Exactly! No more immunity. For anything. Cops and government people serve at the pleasure of the people paid with our tax dollars. So if the PEOPLE can't have immunity neither shall they. What's fair is fair right?
Yeah, it's a swell idea. When almost every large PD is de-policing, abandoning proactive policing, and practicing FIDO tactics, let's pass a law that makes every officer personally liable for any bad thing that happens during an arrest! How many coppers will actually do their jobs if they can be personally be bankrupted by legal fees by every S-word-head who tries to win the ghetto lottery? I hope you're stocked up on ammo.
If they knowingly violate the law, they should be just as liable as any other citizen. Far too many cases where they've done illegal things, including some deaths, and been protected by a judge saying "They have immunity". That crap has to stop.
Did you read the cases in the article? You think those officers should be protected from being held responsible?
First of all, "news" means "something out of the ordinary." In the second place, deliberate criminal activity is, to use the legal term, "outside the scope of employment" of any officer, so if such actions are deemed immune by a judge, it's the fault of the judge and not the system. The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect an honest officer from the bad outcomes that inevitably arise when you're dealing with violent people, and to make sure that the officer isn't bankrupted by legal fees by every shithead looking to win the ghetto lottery. If this "reform" comes to pass, every honest officer will say, "If I chase this guy and he gets hit by a car, I'll lose my house. If he turns on me with a weapon and I shoot him, my family will be homeless. But if I just let him run away . . ."
Sounds nice. But since almost NO judge is willing to go against Holy Precedent and hold assholes responsible, the Supremes need to do this. Either get rid of it entirely, or narrow it to the point that the defense of "There's nothing in previous case law saying that robbing someone during a search should be punishable this way" and such is condemned as the bullshit it is and thrown out.
Same thing for prosecutors. "Yes, he knew the plaintiff was innocent and withheld the evidence that would have proven that, but Qualified Immunity so you can't charge him or sue him" is bullshit. And since the prosecutors and far too many LEAs won't clean their own damned house....
Most of you clearly don't understand what qualified immunity is. It was intended to protect cops from law suits over quick decisions made in the field implicating unclear areas of the law (mainly the Constitution), until a court ruled on a similar situation. But as most judges apply it now, it protects cops _who clearly break the law_, unless a court has previously ruled against a cop in an identical fact pattern. That is, judges assume that any cop cannot be held liable for not understanding (or ignoring) even a quite clear legal principle - never mind that they are supposed to apply the laws - but are somehow capable of memorizing the details of thousands of decisions.
And as it usually works out, after the judge finds that the law-breaking cop did not break the law the exact same way some cop was admonished (but not punished) in court before, he dismisses the case for qualified immunity without ruling on whether what the cop did was wrong - and so the next cop to do the exact same thing will also be protected!
9 comments:
Exactly! No more immunity. For anything. Cops and government people serve at the pleasure of the people paid with our tax dollars. So if the PEOPLE can't have immunity neither shall they. What's fair is fair right?
Vermillion
Yeah, it's a swell idea. When almost every large PD is de-policing, abandoning proactive policing, and practicing FIDO tactics, let's pass a law that makes every officer personally liable for any bad thing that happens during an arrest! How many coppers will actually do their jobs if they can be personally be bankrupted by legal fees by every S-word-head who tries to win the ghetto lottery?
I hope you're stocked up on ammo.
If they knowingly violate the law, they should be just as liable as any other citizen. Far too many cases where they've done illegal things, including some deaths, and been protected by a judge saying "They have immunity". That crap has to stop.
Did you read the cases in the article? You think those officers should be protected from being held responsible?
There already is a law that bans immunity.
It is called the fourteenth amendment.
"...nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Immunity is clearly depriving injured parties of equal protection of the law.
First of all, "news" means "something out of the ordinary." In the second place, deliberate criminal activity is, to use the legal term, "outside the scope of employment" of any officer, so if such actions are deemed immune by a judge, it's the fault of the judge and not the system. The purpose of qualified immunity is to protect an honest officer from the bad outcomes that inevitably arise when you're dealing with violent people, and to make sure that the officer isn't bankrupted by legal fees by every shithead looking to win the ghetto lottery. If this "reform" comes to pass, every honest officer will say, "If I chase this guy and he gets hit by a car, I'll lose my house. If he turns on me with a weapon and I shoot him, my family will be homeless. But if I just let him run away . . ."
Sounds nice. But since almost NO judge is willing to go against Holy Precedent and hold assholes responsible, the Supremes need to do this. Either get rid of it entirely, or narrow it to the point that the defense of "There's nothing in previous case law saying that robbing someone during a search should be punishable this way" and such is condemned as the bullshit it is and thrown out.
Same thing for prosecutors. "Yes, he knew the plaintiff was innocent and withheld the evidence that would have proven that, but Qualified Immunity so you can't charge him or sue him" is bullshit. And since the prosecutors and far too many LEAs won't clean their own damned house....
Welcome to the party, pal. This is what legal gun owners get to worry about when WE decide to draw down on a goblin.
Most of you clearly don't understand what qualified immunity is. It was intended to protect cops from law suits over quick decisions made in the field implicating unclear areas of the law (mainly the Constitution), until a court ruled on a similar situation. But as most judges apply it now, it protects cops _who clearly break the law_, unless a court has previously ruled against a cop in an identical fact pattern. That is, judges assume that any cop cannot be held liable for not understanding (or ignoring) even a quite clear legal principle - never mind that they are supposed to apply the laws - but are somehow capable of memorizing the details of thousands of decisions.
And as it usually works out, after the judge finds that the law-breaking cop did not break the law the exact same way some cop was admonished (but not punished) in court before, he dismisses the case for qualified immunity without ruling on whether what the cop did was wrong - and so the next cop to do the exact same thing will also be protected!
Why I said narrow it: so it's for what originally intended, not the other bullshit.
Post a Comment