as many as 100,000 Christians in Jerusalem at the time it surrendered, and that population would have been composed predominantly of women, children and clergy.The walls of Medieval Jerusalem today.What is remarkable about the surrender of Jerusalem in 1187 was not that it surrendered under the circumstances, but rather that it did not surrender without a fight. Saladin had offered the inhabitants very generous terms. He said he did not want to risk damage to the holy sites in Jerusalem (as was nearly inevitable in a siege and assault) and therefore offered to let the inhabitants leave peacefully with all their portable goods if they would surrender peacefully.But the anonymous “burgesses” who represented the city of Jerusalem in the absence of any noblemen refused. According to the Old French continuation of the Chronicle of William Tyre (widely believed to be based on first-hand accounts) the “burgesses” replied “if it pleased God they would never surrender the city.” Saladin then offered to leave the city alone for roughly six months if they promised to surrender the city at the end of that time, if no reinforcements had arrived. They still refused, saying again “if it pleased God they would never surrender that city where God had shed His blood for them.” (Tyre, p. 55) This was a clear commitment to martyrdom rather than surrender — perhaps not such a surprising sentiment from a city that at this time must have been dominated by clergy as they would have been the only men of “authority” (read noble birth and education) left in the city.Above a picture by the author of the "Dome of the Rock" erected over the rock on which Mohammed allegedly ascended into Heaven; it was this monument sacred to Islam that Saladin did not want to risk damaging in a siege and assault.After this stubborn refusal of his generous terms, Saladin publicly vowed to take the city by storm and “put the inhabitants to the sword.” He promised to slaughter all the men in it and to enslave the women and children.Yet in the event Saladin did not enter Jerusalem over the corpses of “martyrs” and their families. He entered it peacefully after a negotiated settlement that ended a week of ferocious fighting. A week may not sound long, but given the fact that the population of Jerusalem was composed almost entirely of non-combatants, that was not an insignificant defense.The Muslim chronicler Ibn al-Athir describes the defense of Jerusalem as: “…the fiercest struggle imaginable; each side looked on the fight as absolute religious obligation. There was no need for a superior authority to drive them on: they restrained the enemy without restraint, and drove them off without being driven off. Every morning the Frankish cavalry made sorties to fight and provoke the enemy to battle; several of both sides fell in these encounters.” (pp. 140-141.)Imad ad-Din’s report is (as always) even more melodramatic in his description. According to him, “They challenged [us] to combat and barred the pass, they came down into the lists like enemies, they slaughtered and drew blood, they blazed with fury and defended the city, they fumed and burned with wrath, they drove us back…. They fought grimly and struggled with all their energy, descending to the fray with absolute resolution… they blazed and set fire to things…they made themselves a target for arrows and called on death to stand by them.” (p.154)Turning to Christian sources, the source considered by scholars the most authentic claims that: “The Christians sallied forth and fought with the Saracens…. On two or three occasions the Christians pushed the Saracens back to their tents.” (Tyre, p. 56) Women, children and clergy did that? For eight days?Clearly this was not merely a fanatical but a well-organized defense. Key to that is one man: Balian d’Ibelin.Balian, Baron of Ibelin, had been one of only four barons to escape the catastrophe at Hattin. At Hattin he had commanded the third largest contingent of troops after the King and the Count of Tripoli. Along with the Templars, he had been charged with the thankless and gruesome task of commanding the rear-guard in a situation where it was under near continuous attack while on the march. The Templars suffered enormous losses during this march and we must assume that Ibelin did too. Certainly, when he broke out of the trap at Hattin it was with at most 3,000 infantry and a couple hundred knights. These troops, however, he had led to Tyre.His presence in Jerusalem, however, was solitary — the result of a safe-conduct granted him by Saladin so that he could remove his wife and children to safety. The terms of the safe-conduct were that he go to Jerusalem unarmed and remain only one night. On arrival, however, the citizens of Jerusalem and particularly the Patriarch begged him to remain and take command of the defense. This he did, although in so doing he believed he was condemning his wife and children to death.The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Patriarch clearly recognized Ibelin’s value. He wasn’t just any baron, he was a man who had played a prominent role in the defeat of Saladin at Montgisard, and had fought at every major battle against Saladin since. Still, he was just one man. He brought only a single additional fighting man to the defense of Jerusalem, and -- on taking stock of what men he had in Jerusalem -- he discovered there was only one other knight in the entire city. This induced him to knight over eighty youths of “good birth,” which was undoubtedly a morale-booster to the individuals honored, but hardly a significant increase in the fighting strength of the defenders!So how did Ibelin put up such a ferocious and effective defense with women, children and clergy for 8 days? We don’t know exactly, however, it is clear Ibelin must have had an exceptional organizational talent and also been a charismatic and inspirational leader. He would have had to organize civilians into improvised units, and then assign these units discrete tasks — whether it was defending a sector of the wall, putting out fires, or ensuring that the men and women doing the fighting were supplied with water, food and ammunition. Most astonishing, his improvised units not only repulsed assaults, they also sortied out several times, destroying some of Saladin’s siege engines, and “two or three times” chasing the Saracens all the way back to the palisades of their camp.Ibelin must have relied heavily upon women in his defense of Jerusalem. The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre quotes the Patriarch of Jerusalem saying: “For every man that is in this city, there are fifty women and children.” (Tyre, p. 58) Furthermore, we know from sieges only a few decades later in the Languedoc (notably the siege of Toulouse in which Simon de Montfort was killed) that women could be very active in manning the walls. Unlike Victorian women, medieval women were not known for being delicate and prone to swooning. They were partners in crafts and trades, often had their own businesses, and when it came to this siege they understood perfectly what was at stake: their freedom.Although hard to see in this medieval depiction, the siege engine that fired the fatal shot against Simon de Montfort was allegedly manned by women.Notably, the Arab sources never acknowledge this simple fact. First of all, their own women were not in a position to contribute to the defense, so women manning siege engines, pouring boiling oil over the ramparts, or even exposing themselves to danger to bring men (strange men not their husbands, brothers or sons) water, food and ammunition was utterly inconceivable to them. Secondly, it was considered dishonorable to be killed by a woman under any circumstances, so no one wanted to even contemplate this possibility; it would have disgraced the fallen. Instead, the Arab sources explained the surprisingly spirited and tenacious defense of Jerusalem to phantom survivors of Hattin. Imad ad-Din conjures up no less than “70,000 Frankish troops, both swordsmen and archers” (p. 154) — a fantastic figure more than double the total Frankish army deployed (and destroyed) at Hattin!After five days of futile assaults on the northwest corner of the city from the Gate of St. Stephen to David's Gates, Saladin had nothing but casualties to show for his efforts. He therefore redeployed opposite the northeast corner of the city. More important, he deployed sappers to undermine the walls. The sappers were protected by heavy wooden roofs and platforms as well as covering fire. Within three days they managed to dig tunnels under the city walls, and on September 29 a segment of the northern wall roughly 30 meters long collapsed. Although the Christians managed to beat-back the initial assaults sent through the breach, by nightfall it was clear that the city was now no longer defensible.That night, Ibelin led a last desperate sortie out of the Jehosaphat Gate, probably directed at Saladin’s own tent, which had been set up on the Mount of Olives. The sortie was easily repulsed. As dawn broke on September 30, the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem, residents and refugees alike, were facing almost certain slaughter. Remember, because they had rejected his generous terms earlier, Saladin had sworn before multiple witnesses that he would take the city by force and spare no one.Nevertheless, under a flag of truce Ibelin sought a parlay with Saladin. The Sultan met with Ibelin outside the walls of the city, but flatly refused to negotiate. He reiterated his intention to take the city by force. Indeed, while Ibelin and Saladin were speaking, the Sultan’s banners were planted on the northeast corner of the city, and Saladin pointed out that no one negotiated for a city he already possessed.Fortunately for the Christians in the city, the Sultan’s banners were tossed down again; Ibelin could retort that Saladin did not yet possess the city. Ibelin then played his only trump. He told Saladin that if the defenders knew they would be granted no mercy, then they would fight all the harder. Not just that, he said, they would slaughter their own families, the Muslim prisoners/slaves inside Jerusalem, and the livestock, and then they would destroy the holy places — including the Rock sacred to Islam — before sallying forth to certain death intent on taking as many of the enemy to their graves with them as possible.Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives Today; the Dome of the Rock is visible between the trees.Saladin, who had already made his desire to preserve the holy places known, capitulated in face of this blackmail. After consulting with this emirs, he agreed to spare the lives of the Christians in Jerusalem, but only on the condition that they bought freedom. After much haggling, it was agreed that each man would have to pay 10 dinar, each woman 5 and each child 2. Those that could not pay this ransom would become the property of the Sultan, slaves.Ibelin protested that the city was full of refugees, who had already lost everything. According to the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre he argued “In a city such as this there are only a few people apart from the burgesses who could manage [the ransom], and for every man who can pay the ransom there are a hundred who could not redeem themselves even for two bezants. For the city is full of ordinary people who have come from the surrounding area for protection.” (p.60) After considerable haggling, the Sultan agreed to a lump-sum payment of 30,000 bezants for (varying by source) between 7, 000 and 18,000 Christian paupers.The Medieval Working-Class would have had difficulty paying the ransom set by Saladin.These 30,000 bezants were paid by the Hospital with the money deposited by King Henry II of England, but even so when the 40 days granted the Christians to raise their ransoms were up, some 15,000 Christians were unable to pay and condemned to slavery. Ibelin, appalled, offered to stand surety for them while the ransom was raised, but Saladin refused, although he did “give” 1,000 slaves to his brother and 500 each to Balian and the Patriarch of Jerusalem, so that 2,000 souls were freed at the last minute.Allegedly, some non-Latin Christians also opted to pay the extra taxes imposed on Christians in Muslim states in order to remain in Jerusalem, but there is no indication that the non-Latin Christians undermined the defense of Jerusalem itself. On the contrary, they appear to have contributed substantially to the defense of Jerusalem as long as the fighting was going on. Only after the city became indefensible as a result of the breach in the wall, did they begin to seek a compromise with their assailants — a perfectly comprehensible reaction that does not imply fundamental hostility to the Latin rulers of Jerusalem.On November 18, 1187, forty days after the surrender of Jerusalem, the Christians departed Jerusalem, leaving the city in Muslim hands. The news of the fall of Jerusalem allegedly killed Pope Urban III and so shocked the Christian kingdoms in the West that it set in motion the Third Crusade.The siege and surrender of Jerusalem in 1187 is the climax of the award-winning novel Defender of Jerusalem

As others have pointed out already, it is ridiculous to try to define “the most” of anything as subjective as “epic.” Like the others, I present not “the most” but certainly an example: The surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187.On Oct. 2, 1187, the gates of Jerusalem opened to admit Salah ad-Din and his army. The holiest city in Christendom, site of Christ’s passion, had been surrendered to the Muslims after 88 years of Christian rule. The surrender of Jerusalem was the inevitable consequence of the devastating defeat of the feudal forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem at the Battle of Hattin three months earlier. (See: How did the Crusaders end up getting massacred during the Battle of Hattin in 1187?)That battle had left Jerusalem defenseless; all fighting men including the knights of the Temple and the Hospital had been called up to halt the invasion that ended in disaster at Hattin, leaving the city itself denuded of troops. Left behind in Jerusalem were non-combatants: women, children, the old and infirm and the clergy. Furthermore, by the time Jerusalem surrendered, these civilian residents of Jerusalem had been joined by as many as 60,000 to 80,000 refugees from other parts of the Kingdom overrun by Saladin’s troops. An estimated 100,000 Christians were in Jerusalem when it surrendered, predominantly women, children and clergy.What is remarkable about the surrender of Jerusalem in 1187 was not that it surrendered under the circumstances, but that it did not surrender without a fight. Let me explain.Above: The Damascus Gate of Jerusalem by which some of Saladin's troops would have entered the city.Saladin had offered the inhabitants very generous terms. He said he did not want to risk damage to the holy sites in Jerusalem (as was nearly inevitable in a siege and assault) and therefore offered to let the inhabitants leave peacefully with all their portable goods if they would surrender peacefully. But the anonymous “burgesses” who represented the city of Jerusalem in the absence of any noblemen refused.According to the Old French continuation of the Chronicle of William Tyre (widely believed to be based on first-hand accounts), the “burgesses” replied, “if it pleased God they would never surrender the city.” Saladin then offered to leave the city alone for roughly six months if they promised to surrender the city at the end of that time if no reinforcements had arrived. They still refused, saying again “if it pleased God they would never surrender that city where God had shed His blood for them.” (Tyre, p. 55) This was a clear commitment to martyrdom rather than surrender — perhaps not such a surprising sentiment from a city that at this time must have been dominated by clergy as they would have been the only men of “authority” (read noble birth and education) left in the city.Above: The "Dome of the Rock" erected over the rock from which Muslims came to believe Mohammed ascended into Heaven; this was one of the monuments sacred to Islam that Saladin did not want to risk damaging in a siege and assault.But Saladin did not enter Jerusalem over the corpses of “martyrs” and their families. He entered it peacefully after a negotiated settlement that ended a week of ferocious fighting.Ibn al-Athir writes: “Then began the fiercest struggle imaginable; each side looked on the fight as an absolute religious obligation. There was no need for a superior authority to drive them on: they restrained the enemy without restraint and drove them off without being driven off. Every morning the Frankish cavalry made sorties to fight and provoke the enemy to battle; several of both sides fell in these encounters.”Imad ad-Din’s report is (as always) even more melodramatic in his description. According to him, “They challenged [us] to combat and barred the pass, they came down into the lists like enemies, they slaughtered and drew blood, they blazed with fury and defended the city, they fumed and burned with wrath, they drove us back…. They fought grimly and struggled with all their energy, descending to the fray with absolute resolution… they blazed and set fire to things…they made themselves a target for arrows and called on death to stand by them.”Turning to Christian sources, the source considered by scholars the most authentic claims that: “The Christians sallied forth and fought with the Saracens…. On two or three occasions the Christians pushed the Saracens back to their tents.”Women, children, and clergy did that? For eight days?Clearly, this was not merely a fanatical but a well-organized defense. Key to that is one man: Balian d’Ibelin.Balian, Baron of Ibelin, had been one of only four barons to escape the catastrophe at Hattin. At Hattin he had commanded the third largest contingent of troops after the King and the Count of Tripoli, and he, along with the Templars, had been charged with the thankless and gruesome task of commanding the rear-guard in a situation where it was under near continuous attack while on the march. The Templars suffered enormous losses during this march and we must assume that Ibelin did too. Certainly, when he broke out of the trap at Hattin it was with at most 3,000 infantry and a couple hundred knights. These troops, however, he had led to Tyre.His presence in Jerusalem, however, was solitary — the result of a safe-conduct granted him by Saladin so that he could remove his wife and children to safety. The terms of the safe-conduct were that he go to Jerusalem unarmed and remain only one night. On arrival, however, the citizens of Jerusalem and particularly the Patriarch begged him to remain and take command of the defense. This he did, although in so doing he believed he was condemning his wife and children to death.The inhabitants of Jerusalem and the Patriarch clearly recognized Ibelin’s value. He wasn’t just any baron, he was a man who had played a prominent role in the defeat of Saladin at Montgisard, and had fought at every major battle against Saladin since. Still, he was just one man. He brought not a single additional fighting man to the defense of Jerusalem, and -- on taking stock of what men he had in Jerusalem -- he discovered there was only one other knight in the entire city. This induced him to knight over eighty youths of “good birth,” which was undoubtedly a morale-booster to the individuals honored, but hardly a significant increase in the fighting strength of the defenders!So how did Ibelin put up such a ferocious and effective defense with women, children, and clergy for 8 days?We don’t know exactly, however, it is clear Ibelin must have had an exceptional organizational talent and also been a charismatic and inspirational leader. He would have had to organize civilians into improvised units, and then assign these units discrete tasks — whether it was defending a sector of the wall, putting out fires, or ensuring that the men and women doing the fighting were supplied with water, food, and ammunition. Most astonishing, his improvised units not only repulsed assaults, but they also sortied out several times, destroying some of Saladin’s siege engines, and “two or three times” chasing the Saracens all the way back to the palisades of their camp.Ibelin must have relied heavily upon women in his defense of Jerusalem. The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre quotes the Patriarch of Jerusalem saying: “For every man that is in this city, there are fifty women and children.” Furthermore, we know from sieges only a few decades later in the Languedoc (notably the siege of Toulouse in which Simon de Montfort was killed) that women could be very active in manning the walls. Unlike Victorian women, medieval women were not known for being delicate and prone to swooning. They were partners in crafts and trades, often had their own businesses, and when it came to this siege they understood perfectly what was at stake: their freedom.Although hard to see in this medieval depiction, the siege engine that fired the fatal shot against Simon de Montfort was allegedly manned by women.Notably, Arab sources never acknowledge this simple fact. It was considered dishonorable to be killed by a woman under any circumstances, so no one wanted to even contemplate this possibility; it would have disgraced the fallen. Instead, the Arab sources explained the surprisingly spirited and tenacious defense of Jerusalem to phantom survivors of Hattin. Imad ad-Din conjures up no less than “70,000 Frankish troops, both swordsmen and archers” — a fantastic figure more than double the total Frankish army deployed (and destroyed) at Hattin!After five days of futile assaults on the northwest corner of the city from the Gate of St. Stephen to David's Gates, Saladin had nothing but casualties to show for his efforts. He, therefore, redeployed opposite the northeast corner of the city. More important, he deployed sappers to undermine the walls. The sappers were protected by heavy wooden roofs and platforms as well as covering fire. Within three days they managed to dig tunnels under the city walls, and on September 29 a segment of the northern wall roughly 30 meters long collapsed. Although the Christians managed to beat back the initial assaults sent through the breach, by nightfall it was clear that the city was now no longer defensible.That night, Ibelin led a last desperate sortie out of the Jehosaphat Gate, probably directed at Saladin’s own tent, which had been set up on the Mount of Olives. The sortie was easily repulsed. As dawn broke on September 30, the remaining inhabitants of Jerusalem, residents and refugees alike, were facing almost certain slaughter. Because they had rejected his generous terms earlier, Saladin had sworn before multiple witnesses that he would take the city by force and spare no one.Nevertheless, under a flag of truce Ibelin sought a parlay with Saladin. The Sultan met with Ibelin outside the walls of the city but flatly refused to negotiate. He reiterated his intention to take the city by force. Indeed, while Ibelin and Saladin were speaking, the Sultan’s banners were planted on the northeast corner of the city, and Saladin pointed out that no one negotiated for a city he already possessed. Fortunately for the Christians in the city, the Sultan’s banners were tossed down again; Ibelin could retort that Saladin did not yet possess the city. Ibelin then played his only trump. He told Saladin that if the defenders knew they would be granted no mercy, then they would fight all the harder. Not just that, he said, they would slaughter their own families, the Muslim prisoners/slaves inside Jerusalem, and the livestock, and then they would destroy the holy places — including the Rock sacred to Islam — before sallying forth to certain death intent on taking as many of the enemy to their graves with them as possible.Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives Today; the Dome of the Rock is visible between the trees.After consulting with this emirs, Saladin, who had already made his desire to preserve the holy places known, capitulated in face of this blackmail. He agreed to spare the lives of the Christians in Jerusalem, but only on the condition that they bought their freedom. After much haggling, it was agreed that each man would have to pay 10 dinars, each woman 5 and each child 2. Those that could not pay this ransom would become the property of the Sultan, slaves.Ibelin protested that the city was full of refugees, who had already lost everything. According to the Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, he argued “In a city such as this there are only a few people apart from the burgesses who could manage [the ransom], and for every man who can pay the ransom there are a hundred who could not redeem themselves even for two bezants. The city is full of ordinary people who have come from the surrounding area for protection.” (p.60) After considerable haggling, the Sultan agreed to a lump-sum payment of 30,000 bezants for (varying by source) between 7, 000 and 18,000 Christian paupers.The Medieval Working-Class would have had difficulty paying the ransom set by Saladin.These 30,000 bezants were paid by the Hospital with the money deposited by King Henry II of England, but even so when the 40 days granted the Christians to raise their ransoms were up, some 15,000 Christians were unable to pay and condemned to slavery. Ibelin, appalled, offered to stand surety for them while the ransom was raised, but Saladin refused, although he did “give” 1,000 slaves to his brother and 500 each to Balian and the Patriarch of Jerusalem so that 2,000 souls were freed at the last minute.Allegedly, some non-Latin Christians also opted to pay the extra taxes imposed on Christians in Muslim states in order to remain in Jerusalem, but there is no indication that the non-Latin Christians undermined the defense of Jerusalem itself. On the contrary, they appear to have contributed substantially to the defense of Jerusalem as long as the fighting was going on. Only after the city became indefensible as a result of the breach in the wall, did they begin to seek a compromise with their assailants — a perfectly comprehensible reaction that does not imply fundamental hostility to the Latin rulers of Jerusalem.On November 18, 1187, forty days after the surrender of Jerusalem, the Christians departed Jerusalem, leaving the city in Muslim hands. The news of the fall of Jerusalem allegedly killed Pope Urban III and so shocked the Christian kingdoms in the West that it set in motion the Third Crusade.The siege and surrender of Jerusalem are the climatic end to my award-winning novel Defender of Jerusalem.

Here is one idea:Instead of forcing taxpayers to pay settlements to victims of police brutality, let’s seek a new source of revenue.Pay these settlements using police pension funds.The figures for payouts to police violence victims are eye-popping.In Chicago, Illinois, the city has paid more than half a billion dollars in claims for police misconduct since 2011.[1] This trend has only accelerated, as the city previously paid out more than $300 million from 2004–2010.[2] (In addition to the approved damages, these figures include “payments and fees,” as well as fees to outside attorneys, according to the Better Government Association.)[3]Chart: Chicago spent more than $113 million on police misconduct lawsuits in 2018Other cities have not fared much better:From 2011 to 2014, the city of Baltimore, Maryland, paid out $5.7 million in police brutality claims. These awards would undoubtedly be much higher if not for statutory limits on damages, according to a 2015 investigation by the Baltimore Sun.[4]This four-year period unearthed dozens of victims in the Baltimore area.Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson.Those cases detail a frightful human toll. Officers have battered dozens of residents who suffered broken bones — jaws, noses, arms, legs, ankles — head trauma, organ failure, and even death, coming during questionable arrests. Some residents were beaten while handcuffed; others were thrown to the pavement.And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims — if charges were filed at all.[5]In 2017, Baltimore paid more than $1 million to settle 4 lawsuits to settle allegations of police misconduct.[6] In 2018, $9 million was awarded to a man who spent 21 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.[7]Los Angeles is also no stranger to large settlements. In 2017, victims of police misconduct received more than $1 million in at least 30 cases.[8]Minneapolis, the epicenter of the current protests, has paid more than “$25 million for police misconduct between 2003 and 2019.”[9] This includes one payment of $20 million in 2019 for the police killing of Justine Ruszczyk, a woman who committed the capital crime of asking a police officer for help.[10]This is only a small sample among thousands of cases. (The Marshall Project, a journalistic non-profit focusing on criminal justice, compiles additional data and news reports on police settlement cases around the country.)[11]Police pension funds in cities across the United States are already chronically underfunded.[12] Chicago’s plan is only 23% funded, as of 2019.[13] This is due to powerful police and firefighter unions who have thoroughly cowed elected officials, giving them impressive bargaining power in negotiating new contracts.As Radley Balko points out in his excellent reporting for The Washington Post, underfunded pensions have an inevitable result. Elected officials seek other ways to satisfy the vital police union interest groups. [14]These extra layers of security allow police to escape accountability for even the most egregious violations.When you have no money to offer, job security is your only bargaining chip. This is how we get those “Police Officer Bills of Rights,” and other added protections for cops.(Bloated pensions themselves are often the product of politicians asking for short-term concessions on pay and benefits in exchange for long-term promises that come due long after that administration is gone.)[15]Despite this problem of under-funding, cities still hold the most valuable card in the deck to bring police departments to heel. The best way to hold cops accountable for their illegal behavior is to force them to personally pay restitution to their victims.However, with the doctrine of qualified immunity (soon to be reviewed by the Supreme Court)[16] and sympathetic prosecutors and juries, this is a fool’s hope.Does using public funds to pay these settlements have any effect on police behavior? According to a review of liability insurance claims for police misconduct in the Journal of Legal Studies, insurance claims have gone down, but the overall effect on levels of abuse has been negligible.[17]If settlements have little effect, could we use outright criminal convictions to reign in police misconduct? Unfortunately, convictions of cops charged in criminal cases are notoriously difficult to win.Since 2005, out of thousands of police shootings, only 35 officers have been convicted a crime related to an on-duty shooting.[18]Chart: Cops are almost never prosecuted and convicted for use of forceWith civil and criminal penalties so rarely utilized, what mechanisms do citizens have left to fight against unaccountable law enforcement?The iron jaws of accountability must be clamped down on police departments in order for us to have any hope of meaningful reform. If a cop’s illegal beating of a suspect will threaten the already depleted retirement funds of his own department, perhaps his partners will step in and stop him. (Unlike the colleagues of officer Derek Chauvin, who either passively watched or halfheartedly objected[19]as he snuffed out George Floyd on a sidewalk in broad daylight.)As protests engulfed major cities across the United States, I have been stunned as videos of the almost casual, petty brutality perpetrated by cops continue to be documented. If the police are willing to do this in public, as the cameras capture their every move, God only knows what they are willing to do behind closed doors.It is past time we hold these officers personally responsible for their crimes. If justice in criminal courtrooms is out of reach, perhaps hitting them in their pocketbook will force a needed change in conduct.Police officers today are a protected class, one no politician wants to oppose. Law enforcement interests may occasionally come up short on budgetary issues, but legislatures rarely if ever pass new laws to hold police more accountable, to restrict their powers, or to make them more transparent.In short, police today embody all of the threats the Founders feared were posed by standing armies, plus a few additional ones they couldn't have anticipated.[20]Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior CopFootnotes[1] Chicago spent more than $113 million on police misconduct lawsuits in 2018[2] Beyond Burge[3] Beyond Burge[4] Sun Investigates: Undue force[5] Sun Investigates: Undue force[6] Baltimore to pay $1.1 million to settle 4 lawsuits alleging police misconduct[7] City Settles Another $9M Alleged Police Misconduct Case[8] L.A. is slammed with record costs for legal payouts[9] How Cities Offload the Cost of Police Brutality[10] Justine Ruszczyk's family reaches a $20 million settlement with the city of Minneapolis[11] Police Settlements | The Record[12] The Pension Hole for U.S. Cities and States Is the Size of Germany’s Economy[13] Chicago Pensions Are No Longer 27% Funded (It's Now 23%)[14] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/10/15/how-bloated-pensions-contribute-to-police-brutality/[15] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/10/15/how-bloated-pensions-contribute-to-police-brutality/[16] ‘Qualified immunity’ for police getting fresh look by Supreme Court after George Floyd death[17] Is Police Behavior Getting Worse? Data Selection and the Measurement of Policing Harms[18] "We are expecting the system that puts black people in harm's way to then turn around and be an effective vehicle for justice when black people are harmed."[19] Two ex-Minneapolis police officers charged in George Floyd's death cast blame on more senior colleague[20] Rise of the Warrior Cop