View Full Version : House and Senate reintroduce ‘Ending Qualified Immunity Act’
So, this is back on the radar, not surprisingly. While source would have to assume some bias, seems a lengthy well written discussion:
House and Senate reintroduce ‘Ending Qualified Immunity Act’ to remove qualified immunity from police
WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats in both the House and Senate have reintroduced legislation that would end qualified immunity, placing police officers in the cross-hairs of continual personal lawsuits while trying to do their job.
Cont:
https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/bill-introduced-to-remove-qualified-immunity-from-law-enforcement-officers/
Along with trying to repeal the PLCAA, this should be called "The end of policing act" or maybe the "The lawyer full employment act". The repeal of the PLCAA could be called "No gun for you act".
Grand58742
03-04-21, 15:09
Removing qualified immunity from law enforcement could result in a shortage of police officers, as many potential recruits could view the high risk of personal damages from lawsuits too great to enter the field.
And they are surprised when the quality of recruits drops. The only people willing to take a job as an LEO would be those with no other choice in the matter if something like this passes.
A lot of people have no idea what qualified immunity actually is. It doesn't cover criminal activity and it doesn't cover blatant violations of rights.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-04-21, 16:01
A lot of people have no idea what qualified immunity actually is. It doesn't cover criminal activity and it doesn't cover blatant violations of rights.
Exactly, and unlike what Sen. Warren says, if I commit excessive force, you CAN sue me.
We are seeing good cops leave in droves, and good applicants turn to other fields. We are very quickly assembling the police forces we deserve, not what we need.
A lot of people have no idea what qualified immunity actually is. It doesn't cover criminal activity and it doesn't cover blatant violations of rights.
Seems to have worked for Lon Horiuchi.
Grand58742
03-04-21, 16:19
We are very quickly assembling the police forces we deserve, not what we need.
One might think that's kinda the plan...
Seems to have worked for Lon Horiuchi.
I think Idaho was ready to nail him to the wall, but the feds stymied them.
sidewaysil80
03-04-21, 16:41
Seems to have worked for Lon Horiuchi.
I used to agree with that line of thinking, but the more I researched it and read court documents/filings/testimony, I'm not really sure. While it's unfortunate situation, I don't see how his actions were criminal or blatant violation of rights.
I think Idaho was ready to nail him to the wall, but the feds stymied them.
Not really, the evidence showed the denim curtain was closed at the time of shooting and he had no way of knowing she was behind the door. The family/Idaho's claim was that he must have mistakenly shot her thinking she was the "armed male". The family even went so far as to claim the curtain was up, but forensics showed the bullet hole passed through curtain and where it was in relation to window meant it was closed. That key piece of evidence corroborates that he was attempting the guy with a long gun as he went back inside but missed. Whether that would have been a good shoot or not is arguable in it's own right, but it backs up his claim regarding Vicki Weaver nonetheless.
IDK...sounds like Idaho wanted to skin him. Maybe History.com got it wrong.
https://www.history.com/topics/1990s/ruby-ridge
Judge ruled it qualified immunity.
BoringGuy45
03-04-21, 17:34
Seems to have worked for Lon Horiuchi.
It shouldn't have though.
Ending qualified immunity means cops are not going to be allowed to make any mistakes. It can also mean that even if they don't make mistakes they can still be sued. "Reasonable and necessary" will be things of the past.
Guys, I know this forum has a history of strong support for LEO, I get it, but we are literally talking about gun control laws around the corner. Who do you think is going to enforce them? Do you really think LEO are your friend? With everything you see on the horizon, do you really believe they are?
I used to agree with that line of thinking, but the more I researched it and read court documents/filings/testimony, I'm not really sure. While it's unfortunate situation, I don't see how his actions were criminal or blatant violation of rights.
I think in that specific example the ROE were completely illegal and as a result lots of rights got violated.
I believe in the bigger picture, this legislation is an attack on law enforcement in general but in some instances qualified immunity is abused and a really bad idea.
It shouldn't have though.
Ending qualified immunity means cops are not going to be allowed to make any mistakes. It can also mean that even if they don't make mistakes they can still be sued. "Reasonable and necessary" will be things of the past.
I mostly agree.
Guys, I know this forum has a history of strong support for LEO, I get it, but we are literally talking about gun control laws around the corner. Who do you think is going to enforce them? Do you really think LEO are your friend? With everything you see on the horizon, do you really believe they are?
Bit of a catch 22. If this legislation makes most of the good cops walk off the job and do something else, that leaves us with the storm troopers who will enforce any order. Right now we have good cops and bad cops, good laws and bad laws.
I mostly agree.
Bit of a catch 22. If this legislation makes most of the good cops walk off the job and do something else, that leaves us with the storm troopers who will enforce any order. Right now we have good cops and bad cops, good laws and bad laws.
What do you think will happen when those “good cops” are faced with a choice of enforcing unconstitutional gun laws (following orders) of losing their paycheck and pension? Will they chose you and their oath of their kids/wives/husbands?
I know there are many good cops, many who say they won’t enforce it, but they are saying it while they don’t have to. I’m sure there are “good cops” in places like NY and NJ, but what will happen if that “good” NJSP trooper pulls you over and you have your CCW pistol in your pants?
Immunity/exemptions from law for police, judges, prosecutors, legislators, and executives should have never happened.
What do you think will happen when those “good cops” are faced with a choice of enforcing unconstitutional gun laws (following orders) of losing their paycheck and pension? Will they chose you and their oath of their kids/wives/husbands?
I know there are many good cops, many who say they won’t enforce it, but they are saying it while they don’t have to. I’m sure there are “good cops” in places like NY and NJ, but what will happen if that “good” NJSP trooper pulls you over and you have your CCW pistol in your pants?
I know many who would choose to not walk into a firing squad which they know something like gun confiscation would be and would just take their talents and experience to the private sector.
Some will, some won't and again very zip code dependent. In NJ I assume most would be "sorry gotta follow orders" but in parts of Kentucky it would be "well...looks like I'll be delivering pizzas for a living." That assuming that local PDs in Ky don't simply issue "stand down" orders regarding any across the board gun grab. They've all seen knob creek, they know what some people have.
What do you think will happen when those “good cops” are faced with a choice of enforcing unconstitutional gun laws (following orders) of losing their paycheck and pension? Will they chose you and their oath of their kids/wives/husbands?
I know there are many good cops, many who say they won’t enforce it, but they are saying it while they don’t have to. I’m sure there are “good cops” in places like NY and NJ, but what will happen if that “good” NJSP trooper pulls you over and you have your CCW pistol in your pants?
You know local LE doesnt enforce federal law right?
Plus if you think that not taking enforcement actions results in you losing your job you dont understand how modern policing works. I havent written a speeding ticket in over 12 years. Havent heard a peep about it. I have more important things to worry about.
sidewaysil80
03-04-21, 22:26
Immunity/exemptions from law for police, judges, prosecutors, legislators, and executives should have never happened.
If you do something that violates agency policy or is illegal, you don’t get qualified immunity. The media makes it sound like you are just granted immunity to do cart blanche(sp?).
In reality when sued and/or prosecuted, you have to raise the qualified immunity defense and explain actions/procedures/etc. to judge and prove you weren’t violating policy/laws and they make the determination as to whether or not you get qualified immunity.
If you do something that violates agency policy or is illegal, you don’t get qualified immunity. The media makes it sound like you are just granted immunity to do cart blanche(sp?).
In reality when sued and/or prosecuted, you have to raise the qualified immunity defense and explain actions/procedures/etc. to judge and prove you weren’t violating policy/laws and they make the determination as to whether or not you get qualified immunity.
Here is an actual example.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190711/15223942573/appeals-court-says-no-rights-were-violated-when-cop-shot-non-threatening-dog-hit-kid-instead.shtml
You know local LE doesnt enforce federal law right?
That is NOT accurate.
So during the Clinton AW Ban, my father was still party to an ongoing divorce. One day the Sheriff's Office showed up to inventory property as directed by a judge, in the course of cataloging the contents of the safe they looked at a bunch of black rifles and thinking "aren't these illegal?" took temporary possession of them until the local ATF guy could check them out and verify they were good.
The rifles eventually passed inspection, although the local PD did monkey around with the cool new "night vision" and pretty much f'ed it over not knowing that light can damage it. But if the ATF guy found something that was in AW configuration that was clearly post 94 production that would have been that.
So in all kinds of scenarios, local law enforcement does enforce federal laws.
That is NOT accurate.
So during the Clinton AW Ban, my father was still party to an ongoing divorce. One day the Sheriff's Office showed up to inventory property as directed by a judge, in the course of cataloging the contents of the safe they looked at a bunch of black rifles and thinking "aren't these illegal?" took temporary possession of them until the local ATF guy could check them out and verify they were good.
The rifles eventually passed inspection, although the local PD did monkey around with the cool new "night vision" and pretty much f'ed it over not knowing that light can damage it. But if the ATF guy found something that was in AW configuration that was clearly post 94 production that would have been that.
So in all kinds of scenarios, local law enforcement does enforce federal laws.
But that’s a little different than enforcing Federal law...
If there was something wrong, ATF is the one handling it. Their report will likely say “local PD found X, and made contact,” but the only thing the local guys get is grief if the search was not justified. If it gets prosecuted, it goes to Federal court. And if convicted with jail time... Federal prison. ATF could say... “hey, we are busy and it is probably nothing.” Local PD have no choice other than return the firearms.
That being said, we see state/local being handed more stuff at our port (CBP) than the other way around. Booze in the cab of a commercial truck... is a Federal statue. CBP does handle a lot of DOT’s reach... but we are not justified to write tickets/put drivers out of service. So, due to our zero tolerance stance, we have to call state police... who likely won’t write a ticket, seize the booze, and escort the truck to the next truck stop to sit for a day.
Same goes with DUI... since again, we have zero jurisdiction in those matters. But if we can’t get someone to come out, we technically cannot detain a US citizen for being drunk. Forced to let him go, and if he gets into an accident... we are the bad guys. Just like being claimed that we separate families and put kids in cages. Best one I heard is we separate unaccompanied minors from their families... even though unaccompanied sort of means they weren’t with said family, right?
I’d have to see if those who have peace officer status can do anything in regards to that, but for the most part, we get yelled at for even mentioning state/local laws (I still tell people when they have a light out, which likely is against the muster I received... but I do it for their safety and not to enforce state MV law).
Qualified immunity is something that keeps a family of some shady individual, who I might have to shoot/kill, from suing me after a justified shooting. I mean, if I do my job right, I’d think I shouldn’t have to face civil liability because some family wants to say “little Johnny” should have lived, even though he pulled out a firearm he shouldn’t have been in possession of, and tried to kill me. Yep... they should have my house, truck, and all of my possessions... because it’s SO terrible that I dare to do my job. I’m disgusted that law makers even consider this garbage.
Profession liability insurance... if that passes. I’ll also love to see my union representative if it does... “vote for Biden, he has our best interests in mind.” Yea, wonder how much of my dues went towards his campaign. [emoji35][emoji107]
john armond
03-05-21, 06:44
This is just one more step to getting rid of local law enforcement and having only fed LEOs. Remember all those sheriffs who said they would refuse to enforce unconstitutional gun laws? This is a way to remove them.
dwhitehorne
03-05-21, 07:19
Here is an actual example.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190711/15223942573/appeals-court-says-no-rights-were-violated-when-cop-shot-non-threatening-dog-hit-kid-instead.shtml
From the article that looks like a screwed up situation and an officer I wouldn't want to work with BUT the officer did go through a hearing in a courtroom and loose his case for qualified immunity. Then in a second court proceeding the original ruling was overturned on appeal. That's what "qualified" immunity is. Every decision an officer makes can be reviewed in a judicial proceeding. I was not on the scene and I may not agree with it based on the overturned ruling but you can't get much more oversight than that. Nothing I can find online states whether the Deputy was fired or not.
What I want to see is Lawyers and Judges possibly held civilly liable for their decisions just like the officer on the street is. David
That is NOT accurate.
So during the Clinton AW Ban, my father was still party to an ongoing divorce. One day the Sheriff's Office showed up to inventory property as directed by a judge, in the course of cataloging the contents of the safe they looked at a bunch of black rifles and thinking "aren't these illegal?" took temporary possession of them until the local ATF guy could check them out and verify they were good.
The rifles eventually passed inspection, although the local PD did monkey around with the cool new "night vision" and pretty much f'ed it over not knowing that light can damage it. But if the ATF guy found something that was in AW configuration that was clearly post 94 production that would have been that.
So in all kinds of scenarios, local law enforcement does enforce federal laws.
No, it's 100% accurate. Local/state officers CANNOT arrest on a federal statute. Period. THAT is why the ATF was called in the example above. It's also why SO many states enact "mirror statutes". I learned and enforced the AR Criminal Code, NOT the Federal criminal code.
I know many who would choose to not walk into a firing squad which they know something like gun confiscation would be and would just take their talents and experience to the private sector.
Some will, some won't and again very zip code dependent. In NJ I assume most would be "sorry gotta follow orders" but in parts of Kentucky it would be "well...looks like I'll be delivering pizzas for a living." That assuming that local PDs in Ky don't simply issue "stand down" orders regarding any across the board gun grab. They've all seen knob creek, they know what some people have.
This is true. It would vary by jurisdiction for sure. I don't live in town limits, so I'm under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff who seems to be a good dude. At least he said he wont enforce mask mandates, but what if I need to drive through Raleigh? You can't just stay in your little safe space forever.
You know local LE doesnt enforce federal law right?
Plus if you think that not taking enforcement actions results in you losing your job you dont understand how modern policing works. I havent written a speeding ticket in over 12 years. Havent heard a peep about it. I have more important things to worry about.
It could be my overactive imagination, but I am pretty sure if there is a federal ban on all mags over 10rds and I get pulled over with a G19 and 15rd mag, at best there is a 50/50 chance of be getting effed on. Why would I be friendly a group which has me facing those odds?
I think the nature of my jaded world view is that I got into the world of firearms in a non-permissive environment like NJ. A world were cops think JHP ammo is illegal to own by civilians despite the NJSP website having a disclaimer saying it isn't. Where you risk going to jail if you stop to pee on your way to the range. In NJ, if you are a gun owner, every cop is a potential problem. I openly admit that my views may be skewed because of that.
The reason for my original post is that this law could discourage "taking enforcement action" even further.
This is true. It would vary by jurisdiction for sure. I don't live in town limits, so I'm under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff who seems to be a good dude. At least he said he wont enforce mask mandates, but what if I need to drive through Raleigh? You can't just stay in your little safe space forever.
It could be my overactive imagination, but I am pretty sure if there is a federal ban on all mags over 10rds and I get pulled over with a G19 and 15rd mag, at best there is a 50/50 chance of be getting effed on. Why would I be friendly a group which has me facing those odds?
I think the nature of my jaded world view is that I got into the world of firearms in a non-permissive environment like NJ. A world were cops think JHP ammo is illegal to own by civilians despite the NJSP website having a disclaimer saying it isn't. Where you risk going to jail if you stop to pee on your way to the range. In NJ, if you are a gun owner, every cop is a potential problem. I openly admit that my views may be skewed because of that.
The reason for my original post is that this law could discourage "taking enforcement action" even further.
umm...there's no federal mag ban.
This is true. It would vary by jurisdiction for sure. I don't live in town limits, so I'm under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff who seems to be a good dude. At least he said he wont enforce mask mandates, but what if I need to drive through Raleigh? You can't just stay in your little safe space forever.
It could be my overactive imagination, but I am pretty sure if there is a federal ban on all mags over 10rds and I get pulled over with a G19 and 15rd mag, at best there is a 50/50 chance of be getting effed on. Why would I be friendly a group which has me facing those odds?
I think the nature of my jaded world view is that I got into the world of firearms in a non-permissive environment like NJ. A world were cops think JHP ammo is illegal to own by civilians despite the NJSP website having a disclaimer saying it isn't. Where you risk going to jail if you stop to pee on your way to the range. In NJ, if you are a gun owner, every cop is a potential problem. I openly admit that my views may be skewed because of that.
The reason for my original post is that this law could discourage "taking enforcement action" even further.
I can definitely see where you are coming from. Also LEOs are recruited from the local population so you are going to have more anti 2A cops in NJ vs those in say Az or Tx.
It might seem cool to have less anti 2a enforcement taking place but this law will stop pretty much all police work. I sure as hell am not going to chase after a criminal anymore if it happens, even if I see the crime take place. Example taken from actual events. I see an armed robbery taking place. the bad guy starts running away on foot and I start chasing him. He runs into the road and gets hit by a car. I then get sued for causing him to get hit by a car.
Or I am chasing a burglar who was caught in someone's house. I tackle them and they break their arm as we go to the ground. I get sued for the injury.
A bank robbery happens and the clerk calls in the suspect as a middle aged man in a blue F150 leaving the parking lot now. I am driving by the shopping center and see the middle aged man in the blue F150. We conduct a felony stop and detain the man in handcuffs. A squad mate goes to the bank and looks at the surveillance footage. Since a majority of people dont know cars very well he radios that the suspect was clearly in a Chevy truck and we got the wrong guy. We let the guy go and he sues me for unlawful detention.
This is true. It would vary by jurisdiction for sure. I don't live in town limits, so I'm under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff who seems to be a good dude. At least he said he wont enforce mask mandates, but what if I need to drive through Raleigh? You can't just stay in your little safe space forever.
It could be my overactive imagination, but I am pretty sure if there is a federal ban on all mags over 10rds and I get pulled over with a G19 and 15rd mag, at best there is a 50/50 chance of be getting effed on. Why would I be friendly a group which has me facing those odds?
I think the nature of my jaded world view is that I got into the world of firearms in a non-permissive environment like NJ. A world were cops think JHP ammo is illegal to own by civilians despite the NJSP website having a disclaimer saying it isn't. Where you risk going to jail if you stop to pee on your way to the range. In NJ, if you are a gun owner, every cop is a potential problem. I openly admit that my views may be skewed because of that.
The reason for my original post is that this law could discourage "taking enforcement action" even further.
On a related note. In 14 years on the street Ive seen the NFA come up on 3 occasions. 1 was when a couple guys recovered a stolen Q Honey Badger, 1 was a murder done with a sawed off short barrel shotgun, and the other was when I caught a burglar who murdered the home owner and he had a sawed off short barrel shotgun in his backpack. And when I went to court on the two murders, the NFA status of the shotguns wasn't even mentioned.
From the article that looks like a screwed up situation and an officer I wouldn't want to work with BUT the officer did go through a hearing in a courtroom and loose his case for qualified immunity. Then in a second court proceeding the original ruling was overturned on appeal. That's what "qualified" immunity is. Every decision an officer makes can be reviewed in a judicial proceeding. I was not on the scene and I may not agree with it based on the overturned ruling but you can't get much more oversight than that. Nothing I can find online states whether the Deputy was fired or not.
What I want to see is Lawyers and Judges possibly held civilly liable for their decisions just like the officer on the street is. David
That's why I mentioned ditching immunity across the board. There is a reasonable chance the officers of the court that steered that outcome are a moral/functional equivalent of the deputy that did the shooting.
Without assuming, here was Electra City, Texas city attorney Todd Greenwood expounding on the virtues of police officers committing perjury.
https://youtu.be/emmoJvpSGyw
I don't want Joe the cop sued in to oblivion for breaking someone's ribs during the Heimlich maneuver, but I don't want Joe the janitor, Joe the CPA, or Joe the retiree to get sued for the same either. In other words, I don't want a legal caste system.
If anything, police, prosecutors, judges, legislators, and executives should get enhanced penalties for violations instead of exemptions.
No, it's 100% accurate. Local/state officers CANNOT arrest on a federal statute. Period. THAT is why the ATF was called in the example above. It's also why SO many states enact "mirror statutes". I learned and enforced the AR Criminal Code, NOT the Federal criminal code.
Steyr said the SO seized the firearms.
No, it's 100% accurate. Local/state officers CANNOT arrest on a federal statute. Period. THAT is why the ATF was called in the example above. It's also why SO many states enact "mirror statutes". I learned and enforced the AR Criminal Code, NOT the Federal criminal code.
So I guess what I'm saying is results are mostly the same and difference is a matter of details.
People complain about how the Government isn't accountable and wields too much power. Then they support qualified immunity. Howzat?
BoringGuy45
03-05-21, 19:53
People complain about how the Government isn't accountable and wields too much power. Then they support qualified immunity. Howzat?
Qualified immunity isn't supposed to mean that cops are not accountable for their actions. God knows, that's not true at ALL. It just means that if they take the best course of reasonable action with the information available to them at the time, they have some protection if they turn out to be wrong or make a mistake. I don't think ANYBODY, cop or not, should be punished for attempting to do the reasonable and right thing. But this means that cops won't be able to do their job; if anything goes wrong, even if they are doing the right thing, they're screwed.
ChattanoogaPhil
03-05-21, 20:34
----------
Qualified Immunity: The Commonly Misunderstood Defense and Opponents’ Efforts to Expose Law Enforcement Officers to Financial Ruin
"Recent unrest has thrust the doctrine of qualified immunity into the spotlight. Many of those who oppose law enforcement frequently misrepresent the nature, extent, and intent of this limited immunity. Doing so fosters the “us versus them” mentality and abrogation advocates suggest the immunity is an example of “rules for thee not for me.” “After all,” they argue, “the average person on the street does not get any immunity from suit, why should law enforcement officers?” Whether by accident or design, opponents of the immunity falsely claim the doctrine insulates officers from police misconduct claims and the financial consequences of violating the constitutional rights of the people they are responsible for policing. A movement is afoot to strip officers of this very limited immunity under the guise of protecting the public and permitting those victims of police misconduct to recover from their oppressors. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects all government officials acting within the scope of their governmental duties, not just law enforcement officers. As a threshold manner, constitutional theories of liability are available only against the government and government officials, not against private citizens. Private citizens simply cannot sue each other for a violation of the constitution. In order to qualify for protection under qualified immunity, a public official must first prove he was acting within the scope of the discretionary authority provided by his or her governmental position. This applies equally to all governmental officials. The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. Court’s unanimously recognize the doctrine is designed to protect routine decision-making and actions by government officials, but expressly excludes the “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”[i] Qualified immunity is not carte blanche to violate the constitutional rights of others, but instead, provides a defense from personal liability for routine, good-faith decisions by government officials, including law enforcement officers.
When qualified immunity is implicated, the plaintiff must demonstrate the law allegedly violated by the officer was clearly established. More specifically, a plaintiff must point to earlier binding case law that is materially similar to the current case or show that the conduct by the officer to be so obviously at the core of what the Constitution prohibits that the unlawfulness is readily apparent. Stated another way, if reasonable minds can disagree, and they often do, than an officer should not be held personally liable for his or her conduct. If an officer’s conduct is clearly prohibited, or if the conduct so clearly violates the Constitution that a specific case defining the illegal conduct is not needed, then the limited immunity does not apply, and the officer may be held personally liable.
If, on the other hand, the conduct is not clearly unconstitutional, then the officer is entitled to immunity from personal liability. We see this most frequently under three circumstances. First, when different courts disagree on the law. If judges, in the safety of their chambers and under no pressure or threat of harm, cannot agree on the parameters of the constitution in a new or novel situation, how then can an officer be expected to perfectly analyze a complex constitutional issue on the side of the road, under pressure, or, in some cases, under threat of death or great bodily harm? Constitutional interpretations are not carved in stone but instead are fluid and evolving. The first category of cases in which the immunity applies acknowledges this as well as the fact that police officers are not lawyers or judges. It begs the question, why should officers’ personal assets be exposed if they fail to perfectly analyze a complex constitutional issue when the courts cannot even agree?
Second, immunity applies in cases with unique facts that no other court has addressed, and therefore, there is no guidance that an officer’s conduct was unlawful. If an officer acts in good faith, in a reasonable manner, and in a way no court has held is improper, why should he or she be personally liable if the conduct is later found to have violated the Constitution? Third, the immunity applies in the application of new or novel technology. If new technology is developed that no court has examined, and an officer uses it in good faith, why should he or she be personally exposed if it is later found to be unconstitutional? A seminal case in this regard addressed the use of then-new thermal imaging technology to “scan” houses for increased heat signatures to locate marijuana grow operations. Prior to the court’s decision, there was no guidance on the proper use of the new technology, and more specifically, whether a warrant was required to use it. In determining the use required a warrant, law enforcement officers were put on notice that the failure to do so would be unconstitutional. Qualified immunity exists to protect officers from personal liability under circumstances such as these, not to excuse, condone, or permit the wanton violation of the Constitution without ramification.
A critical fact opponents of qualified immunity never seem to acknowledge is that the immunity does not bar claims or suits against the government for violations of the constitution. The immunity applies only to individual government officials. In operation, it makes complete sense. If a government official’s conduct violates the Constitution and the violation is a result of a custom, pattern, or practice of an agency, then the victim of the unconstitutional conduct is entitled to recover from the agency. The requirement for right to be clearly established does not apply to agency liability. Therefore, any claim that the qualified immunity doctrine prevents recourse or the recovery of damages is simply untrue. Agencies, but not individual public officials, may be held accountable and may be required to pay damages where sovereign immunity applies if their conduct violates the constitutional rights of others.
The abrogation of qualified immunity would be catastrophic for individual law enforcement officers who dedicate themselves to policing in good faith and who make every effort to follow the law. It would have zero impact on those officers who are “incompetent or who knowingly violate the law,” because those officers are already exposed to personal liability for their conduct. The potential ramifications on recruiting and retention are countless. What person in their right mind would want to take enforcement action when their reasonable, good faith conduct could result in personal sanctions for a violation of the Constitution, even in the absence of any prior decisions notifying them their conduct was unconstitutional? The net effects of the abrogation of sovereign immunity are real, foreseeable, and catastrophic. Should current efforts to abrogate this important protection prevail, there are dark days ahead for government officials of all types who inadvertently, unintentionally, and unknowingly violate the Constitution."
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/qualified-immunity-the-commonly-8441176/
Clipped from the article explaining how qualified immunity works and an example of another qualified immunity "win" from last summer.
Cliff Notes, officers had the K9 attack a guy who had already surrendered. Had he surrendered by laying down the officers (allegedly) would be on the hook. Instead the guy was sitting down with hands raised so the officers involved couldn't possibly realize what they were doing was a violation.
https://pacificlegal.org/national-review-qualified-immunity/
"Before the last few weeks, many Americans had probably never heard of “qualified immunity.” But as a result of the nationwide protests against abusive policing, this esoteric legal doctrine is now widely understood as a significant impediment to the sound enforcement of constitutional law. The call to “End Qualified Immunity!” has made its way from policy papers to the cardboard signs carried at police reform protests to the pages of our national newspapers.
On June 15, the Supreme Court passed up the opportunity to review several pending cases that called the doctrine into question. The issue is still in the halls of Congress, though, in the form of a bill to “end Qualified Immunity” introduced by Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan libertarian. Some Republicans have been skeptical, but they shouldn’t be.
Anybody who cares about the law, order, and justice should take note: ending qualified immunity will improve government accountability, encourage better official conduct, and give victims of government abuse their day in court.
Qualified Immunity Understood
Qualified immunity protects all government officials, not just police officers, from financial liability when they violate constitutional rights. Unless the complained-of conduct is “clearly established” as unconstitutional, they’re off the hook.
The problem is that courts have defined “clearly established” in such an unusual way that it is nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers accountable for even the most serious and deliberate violation of constitutional rights. Courts will not impose liability unless virtually identical conduct has been the subject of a past lawsuit and was declared unconstitutional. And since immunity from suit prevents constitutional violations from becoming “clearly established” in the first place, qualified immunity creates a cycle that frustrates the enforcement of constitutional rights.
To see how this works in practice, consider Baxter v. Bracey, which the Supreme Court declined to review this month. In that case, police sicced their dog on Alexander Baxter, who was sitting on the ground, hands raised in surrender. We know from an earlier precedent that it is unconstitutional for police officers to release a dog on an unarmed suspect who is laying down on the ground, hands at his side. Should it matter to the law whether the suspect was laying down, hands at side, or sitting down, hands raised?
Under qualified immunity, that meaningless distinction is the difference between accountability and impunity. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the officers in Baxter are immune from suit, leaving Baxter without redress for his injuries. Because the court declined to address the merits of his claim, the same impediment will exist for anybody who suffers a similar injury in the future. Whether the conduct at issue in Baxter violates the constitution is still “unclear” in the Sixth Circuit."
joedirt199
03-06-21, 10:18
I can tell you local law has the ability to charge cases federally because the state prosecutors will drop the ball and let the shitbag go. I took a stolen four wheeler case that turned into a drug distribution, witness tampering/hit threat on my witness captured on a recorded jail phone, stolen guns, money, molestation of a minor (his girlfriend's kid) and got 40 years in federal pin on the dick and I never saw a day in court. He just got out of state prison for assault 1 and distribution 2 months prior so he learned his lesson. Narc assisted me on getting the case to the feds since our state judges and prosecutors are afraid of trial.
Ending qualified immunity is the end of policing in America. They already sue departments frivolously and win because depts don't want to spend the money to fight it. Little law suits win them a few thousand dollars to go away, which gets pissed away to lawyers fees and drugs. You can sue when the officer or dept is found negligent and criminal charges are sought. If they do not get indicted then they are protected from law suits because some loser just doesn't know how to quit and account for their actions and strangers found the officer was in the right.
I know guys with 20+ years in ready to call it quits if this gets dropped. Law suits will be you make a lawful arrest but the prosecutor drops the case because they don't feel like trying it and now you are open for false arrest claims. Doesn't matter if the elements of the crime fit the law. Police will just be report writers and not proactive. Arrests will go down, jails will be empty, crime will increase with no consequences.
Just had a close call yesterday pulling over a car for no plates and smoking weed. While they are pulling to the shoulder, the back passenger throws something over the seat in to the storage area of the suv. Walk up to him first and see he is still licking his blunt closed. Told him to throw that shit out the window, look behind him and see an AR mag sticking up. He gets pulled out and cuffed and the front two grab dash. Three 20's black males on break from work at the pepper spray factory just out smoking weed and going to get snacks at the gas station. Needless to say they were nervous as shit. I asked them why they were so nervous and trying to hide guns and they said "you know how shit is with cops and black people." Our county is predominately white working class laborers so no I don't know how it is with white cops and black males. I went on to tell them their actions are what get them shot. Riding around in a car with no plates, windows down, smoking weed, hiding guns when they get pulled over and then thinking it is my fault for being nervous. They understood that, maybe. Gun hider got his momma on the phone and wanted me to talk to her. I tried talking to her but all she could say was her son was at work. I told her no, he is on break smoking weed and hiding guns. He was just arrested a year before for unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest. Gun was not stolen and was a Delton AR pistol, no sights, mag empty, and obtained from a cousin who in no longer living because he was shot in St. Louis. Needless to say they are making their own beds to lie in. Couldn't seize the gun because it wasn't stolen and an 18 y/o can possess a handgun they just can't buy them till 21. Thanks government for all the ass backward laws.
Our sheriff is spending alot of time in our capital appealing to our senators trying to save policing in our county. All I can say is you better have a lawyer on retainer and worry about you and yours and no one else.
Qualified immunity got expanded in 1983 and created in 1967. US Police existed prior to both events.
https://theappeal.org/the-lab/explainers/qualified-immunity-explained/
This is true. It would vary by jurisdiction for sure. I don't live in town limits, so I'm under the jurisdiction of the county sheriff who seems to be a good dude. At least he said he wont enforce mask mandates, but what if I need to drive through Raleigh? You can't just stay in your little safe space forever.
Well you need to make some personal "risk vs. reward" decisions. If they banned guns, I'd still have guns somewhere...but I wouldn't always have one on me. I can think of NOTHING that would ever have me driving through NJ because of local laws.
Qualified immunity got expanded in 1983 and created in 1967. US Police existed prior to both events.
https://theappeal.org/the-lab/explainers/qualified-immunity-explained/
How often did people sue others in 1967? In 1983?
Now, how about 2021?
How often did people sue others in 1967? In 1983?
Now, how about 2021?
Everyone living in 2021 lives under the threat of frivolous lawsuits. Much like firearms laws and other corrupt/bad plans, I don't support exemptions for certain members of society based on their race, creed, color, or occupational class.
The cases I have posted indicate the courts ruled the officers violated rights, but did so in a way that hadn't been done quite that way before which gives them qualified immunity.
An example was incident where the officer had the K-9 attack the guy surrendering while seated was protected by qualified immunity while had the guy been laying down the officers would have been (allegedly) on the hook.
Why should I support an officer getting a lawsuit dismissed because they figured out a way to violate rights in a way that hadn't been done the same way before?
That's not the kind of innovation I look forward to seeing.
gunnerblue
03-06-21, 20:16
Qualified immunity is necessary for effective policing. The question that should be asked is by what standard(s) should qualified immunity be applied. I agree that matching a violation to a very specific previous case may be too narrow a view. Previously, qualified immunity was based on a more vague “reasonableness” criteria that perhaps should be revisited.
Qualified immunity is necessary for effective policing.
I disagree. It only goes back to 1967 (Pierson vs. Ray) and effective policing certainly predates that. We could also approach the issue from many other angles such as tort reform. Giving lawyers and judges some kind of protective status is bad precedent, it is probably just as bad to apply it to law enforcement.
We all claim to subscribe to "equal protection under the law" but then turn around and do animal farm where some animals are more equal than others. We don't like it when special status is provided based upon race, religion and things like that so what makes occupation any different? Those who create the laws should have no additional protections, those who rule on laws should have no additional protections and those who enforce the laws should have no additional protections.
They should have the same "equality" as people who work in construction, sales or whatever. If you can't work in law enforcement without special protection, find a different career or just make sure you aren't stepping over the lines because you should be as accountable as the rest of us. But honestly lawmakers and law enforcers should actually be more accountable because if anybody should know better, it's them but I don't think I'd codify that into law because we should be equal.
LowSpeed_HighDrag
03-06-21, 22:06
I disagree. It only goes back to 1967 (Pierson vs. Ray) and effective policing certainly predates that. We could also approach the issue from many other angles such as tort reform. Giving lawyers and judges some kind of protective status is bad precedent, it is probably just as bad to apply it to law enforcement.
We all claim to subscribe to "equal protection under the law" but then turn around and do animal farm where some animals are more equal than others. We don't like it when special status is provided based upon race, religion and things like that so what makes occupation any different? Those who create the laws should have no additional protections, those who rule on laws should have no additional protections and those who enforce the laws should have no additional protections.
They should have the same "equality" as people who work in construction, sales or whatever. If you can't work in law enforcement without special protection, find a different career or just make sure you aren't stepping over the lines because you should be as accountable as the rest of us. But honestly lawmakers and law enforcers should actually be more accountable because if anybody should know better, it's them but I don't think I'd codify that into law because we should be equal.
That's a pretty narrow view. Tell me how many construction workers are forced into life and death situations, by other people, on a daily basis? None. You see things differently and I have no desire to debate anyone about this, but apples and oranges all day long.
And your point about the 60's is laughable. There were 87k federal civil lawsuits filed in 1970. In 2020, there were millions upon millions.
Why should I support an officer getting a lawsuit dismissed because they figured out a way to violate rights in a way that hadn't been done the same way before?
That's not the kind of innovation I look forward to seeing.
Qualified immunity protects officers who make honest mistakes. It does not protect an officer who engages in willful, wanton conduct or illegal activity. It is only granted about 60% of the time. When it is granted it does not shut down or "dismiss" litigation. The lawsuit still moves forward. The employer picks up the defense cost and cost of the settlement, if any.
The existence of qualified immunity is a recognition that law enforcement is an imperfect profession. Important, life changing decisions are made quickly and often under stress. Cops don't get it right 100% of the time. They never have and never will. Take away qualified immunity and you will have extraordinarily passive police and extraordinarily aggressive criminals.
More info here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AYRIJG74UgA
Qualified immunity protects officers who make honest mistakes. It does not protect an officer who engages in willful, wanton conduct or illegal activity. It is only granted about 60% of the time. When it is granted it does not shut down or "dismiss" litigation. The lawsuit still moves forward. The employer picks up the defense cost and cost of the settlement, if any.
The existence of qualified immunity is a recognition that law enforcement is an imperfect profession. Important, life changing decisions are made quickly and often under stress. Cops don't get it right 100% of the time. They never have and never will. Take away qualified immunity and you will have extraordinarily passive police and extraordinarily aggressive criminals.
I have already shared 2 incidents where officers engaged in actions that violated (per the court) Constitutionally recognized rights, but got qualified immunity anyway via committing the offense in a trivially different manner.
There are plenty more cases of QI wins via similar nonsense.
The QI threshold out of those cases would be very similar to shooting someone with a wildcat cartridge, having the court determine it sure enough was a murder, but then doing some major ethical gymnastics to claim the shooter wasn't responsible due to no previous murder case featuring a cartridge case with such a unique shoulder angle.
That's a pretty narrow view. Tell me how many construction workers are forced into life and death situations, by other people, on a daily basis? None. You see things differently and I have no desire to debate anyone about this, but apples and oranges all day long.
And your point about the 60's is laughable. There were 87k federal civil lawsuits filed in 1970. In 2020, there were millions upon millions.
And so we are clear, I'm going to afford all first responders a lot of consideration but I stop short of qualified immunity. Again we could approach this from a "frivolous lawsuit" point of view. I think there are better ways to protect them if they are acting in good faith.
Do you think lawyers and judges should be afforded qualified immunity?
And if you are using numbers to refute my point, then clearly qualified immunity isn't the solution because the numbers of law suits don't support it. Obviously the real answer is a more litigious society and a legal system that is more tolerant of frivolous lawsuits, but that doesn't mean qualified immunity is necessary to have effective law enforcement because obviously effective law enforcement existed prior to qualified immunity.
It's a lot like affirmative action which is meant to fix racism but is actually only a different kind of racism. It doesn't create equality like people claim. And that brings us right back to "equal protection under the law", either you support that concept or you don't. You can't have special exemptions for congress critters, lawmakers and law enforcement and claim to have "equal protection under the law."
Qualified immunity protects officers who make honest mistakes. It does not protect an officer who engages in willful, wanton conduct or illegal activity.
But unfortunately that isn't how it always works. Despite illegal ROE at Ruby Ridge, FBI HRT sniper Lon Horiuchi was protected by qualified immunity in the shooting of Vicki Weaver. I don't believe that head shot was an accidental or honest mistake.
Additionally, if I am ever forced to protect my home and I accidentally shoot an innocent party or worse a first responder...there are no special protections for me despite the fact that it was an honest mistake that was in no way willful or intentional and was done under extreme duress. Just as I'm accountable...so should you be.
Doesn't mean I don't like you, don't respect you or anything like that. I'm probably the most pro LE person you are gonna meet, but I don't believe in special rights. I believe in equality.
Only a fool would try to defend the indefensible. Cops need to be held accountable for their decision making. If they do illegal, stupid things they should pay the price.
Qualified immunity is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Cops will have (taxpayer funded ) liability insurance if it goes away. They're still not going to pay for damages out of their own pockets. They will, however, become very passive and very reluctant to stop people that fit suspect descriptions, investigate suspicious activity, Etc.
Don't be surprised if politically-connected people make a hell of a lot of money off the sale of these professional liability policies. Some politicians nephews are about to get very rich
Only a fool would try to defend the indefensible. Cops need to be held accountable for their decision making. If they do illegal, stupid things they should pay the price.
Qualified immunity is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Cops will have (taxpayer funded ) liability insurance if it goes away. They're still not going to pay for damages out of their own pockets. They will, however, become very passive and very reluctant to stop people that fit suspect descriptions, investigate suspicious activity, Etc.
Don't be surprised if politically-connected people make a hell of a lot of money off the sale of these professional liability policies. Some politicians nephews are about to get very rich
So shouldn't that just be part of an occupational insurance package? And currently in judgements against PDs, those damages are paid out via tax payers, it's not like the chief of police has to write a check.
I get that it's a balancing act, but if a cop has a judgement against him it's no different than if I come to the aid of somebody and I get sued. I have no special protections.
If I saw a LEO who was under fire out in the open, I'm probably gonna do something really stupid like help. I'm probably not gonna drive past saying "oh I could get sued, I'm not gonna try and help a good guy" so please don't talk to me about LE reluctance.
It's not even my job, but I have a history of having helped a few people because I was there, I was armed and I could do something about it. And while it may not have been wise, I did it all without qualified immunity. Thankfully nothing bad really happened.
Liability insurance for cops is a terrible idea. City managers, police Chiefs will make it a priority to keep the rates low. The only way for an officer to do this is to not arrest anyone, hurt feelings, or engage in anything that might result in a lawsuit or insurance claim.
Don't expect the police to look too hard for that burglar that ran out the back door of your house. The cop might stop the wrong car, detain the wrong person and see his rates increase
Liability insurance for cops is a terrible idea. City managers, police Chiefs will make it a priority to keep the rates low. The only way for an officer to do this is to not arrest anyone, hurt feelings, or engage in anything that might result in a lawsuit or insurance claim.
Don't expect the police to look too hard for that burglar that ran out the back door of your house. The cop might stop the wrong car, detain the wrong person and see his rates increase
Ok, don't expect the community to support the police. See how that works?
So instead of playing "special exemptions or else" how about we solve the problem of unreasonable civil suits another way. After all if everyone else has to solve the problem of unreasonable civil suits then why can't a solution be found for law enforcement.
Currently the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but if I am involved in a self defense shooting then the burden of proof is realistically on me despite "innocent until proven guilty."
Now I have an even bigger problem of what is essentially sovereign immunity as it is provided to judges and lawyers and first responders should enjoy something a little more comprehensive than the "good samaritan act", but I don't think it should be blanket immunity UNLESS it can be proven that they violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Right now qualified immunity as it exists is just one of those things that creates a greater "us vs them" mentality. I think we could easily come up with solutions that protect all first responders (because I think EMTs and FFs face nearly identical threats and risks) from BS lawsuits, but while we are at it maybe we can come up with better ways to address all BS lawsuits.
And again, I'm going back to "equal protection under the law" where nobody has special exemptions.
Only a fool would try to defend the indefensible. Cops need to be held accountable for their decision making. If they do illegal, stupid things they should pay the price.
You mean like Alexander L. Baxter, Petitioner
v.
Brad Bracey, et al where the K9 was turned loose on a compliant surrendering suspect, but was a QI win for the officers?
While Amber Guyger ended up paying the price(at least so far) she certainly had plenty defending her actions because of her occupational class.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/amber-guyger-botham-jean-shooting-police-must-face-impartial-justice/
gunnerblue
03-07-21, 08:31
Ok, don't expect the community to support the police. See how that works?
So instead of playing "special exemptions or else" how about we solve the problem of unreasonable civil suits another way. After all if everyone else has to solve the problem of unreasonable civil suits then why can't a solution be found for law enforcement.
Currently the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but if I am involved in a self defense shooting then the burden of proof is realistically on me despite "innocent until proven guilty."
Now I have an even bigger problem of what is essentially sovereign immunity as it is provided to judges and lawyers and first responders should enjoy something a little more comprehensive than the "good samaritan act", but I don't think it should be blanket immunity UNLESS it can be proven that they violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."
Right now qualified immunity as it exists is just one of those things that creates a greater "us vs them" mentality. I think we could easily come up with solutions that protect all first responders (because I think EMTs and FFs face nearly identical threats and risks) from BS lawsuits, but while we are at it maybe we can come up with better ways to address all BS lawsuits.
And again, I'm going back to "equal protection under the law" where nobody has special exemptions.
Qualified immunity for police officers shouldn't be seen as a "get out of jail free/us vs them" issue. It should be seen as a recognition that law enforcement is a unique profession in taking just a moment to debate whether or not an action in Constitutional could get someone killed. This is not some Orwellian pigs scenario, it's just reality. Especially considering cops are not even close to being experts in law.
Another good point made above is using qualified immunity to protect officers from courts/judges in disagreement with one another. If the experts can't figure it out, why should the layman?
Again, I'm all for reconsidering how qualified immunity is applied, as well as civil lawsuit reform. I'm perfectly fine with extending the immunity to non-LEO's who help out a cop in trouble (as in a Good Samaritan-type law).
As far as being abused, as in some of the cases being discussed like the k9 incident, it's an imperfect system implemented by the government. Need I say more? Let's make it better
Qualified immunity for police officers shouldn't be seen as a "get out of jail free/us vs them" issue. It should be seen as a recognition that law enforcement is a unique profession in taking just a moment to debate whether or not an action in Constitutional could get someone killed. This is not some Orwellian pigs scenario, it's just reality. Especially considering cops are not even close to being experts in law.
Another good point made above is using qualified immunity to protect officers from courts/judges in disagreement with one another. If the experts can't figure it out, why should the layman?
Again, I'm all for reconsidering how qualified immunity is applied, as well as civil lawsuit reform. I'm perfectly fine with extending the immunity to non-LEO's who help out a cop in trouble (as in a Good Samaritan-type law).
As far as being abused, as in some of the cases being discussed like the k9 incident, it's an imperfect system implemented by the government. Need I say more? Let's make it better
Can you point us to any LE groups wanting qualified immunity corrected so that it doesn't end up being a get out of jail free card for officers who violate rights in a slightly different way than a previous case?
Also, why bother swearing an oath of office if an officer can just claim ignorance and get off the hook when they violate what they swore to uphold?
gunnerblue
03-07-21, 12:08
I am speaking only for myself.
Claiming ignorance and getting of the hook is a gross oversimplification.
I am speaking only for myself.
Claiming ignorance and getting of the hook is a gross oversimplification.
That's the claim/ruling with the ones I have looked at though. Per the courts, rights got violated, but some piddly detail wasn't exactly the same as some other instance where the cop actually did get to foot the bill.
If the rest of the legal system had been operated under the same logic legislatures could pass any law they wished and the "subject to" peons would never be subject to it since no one had ever violated the new law exactly the same way before.
sidewaysil80
03-07-21, 16:54
That's the claim/ruling with the ones I have looked at though. Per the courts, rights got violated, but some piddly detail wasn't exactly the same as some other instance where the cop actually did get to foot the bill.
If the rest of the legal system had been operated under the same logic legislatures could pass any law they wished and the "subject to" peons would never be subject to it since no one had ever violated the new law exactly the same way before.
Not to burden you, but would mind posting some of the recent examples your talking about?
Not to burden you, but would mind posting some of the recent examples your talking about?
Very hit or miss getting PDF files(which is how the actual court cases I have found are online) to link, but several recent cases are mentioned here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/30/police-george-floyd-qualified-immunity-supreme-court-column/5283349002/
use that info to search for it. The free pass for the dog attack got handed out a couple months after the article while others are still in the process.
How it works.
https://youtu.be/dUqjU3UaJus
Interesting vid, I think I learned 100% more about QI than I knew before. Thomas' dissent was a disappointment, but that needs to be fleshed out a bit more.
How it works.
https://youtu.be/dUqjU3UaJus
Very useful vid. Obviously QI needs to be modified, starting like yesterday with eliminating the requirements a similar case has been tried prior to. Gov officials should have QI under very limited circumstances, vs under virtually all circumstances. We need LE etc to able to do their jobs under "reasonable" assumption they are protected by law for doing their jobs, but as written and used by SCOTUS and lower courts, it amounts to a get out of jail free card for some seriously F up behaviors, and that applies to judges, DA's, etc. I think many also seem to focused on how QI applies to LE, and that's a mistake.
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 10:41
How it works.
https://youtu.be/dUqjU3UaJus
I'm not sure where he is getting his information from but he is categorically false.
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
Below is a link OPPOSING qualified immunity, but they at least explain it accurately as opposed to this guy in his shed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/blatant-misrepresentations-qualified-immunity-law-enforcement
gunnerblue
03-09-21, 10:57
How it works.
https://youtu.be/dUqjU3UaJus
Not exactly how it works. Also, Chemerinsky is a leftist academic (possibly redundant) so I suspect his opinion is extremely biased.
Very useful vid. Obviously QI needs to be modified, starting like yesterday with eliminating the requirements a similar case has been tried prior to. Gov officials should have QI under very limited circumstances, vs under virtually all circumstances. We need LE etc to able to do their jobs under "reasonable" assumption they are protected by law for doing their jobs, but as written and used by SCOTUS and lower courts, it amounts to a get out of jail free card for some seriously F up behaviors, and that applies to judges, DA's, etc. I think many also seem to focused on how QI applies to LE, and that's a mistake.
In most states, judges and prosecutors have COMPLETE Immunity, not qualified immunity.
In most states, judges and prosecutors have COMPLETE Immunity, not qualified immunity.
He mentions that briefly in the vid too. But, some feel he's still not accurate on QI, so back to reading up on the topic!
I'm not sure where he is getting his information from but he is categorically false.
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
Below is a link OPPOSING qualified immunity, but they at least explain it accurately as opposed to this guy in his shed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/blatant-misrepresentations-qualified-immunity-law-enforcement
Good counter reads. Do you feel QI needs any reforms?
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 14:15
Good counter reads. Do you feel QI needs any reforms?
I absolutely think that some of the crazy examples where it was given were wrong. However, those are the minority compared to how frequently that defense is raised and how often it’s needed.
I think it’s eerily akin to gun control argument: lets enact legislation/change because of minority isolated incidents, even though majority benefits/are responsible
I'm not sure where he is getting his information from but he is categorically false.
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
Below is a link OPPOSING qualified immunity, but they at least explain it accurately as opposed to this guy in his shed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/blatant-misrepresentations-qualified-immunity-law-enforcement
Looking at the 2nd of your links, I noticed this:
1. First, a court must look at whether the facts indicate that a constitutional right has been violated,
2. If so, a court must then look at whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct
Question...isn't that essentially what this lawyer is saying, in that, that right can't be established to begin with, so that no appeal later can be made to it?
I'm not sure where he is getting his information from but he is categorically false.
https://www.fletc.gov/sites/default/files/PartIXQualifiedImmunity.pdf
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
Below is a link OPPOSING qualified immunity, but they at least explain it accurately as opposed to this guy in his shed.
https://www.cato.org/blog/blatant-misrepresentations-qualified-immunity-law-enforcement
Why is Lehto's take on it completely false? The issue Lehto mentioned concerning Qualified Immunity being granted in the absence of a previous nearly identical case is mentioned in all 3 links you provided. FLETC mentions in a positive manner, Cornell neutral, and CATO opposed.
Also, what does the "guy in his shed" comment pertain to?
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 15:45
Looking at the 2nd of your links, I noticed this:
1. First, a court must look at whether the facts indicate that a constitutional right has been violated,
2. If so, a court must then look at whether that right was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct
Question...isn't that essentially what this lawyer is saying, in that, that right can't be established to begin with, so that no appeal later can be made to it?
I was always taught/told that it means was the right clearly established to the officer during alleged violation. Hence the objective reasonableness standard being used to determine (same as uses of force fyi). Truth be told I have only heard this notion about an identical court case being necessary from that guy in video and in left leaning articles.
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 15:51
Why is Lehto's take on it completely false? The issue Lehto mentioned concerning Qualified Immunity being granted in the absence of a previous nearly identical case is mentioned in all 3 links you provided. FLETC mentions in a positive manner, Cornell neutral, and CATO opposed.
Also, what does the "guy in his shed" comment pertain to?
I’m on a phone and thought the video you posted was a guy in his shed. Regardless, at the very least he is misleading. He makes it sound as if the judge automatically denies civil cases based on that. In reality the defendant has to raise that defense and then a judge rule on it. It’s absolutely not as automatic as he makes it sound. Secondly, the objective reasonableness standard is the leading factor and previous court cases are used as reference, not an automatic. While unfortunately some judges may have ruled in that way, it’s certainly not what’s being taught, nor does it reflect what I’ve seen. Lastly, all of these vids/most people don’t realize qualified immunity only pertains to civil cases. If someone is criminally negligent or acting maliciously they should be and likely would be charged accordingly.
He leaves out the objective reasonableness standard and mentions only previous court cases, which is disingenuous because the previous court cases are only a reference or tool to help determine objective reasonableness.
Not exactly how it works. Also, Chemerinsky is a leftist academic (possibly redundant) so I suspect his opinion is extremely biased.
So what did Lehto get wrong?
Never heard of Chemerinsky before, but if you are referring to the details(feces and sewage in the cell) those seem to be lifted from sCOTUS.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for it either so please do look up SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRENT MICHAEL TAYLOR v. ROBERT RIOJAS, ET AL
I’m on a phone and thought the video you posted was a guy in his shed. Regardless, at the very least he is misleading. He makes it sound as if the judge automatically denies civil cases based on that. In reality the defendant has to raise that defense and then a judge rule on it. It’s absolutely not as automatic as he makes it sound. Secondly, the objective reasonableness standard is the leading factor and previous court cases are used as reference, not an automatic. While unfortunately some judges may have ruled in that way, it’s certainly not what’s being taught, nor does it reflect what I’ve seen. Lastly, all of these vids/most people don’t realize qualified immunity only pertains to civil cases. If someone is criminally negligent or acting maliciously they should be and likely would be charged accordingly.
He leaves out the objective reasonableness standard and mentions only previous court cases, which is disingenuous because the previous court cases are only a reference or tool to help determine objective reasonableness.
It isn't all videos because Lehto mentions (@ 1:00ish) about not being able to sue the offending officer.
From the CATO link that you indicated explains QI accurately:
" II. Qualified immunity shields police officers who violate people's constitutional rights, unless those rights were "clearly established"; it is not limited to reasonable officers following the law or department rules.
The doctrine of qualified immunity only matters when a public official has, in fact, violated someone's federally protected rights. If a police officer hasn't committed any constitutional violation in the first place, then they don't need qualified immunity, because they haven't broken the law at all. Thus, the doctrine only does work in the space where a constitutional right has been violated, but a court determines this right was not "clearly established" (which generally requires a prior case with functionally identical facts). See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (describing the "two-step sequence" where a court must first decide whether the facts alleged "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, then decide "whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct")."
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 16:16
It isn't all videos because Lehto mentions (@ 1:00ish) about not being able to sue the offending officer.
From the CATO link that you indicated explains QI accurately:
" II. Qualified immunity shields police officers who violate people's constitutional rights, unless those rights were "clearly established"; it is not limited to reasonable officers following the law or department rules.
The doctrine of qualified immunity only matters when a public official has, in fact, violated someone's federally protected rights. If a police officer hasn't committed any constitutional violation in the first place, then they don't need qualified immunity, because they haven't broken the law at all. Thus, the doctrine only does work in the space where a constitutional right has been violated, but a court determines this right was not "clearly established" (which generally requires a prior case with functionally identical facts). See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (describing the "two-step sequence" where a court must first decide whether the facts alleged "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, then decide "whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct")."
In their opinion it says “generally requires a previous court case” but that is not the deciding factor. Just like uses of force, it’s the objective reasonableness standard. The previous case means the officer clearly knew he was violating rights as its been ruled upon. However if not previously ruled on, the individual circumstances of that case are reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time and the judge decides.
It’s disingenuous to boil the argument down to case law history. Case law history is one aspect that gets taken into consideration to determine culpability. If there was case law, no excuse to say you didn’t know you were violating rights. If no case law, the officer is given benefit of the doubt that he didn’t know he was violating rights and objective reasonableness standard is applied to determine if QI is granted.
In their opinion it says “generally requires a previous court case” but that is not the deciding factor. Just like uses of force, it’s the objective reasonableness standard. The previous case means the officer clearly knew he was violating rights as its been ruled upon. However if not previously ruled on, the individual circumstances of that case are reviewed based on what the officer knew at the time and the judge decides.
It’s disingenuous to boil the argument down to case law history. Case law history is one aspect that gets taken into consideration to determine culpability. If there was case law, no excuse to say you didn’t know you were violating rights. If no case law, the officer is given benefit of the doubt that he didn’t know he was violating rights and objective reasonableness standard is applied to determine if QI is granted.
How is it disingenuous if actual court show that is how it is being used?
gunnerblue
03-09-21, 16:44
So what did Lehto get wrong?
Never heard of Chemerinsky before, but if you are referring to the details(feces and sewage in the cell) those seem to be lifted from sCOTUS.
I don't expect anyone to take my word for it either so please do look up SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRENT MICHAEL TAYLOR v. ROBERT RIOJAS, ET AL
Previous court cases are only used as reference when the judge is determining his or her ruling. Just because an identical case hasn't been ruled on before doesn't mean that qualified immunity will automatically be granted.
Chemerinsky is the Berkeley law professor that Lehto cites
So, if I understand, the lawyer is overstating the necessity of a prior case establishing "what that constitutional right" is? The previous case or lack thereof is but one of many factors that the judge would use in determining if QI applies?
Previous court cases are only used as reference when the judge is determining his or her ruling. Just because an identical case hasn't been ruled on before doesn't mean that qualified immunity will automatically be granted.
Chemerinsky is the Berkeley law professor that Lehto cites
Looks like courts are using it just that way.
"Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2020) 1
Per Curiam
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
TRENT MICHAEL TAYLOR v. ROBERT RIOJAS, ET AL.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 19–1261. Decided November 2, 2020
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Trent Taylor is an inmate in the custody of the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Taylor alleges that,
for six full days in September 2013, correctional officers
confined him in a pair of shockingly unsanitary cells.1 The
first cell was covered, nearly floor to ceiling, in “‘massive
amounts’ of feces”: all over the floor, the ceiling, the win-
dow, the walls, and even “‘packed inside the water faucet.’”
Taylor v. Stevens, 946 F. 3d 211, 218 (CA5 2019). Fearing
that his food and water would be contaminated, Taylor did
not eat or drink for nearly four days. Correctional officers
then moved Taylor to a second, frigidly cold cell, which was
equipped with only a clogged drain in the floor to dispose of
bodily wastes. Taylor held his bladder for over 24 hours,
but he eventually (and involuntarily) relieved himself,
causing the drain to overflow and raw sewage to spill across
the floor. Because the cell lacked a bunk, and because Tay-
lor was confined without clothing, he was left to sleep naked
in sewage.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit properly held
that such conditions of confinement violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punish-
ment. But, based on its assessment that “[t]he law wasn’t
clearly established” that “prisoners couldn’t be housed in cells teeming with human waste” “for only six days,” the
court concluded that the prison officials responsible for Tay-
lor’s confinement did not have “‘fair warning’ that their spe-
cific acts were unconstitutional.” 946 F. 3d, at 222 (quoting
Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 741 (2002))."
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 17:25
So, if I understand, the lawyer is overstating the necessity of a prior case establishing "what that constitutional right" is? The previous case or lack thereof is but one of many factors that the judge would use in determining if QI applies?
Yes exactly. Lookup “objective reasonableness standard” that is the standard being used to determine.
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 17:25
So, if I understand, the lawyer is overstating the necessity of a prior case establishing "what that constitutional right" is? The previous case or lack thereof is but one of many factors that the judge would use in determining if QI applies?
Yes exactly. Lookup “objective reasonableness standard” that is the standard being used to determine.
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 17:31
Double tap
68whiskeyncoke
03-09-21, 17:32
How many of you guys are current or former LEO?
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 17:37
How many of you guys are current or former LEO?
Current. 6 years as a fed, going on 3 years with local.
How is it disingenuous if actual court show that is how it is being used?
Because we don’t know if that was the only reason for granting QI. Even your most recent example only publishes the plantiff’s account and summary. It doesn’t present the officer’s side of the story or how the objective reasonableness standard was applied.
Tennessee v Gardner is best example of QI. Cop shot a fleeing felon which was in line with department SOP. Cop was sued but SCOTUS said there has never been a case about shooting fleeing felons, so it was NOT a clearly established violation. Okay, next, based on the current policy within that department and the officers training, he acted within reason. It would be disingenuous to say the cop got away with shooting a teenager in the back as he ran away just because no court case like that has happened before. Which is what your video is suggesting and some of your examples are doing.
Me? never even played one on TV. I'm a complete amateur. Just trying to learn.
Current. 6 years as a fed, going on 3 years with local.
Because we don’t know if that was the only reason for granting QI. Even your most recent example only publishes the plantiff’s account and summary. It doesn’t present the officer’s side of the story or how the objective reasonableness standard was applied.
Tennessee v Gardner is best example of QI. Cop shot a fleeing felon which was in line with department SOP. Cop was sued but SCOTUS said there has never been a case about shooting fleeing felons, so it was NOT a clearly established violation. Okay, next, based on the current policy within that department and the officers training, he acted within reason. It would be disingenuous to say the cop got away with shooting a teenager in the back as he ran away just because no court case like that has happened before. Which is what your video is suggesting and some of your examples are doing.
So all of the events were reasonable to the officers involved and the courts.
And the TN agency SOP is to let the dog attack someone after they surrendered. So long as they aren't laying down since that was a previous case.
In most states, judges and prosecutors have COMPLETE Immunity, not qualified immunity.
That's a good chunk of why police don't have anything to worry about.
Liability insurance for cops is a terrible idea. City managers, police Chiefs will make it a priority to keep the rates low. The only way for an officer to do this is to not arrest anyone, hurt feelings, or engage in anything that might result in a lawsuit or insurance claim.
Don't expect the police to look too hard for that burglar that ran out the back door of your house. The cop might stop the wrong car, detain the wrong person and see his rates increase
Is that ceasing to arrest universal or more along the lines of events of the last year such as Rittenhouse in Kenosha?
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 19:12
So all of the events were reasonable to the officers involved and the courts.
And the TN agency SOP is to let the dog attack someone after they surrendered. So long as they aren't laying down since that was a previous case.
I’m not claiming that. I referenced one or two of your examples that aren’t telling the whole story and am merely correcting the misinformation. I’m sure in the history of QI some bad calls have been made, but hardly worth overhauling the system considering the likely tens of thousands good uses.
Discussion on QI, indemnification, and professional insurance.
https://youtu.be/GBQMH-vCq2I
gunrunner505
03-09-21, 21:36
The end goal is one national police controlled by the government.
They are working hard to make the job of policing so unsavory to the type of person that would normally seek out that role so they can put in jackbooted thugs who will go and do what they’re told. Legality or constitutionality be damned. Go in there and arrest that guy and we’ll invent charges later. Go in there and take all his guns because we said so. No questions asked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 21:42
Discussion on QI, indemnification, and professional insurance.
https://youtu.be/GBQMH-vCq2I
Don’t have time to watch, will get to it tomorrow. But I can say the amount of frivolous suits and “Hail Mary’s” brought against guys in my agency let alone all agencies combined would make the cost of professional insurance astronomical in my opinion. Half the reason these bs claims don’t go to court is most lawyers know the facts/can see the report and have a pretty good idea of whether or not QI would be granted. Replacing it with liability insurance I feel like would create an influx of suits because now there is a chance they will settle as opposed to dragging it through court. Which btw happens frequently with docs. I don’t think their intent would be to actually go to court, I think it’s to shake the settlement tree to see what falls out. Given the ratio of complaints/payouts I can see the cost for le insurance going higher then docs. Who pays?
We have a pay freeze right now for 2021 and 2022 due to “covid” in my agency. I’m now going to be two years behind inflation as is...now I have to cover a new insurance premium on top of that? Lol. Like I said, there isn’t some pandemic of bad QI calls and the good ones vastly outweigh the bad...we don’t advocate banning guns after mass shootings, why is that mentality diff for QI?
Don’t have time to watch, will get to it tomorrow. But I can say the amount of frivolous suits and “Hail Mary’s” brought against guys in my agency let alone all agencies combined would make the cost of professional insurance astronomical in my opinion. Half the reason these bs claims don’t go to court is most lawyers know the facts/can see the report and have a pretty good idea of whether or not WI would granted. Replacing it with liability insurance I feel like would create an influx of suits because now there is a chance they will settle as opposed to dragging it through court. Which btw happens frequently with docs. I don’t think their intent would be to actually go to court, I think it’s to shake the settlement tree to see what falls out. Given the ratio of complaints/payouts I can see the cost for le insurance going higher then docs. Who pays?
We have a pay freeze right now for 2021 and 2022 due to “covid” in my agency. I’m now going to be two years behind inflation as is...now I have to cover a new insurance premium on top of that? Lol. Like I said, there isn’t some pandemic of bad QI calls and the good ones vastly outweigh the bad...we don’t advocate banning guns after mass shootings, why is that mentality diff for QI?
The guy in the top left corner is in favor of keeping
QI and he even brings up the no identical case issue.
Not sure who "we" are because it is common for LE groups to back 2nd Amendment infringements/oppose reoeal of anti 2nd Amendment laws with or without recent mass shootings.
The end goal is one national police controlled by the government.
They are working hard to make the job of policing so unsavory to the type of person that would normally seek out that role so they can put in jackbooted thugs who will go and do what they’re told. Legality or constitutionality be damned. Go in there and arrest that guy and we’ll invent charges later. Go in there and take all his guns because we said so. No questions asked.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From the CATO article earlier:
"The doctrine of qualified immunity only matters when a public official has, in fact, violated someone's federally protected rights. If a police officer hasn't committed any constitutional violation in the first place, then they don't need qualified immunity, because they haven't broken the law at all. Thus, the doctrine only does work in the space where a constitutional right has been violated, but a court determines this right was not "clearly established" (which generally requires a prior case with functionally identical facts). See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009) (describing the "two-step sequence" where a court must first decide whether the facts alleged "make out a violation of a constitutional right," and if so, then decide "whether the right at issue was 'clearly established' at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct")."
Not seeing how 1 is preferable to the other.
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 22:14
The guy in the top left corner is in favor of keeping
QI and he even brings up the no identical case issue.
If that’s true, how come qualified immunity gets denied WITHOUT identical court cases or case law?
If that’s true, how come qualified immunity gets denied WITHOUT identical court cases or case law?
First hit:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/11/24/court-denies-qualified-immunity-to-cops-who-beat-an-innocent-man-to-death/
"As a result, the court held that “Officers Martin and Costa violated clearly established law by failing to attempt less forceful alternatives and by continuing to inflict force despite Joseph committing no crime, posing no threat, and giving no active resistance,” allowing the lawsuit against those two officers to continue. "
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 23:11
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/07/25/18-35300.pdf
Here is the summary from the ninth circuit and tear gas into ladies house. To say they were given QI because no one did that before is bs. People are focusing on the “clearly established or not part and completely ignoring the objective reasonableness explanations literally surrounding those phrases.
sidewaysil80
03-09-21, 23:31
First hit:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/11/24/court-denies-qualified-immunity-to-cops-who-beat-an-innocent-man-to-death/
"As a result, the court held that “Officers Martin and Costa violated clearly established law by failing to attempt less forceful alternatives and by continuing to inflict force despite Joseph committing no crime, posing no threat, and giving no active resistance,” allowing the lawsuit against those two officers to continue. "
So tell me, what court case took place before this (specifically if cited) in which two officers chased an autistic kid into a store and he jumped over the counter and then they beat and tased him? I’ll wait.
Maybe, just maybe, the “clearly established law” part means case precedent for the alleged violation/act and NOT in the sense of a case sharing similar details of the events leading up the violation?
So tell me, what court case took place before this (specifically if cited) in which two officers chased an autistic kid into a store and he jumped over the counter and then they beat and tased him? I’ll wait.
Maybe, just maybe, the “clearly established law” part means case precedent for the alleged violation/act and NOT in the sense of a case sharing similar details of the events leading up the violation?
Why don't you cite some cases that support your claims on how it is being used instead.
The sCOTUS ruling in Taylor v. Riojas that tossed the QI seems to be an anomaly and mentions the 5th circuit ruling that used the "law wasn’t
clearly established” that “prisoners couldn’t be housed in cells teeming with human waste” “for only six days,” the
court concluded that the prison officials responsible for Tay-
lor’s confinement did not have “‘fair warning’ that their spe-
cific acts were unconstitutional.” defense.
You guys think too much. Every law the new congress passes is bad. Every law is written to reduce freedom, enslave the people, and increase the wealth, power, and influence of the marxists in the federal government.
Andy
I would be very surprised if they get rid of QI. The deep state needs an unhindered, unaccountable police force to enforce their totalitarian State. Who else is going to arrest me for using the wrong pronoun or for going to church?
https://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2020/10/30/police-lobby-groups-lie-to-protect-qualified-immunity/
ChattanoogaPhil
03-11-21, 08:16
.... we don’t advocate banning guns after mass shootings, why is that mentality diff for QI?
Indeed. And it's no surprise that those sponsoring the bill to end qualified immunity "Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) in the house, and Sens. Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate", also support banning so-called assault weapons and much more.
Holding legislative hands with this lunatic? No thanks.
https://i.imgur.com/3rJ7htt.png
Don’t politicians and govt bureaucrats have some form immunity? The bill should include all govt employees not just police. Not advocating either way but it is hypocritical for them to lobby for removing immunity from police but keeping it for themselves.
That’s just Punky Brewster with me. Let em kill each other. Not in a hurry. Whomever is still alive can do a written testimony. If some emo kid shoots up a school then hey just shove some fat kids at him. He’s gotta run out of ammo eventually.
No immunity means no responsibility means no obligation.
Indeed. And it's no surprise that those sponsoring the bill to end qualified immunity "Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) in the house, and Sens. Ed Markey, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate", also support banning so-called assault weapons and much more.
Holding legislative hands with this lunatic? No thanks.
https://i.imgur.com/3rJ7htt.png
Honestly, that's the most compelling argument I've seen so far.
gunnerblue
03-11-21, 19:39
That’s just Punky Brewster with me. Let em kill each other. Not in a hurry. Whomever is still alive can do a written testimony. If some emo kid shoots up a school then hey just shove some fat kids at him. He’s gotta run out of ammo eventually.
No immunity means no responsibility means no obligation.
This forum needs a "like" button
No immunity means no responsibility means no obligation.
Firefighters and EMT's don't enjoy qualified immunity but they still accept responsibility and obligation. But while we are on the subject, the supreme court has consistently ruled that police officers, at all levels of the government, have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. They stated that it is the job of police officers to “investigate crimes and arrest criminals.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
So your argument is a very thin one. Qualified immunity is especially offensive as it applies to judges and lawyers who absolutely have no need of the protection as they are in no way first responders.
I think we all agree that first responders need something better than the "good samaritan act" but sovereign immunity is very abusable and there has to be a better way and it should be something provided to ALL first responders.
But right now you enjoy immunity without obligation. I understand you and most LEOs function with the best intentions and those HERE who object to QI aren't trying to harm you and we understand that is the goal of many out there trying to do away with QI. There just has to be a better way.
Lol man. Medics and Firefighters are protected under Good Samaritan laws. That’s week 1 day 1 of any First Responder training.
And I got your better way. Move to a better area or just deal with it yourself.
I’m okay with DUIs, School Shooters, Human Trafficking, and Cold blooded fvcking rape and murder if society is.
No immunity. No policeee
Simple as that
Lol man. Medics and Firefighters are protected under Good Samaritan laws. That’s week 1 day 1 of any First Responder training.
And I got your better way. Move to a better area or just deal with it yourself.
I’m okay with DUIs, School Shooters, Human Trafficking, and Cold blooded fvcking rape and murder if society is.
No immunity. No policeee
Simple as that
I actually mentioned that those first responders are covered by the good samaritan act and I specifically stated that all first responders need something better.
But let me ask you this, do YOU think judges and lawyers need qualified immunity?
I actually mentioned that those first responders are covered by the good samaritan act and I specifically stated that all first responders need something better.
But let me ask you this, do YOU think judges and lawyers need qualified immunity?
But they don’t have Qualified Immunity. They have Judicial Immunity. And to a degree (as much as I think Judges and lawyers should be hung from a rope), they DO in fact need it.
It’s not like Law and Order SVU or that one time you fought a Speeding ticket.
If you mess with Judiciary types then you are effectively neutering the very people you thought would overrule the election you all thought was “stolen”.
How are you going to prosecute malfeasance or organized crime without Judicial Immunity?
JFC......
Worth a try.
Theresa Brennan, seen described as the worst judge in Michigan history. Gov that appointed her is the new secretary of energy.
https://thelivingstonpost.com/theresa-brennan-gets-off-lightly-and-theres-plenty-of-blame-to-go-around/
But they don’t have Qualified Immunity. They have Judicial Immunity. And to a degree (as much as I think Judges and lawyers should be hung from a rope), they DO in fact need it.
It’s not like Law and Order SVU or that one time you fought a Speeding ticket.
If you mess with Judiciary types then you are effectively neutering the very people you thought would overrule the election you all thought was “stolen”.
How are you going to prosecute malfeasance or organized crime without Judicial Immunity?
JFC......
So I had it wrong, it was other members of the executive branch that enjoy qualified immunity. All this legal shit is hard to keep straight.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity#:~:text=Although%20qualified%20immunity%20frequently%20appears%20in%20cases%20involving,immunity%2C%20most%20are%20protected%20by%20other%20immunity%20doctrines.
Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.
So the question should have been do you think those other members of the executive branch deserve qualified immunity?
And just so we are on the same page, if I was currently a LEO I'd want qualified immunity.
I'd also want rulings that state I have no duty or obligation to "protect citizens" and that my only true obligation is to "arrest and investigate."
I'd also want a SR-25 carbine as a patrol rifle.
I'd also want a competitive salary and benefits package on par with 5 year members of Congress.
I'd also want adult industry actresses to be reassigned as personal stress management consultants.
But I wouldn't for a second pretend that any of that qualifies as equal protection under the law.
So I had it wrong, it was other members of the executive branch that enjoy qualified immunity. All this legal shit is hard to keep straight.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity#:~:text=Although%20qualified%20immunity%20frequently%20appears%20in%20cases%20involving,immunity%2C%20most%20are%20protected%20by%20other%20immunity%20doctrines.
Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. While judges, prosecutors, legislators, and some other government officials do not receive qualified immunity, most are protected by other immunity doctrines.
So the question should have been do you think those other members of the executive branch deserve qualified immunity?
Yes because of my hero Richard Nixon. I mean go watch Absolute Power with an open mind. In a way it’s saving Trump from getting charged frivolously with real charges beyond Kabuki Theatre
And just so we are on the same page, if I was currently a LEO I'd want qualified immunity.
I'd also want rulings that state I have no duty or obligation to "protect citizens" and that my only true obligation is to "arrest and investigate."
They already do. That’s why the Parkland Campus Cop got no penalties
I'd also want a SR-25 carbine as a patrol rifle.
I actually did this once to flex on everybody else. Then I went back to a normal AR
I'd also want a competitive salary and benefits package on par with 5 year members of Congress.
You could say that about the military. In a lot of ways I think modest pay keeps you grounded. You got enough to live decent but you’re not rich.
I'd also want adult industry actresses to be reassigned as personal stress management consultants.
Naw. These people are ACTRESSES. They are no better or involved with “the deed” as Matt Damon would be in an actual gunfight. I want me a Babysan from Taiwan with no concept of Christian shame.
But I wouldn't for a second pretend that any of that qualifies as equal protection under the law.
Just a friendly reminder that LE in general has crazy high suicide, divorce, and alcoholism rates. So obviously it isn’t a glamorous job. It has its moments though.
Just a friendly reminder that LE in general has crazy high suicide, divorce, and alcoholism rates. So obviously it isn’t a glamorous job. It has its moments though.
So all those things I noted, some of them I was real specific about so I know they already exist. And that is one of my sticking points about QI. You say "no immunity, no policee" but really, we are already there with the Supreme Court ruling that you have no "duty to protect."
Maybe if we obliterated that ruling, many of us would be a lot more comfortable with QI but at the same time we all remember Lon Horiuchi and he is the poster boy for QI gone wrong.
This forum pretty much knows each other, if you were getting jammed up over some BS as much as I oppose QI secretly I'd be glad it was there for you. It's for the cops that did nothing wrong but somebody is trying to screw them over due to some current social agenda. Problem is QI is so powerful a tool that it can be abused and that is our issue.
So it either needs to be tweaked to add some additional oversight OR we need a better, more effective tool that accomplishes the same goal without establishing sovereign immunity. I don't think anyone here hates cops, I think we all understand just how hard a job it is and how thankless. Nobody calls the cops because it's a beautiful day and they are cooking steaks. They call the cops when their life has become a shit show.
We get that. But at the same time, we'd like to be on equal terms with LE and others because sometimes we do the same shit without any special protection. This sort of thing happens more often than it gets reported because obviously we don't want to encourage EVERYONE to wade into a situation where law enforcement is trying to get it under control.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/04/armed-citizen-police-defense/
But it happens regardless and people do it without declaring the need for special legal protection. Nobody said "Man that cop looks like he needs help, but no qualified immunity...no special assistance." They just went ahead and did it anyhow.
Obviously two of the examples are somewhat ancient history and only included to prove a point. But I can think of at least a dozen that happened in Broward alone in the last 20. This includes one on my block where a Ft Lauderdale officer got dog piled momentarily when he was trying to arrest one and it became a group party. Took four OTHER guys to hop the fence into the yard and pull everyone off of him and get their asses under control. There was "no plan", we saw it happening and just did it. Of course we knew the officer in question personally.
We didn't want or get any special consideration or award or anything, in fact it got downplayed a LOT for several reasons. Some for our benefit, some for his. Really hope you get where I'm coming from in this discussion.
So all those things I noted, some of them I was real specific about so I know they already exist. And that is one of my sticking points about QI. You say "no immunity, no policee" but really, we are already there with the Supreme Court ruling that you have no "duty to protect."
Maybe if we obliterated that ruling, many of us would be a lot more comfortable with QI but at the same time we all remember Lon Horiuchi and he is the poster boy for QI gone wrong.
This forum pretty much knows each other, if you were getting jammed up over some BS as much as I oppose QI secretly I'd be glad it was there for you. It's for the cops that did nothing wrong but somebody is trying to screw them over due to some current social agenda. Problem is QI is so powerful a tool that it can be abused and that is our issue.
So it either needs to be tweaked to add some additional oversight OR we need a better, more effective tool that accomplishes the same goal without establishing sovereign immunity. I don't think anyone here hates cops, I think we all understand just how hard a job it is and how thankless. Nobody calls the cops because it's a beautiful day and they are cooking steaks. They call the cops when their life has become a shit show.
We get that. But at the same time, we'd like to be on equal terms with LE and others because sometimes we do the same shit without any special protection. This sort of thing happens more often than it gets reported because obviously we don't want to encourage EVERYONE to wade into a situation where law enforcement is trying to get it under control.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2017/04/armed-citizen-police-defense/
But it happens regardless and people do it without declaring the need for special legal protection. Nobody said "Man that cop looks like he needs help, but no qualified immunity...no special assistance." They just went ahead and did it anyhow.
Obviously two of the examples are somewhat ancient history and only included to prove a point. But I can think of at least a dozen that happened in Broward alone in the last 20. This includes one on my block where a Ft Lauderdale officer got dog piled momentarily when he was trying to arrest one and it became a group party. Took four OTHER guys to hop the fence into the yard and pull everyone off of him and get their asses under control. There was "no plan", we saw it happening and just did it. Of course we knew the officer in question personally.
We didn't want or get any special consideration or award or anything, in fact it got downplayed a LOT for several reasons. Some for our benefit, some for his. Really hope you get where I'm coming from in this discussion.
I get what you’re saying. But while Lon Horiuchi is a piece of shit. Look at it this way:
Derek Chauvin will benefit greatly once he is acquitted. The evidence as we know it does NOT support any wrongdoing in the form of Manslaughter or Murder. He had a guy OD on him. It happens.
Once he is acquitted, QI will protect him from malicious civil lawsuits because their are no end to people who are willing to sue frivolously because it suits their little political agenda.
Same with Darren Wilson, where all this BLM BS actually started. He did absolutely nothing wrong. But because it tapped into the inherent fragility of a loudmouthed demographic of over represented and obnoxious segment of Black Americans; it was way way higher profile than it needed to be.
I mean.....Fellow BIPOC of M4C this is just NOT HARD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ6zEYRcfZo
. It's for the cops that did nothing wrong but somebody is trying to screw them over due to some current social agenda. .
QI is for instances where rights have been violated, but the official allegedly didn't know they were violating. That's per the Cato link earlier that we were told was accurate on what QI is.
https://www.cato.org/blog/blatant-misrepresentations-qualified-immunity-law-enforcement
I get what you’re saying. But while Lon Horiuchi is a piece of shit. Look at it this way:
Apparently he(& Dale Monroe who would have done the same) aren't thought of too poorly in the LE community.
https://www.oregonfirearms.org/11-26-08-gun-maker-hawks-wares-using-hired-killer
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/what-the-hells-the-problem-with-troy-industries/
I would like to see the ending of government employee unions . That would straighten up lots of the evil in government.
I would like to see the ending of government employee unions . That would straighten up lots of the evil in government.
Honestly I just want term limits. That would be a yuge first step.
I also feel like if you want to introduce a Bill you gotta be severely beaten by devil worshipping meth addicts and have a pool cue rammed up the straight and narrow. I mean if you REALLY BELIEVE in what you are trying to force on millions of Americans then it’s a small price to pay.
Honestly I just want term limits. That would be a yuge first step.
I also feel like if you want to introduce a Bill you gotta be severely beaten by devil worshipping meth addicts and have a pool cue rammed up the straight and narrow. I mean if you REALLY BELIEVE in what you are trying to force on millions of Americans then it’s a small price to pay.
You, sir, are a genius.
I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
gunnerblue
03-12-21, 10:42
Firefighters and EMT's don't enjoy qualified immunity but they still accept responsibility and obligation. But while we are on the subject, the supreme court has consistently ruled that police officers, at all levels of the government, have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. They stated that it is the job of police officers to “investigate crimes and arrest criminals.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
So your argument is a very thin one. Qualified immunity is especially offensive as it applies to judges and lawyers who absolutely have no need of the protection as they are in no way first responders.
I think we all agree that first responders need something better than the "good samaritan act" but sovereign immunity is very abusable and there has to be a better way and it should be something provided to ALL first responders.
But right now you enjoy immunity without obligation. I understand you and most LEOs function with the best intentions and those HERE who object to QI aren't trying to harm you and we understand that is the goal of many out there trying to do away with QI. There just has to be a better way.
Judges absolutely need complete immunity in order to have the freedom to do what he or she was elected/appointed to do- rule on the letter of the law. It would chaos if judges could be sued for making a ruling.
I think that you and I are on the same page philosophically. Do you have any proposals to protect police officers from being financially drained by frivolous BS lawsuits allegeding civil rights violations? This, in a nutshell, is the the intent behind QI for cops.
Judges absolutely need complete immunity in order to have the freedom to do what he or she was elected/appointed to do- rule on the letter of the law. It would chaos if judges could be sued for making a ruling.
I think that you and I are on the same page philosophically. Do you have any proposals to protect police officers from being financially drained by frivolous BS lawsuits allegeding civil rights violations? This, in a nutshell, is the the intent behind QI for cops.
Except qualified immunity is used when rights very much were violated along with the claim police didn't know they were doing wrong.
Also, QI was not created by the legislative process, but by court ruling. Seems to go hand in hand with courts perpetually approving anti 2nd Amendment laws or actions which run counter to 2nd Amendment related topics in The Federalist Papers and other writings by the founders.
More info
https://youtu.be/NBqLpjg0wfY
I think that you and I are on the same page philosophically. Do you have any proposals to protect police officers from being financially drained by frivolous BS lawsuits allegeding civil rights violations? This, in a nutshell, is the the intent behind QI for cops.
Honest answer is if the answer were easy / obvious then we'd probably already be doing it. Basically whatever prevents someone like Lon Horiuchi from being protected from "you gotta be shitting me" crap like Ruby Ridge.
I would like EVERY first responder (police, fire and EMT) to have equal and effective protection from frivolous lawsuits but honestly it would be nice if we could solve the problem of frivolous lawsuits for everyone. But the broad based protections of qualified immunity as it currently exist are really, really bullet proof which means the bad are shielded with the good and that is never good.
Ideally IAD would function as an oversight but they have their own biases and problems.
I'm hesitant to take protections away from law enforcement because my default is "support law enforcement" but this is an area where protections are abused and it's happened more than a few times, so we obviously need to look at alternatives.
Wish there was a way to solve these problems "in house" but too many bad cops up and down the food chain for that to work. If things worked the way they should work, LEOs wouldn't have to deal with 75% of the BS currently going on and you could just focus on the job and not political agendas and witch hunts.
The reality is that to effectively fix the problem, we'd probably need to overhaul the entire legal system because entrenched shit bags have put too many safety nets in the system for the shit bags.
Just keep in mind that the current push to take away QI from LE has nothing to do with alleged police abuses and everything to do with the Marxist agenda to undermine American LE and values at large. Supporting the removal of QI from LE is supporting their larger Marxist agenda.
The principles or facts of QI are largely irrelevant at this point in time.
Also, LE does have a duty to act in some circumstances. While the Parkland cop has QI from civil suits, he was charged criminally with negligence. Judicial process is still pending.
Just keep in mind that the current push to take away QI from LE has nothing to do with alleged police abuses and everything to do with the Marxist agenda to undermine American LE and values at large. Supporting the removal of QI from LE is supporting their larger Marxist agenda.
The principles or facts of QI are largely irrelevant at this point in time.
Also, LE does have a duty to act in some circumstances. While the Parkland cop has QI from civil suits, he was charged criminally with negligence. Judicial process is still pending.
Odds are Deputy Peterson will be fine.
https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again#:~:text=Gonzales%2C%20the%20supreme%20court%20has,when%20a%20threat%20is%20apparent.
Not understanding the notion that Marxists(who support near unlimited power and privilege for the state and subservience for those outside the circle of power) would be in favor of enforcement agents for the state being financially on the hook for their actions that violate rights.
Odds are Deputy Peterson will be fine.
He may be acquitted, however, a trial will have him publicly scrutinized more than he already has. I would argue that the public humiliation that he has already received is worse than any criminal punishment he will receive. That is in addition to a 30+ year cop being arrested and submitted to the "walk of shame", so to speak. So, no, he will not be "fine." I am surprised that he has not eaten his gun yet.
Not understanding the notion that Marxists(who support near unlimited power and privilege for the state and subservience for those outside the circle of power) would be in favor of enforcement agents for the state being financially on the hook for their actions that violate rights.
The left doesn't trust law enforcement in this country. Their recent hunt for right wing extremism among law enforcement agencies is example. I think the multiple sheriffs who have stood up to the left's agenda over the last decade or so have scared and convinced that law enforcement won't automatically do their bidding.
This ties in with the QI topic as well. While not encoded in law, implied QI is more prevalent for federal agencies (FBI) than local law enforcement. Time after time, we see local law enforcement targeted for actions in which Federally employed agents would skate. You didn't see Obama's DOJ go after Federal LE for civil rights violations. Do we think Lon Horiuchi would have been cleared had he been locally or state employed? Maybe, maybe not.
I think that the Progressive Elites know they can count on the FBI (at least at the leadership level). Local sheriff's, not so much. So, just being LE does not make them part of the Progressive's "state."
Undermining our faith in society (including the LE institution in this country) is absolutely a Marxist agenda.
gunnerblue
03-21-21, 10:40
Just keep in mind that the current push to take away QI from LE has nothing to do with alleged police abuses and everything to do with the Marxist agenda to undermine American LE and values at large. Supporting the removal of QI from LE is supporting their larger Marxist agenda.
The principles or facts of QI are largely irrelevant at this point in time.
Also, LE does have a duty to act in some circumstances. While the Parkland cop has QI from civil suits, he was charged criminally with negligence. Judicial process is still pending.
Why would Marxists wish to undermine law enforcement instead of making them more powerful and less accountable in order to better serve an oppressive state?
ChattanoogaPhil
03-21-21, 11:28
Also, LE does have a duty to act in some circumstances. While the Parkland cop has QI from civil suits, he was charged criminally with negligence. Judicial process is still pending.
July 2020
Parents of Parkland School Shooting Victim Can Sue Security Guard for Negligence, Florida Court Rules
A three-judge panel of the 4th District Court of Appeal rejected arguments that former campus monitor Andrew Medina should be dismissed from a civil lawsuit filed by Andrew Pollack and Shara Kaplan, parents of Meadow Pollack, one of the students killed in the massacre.
Medina contended that he cannot be held liable because of sovereign immunity, a legal concept that generally shields government employees from lawsuits. But part of a state sovereign-immunity law allows such lawsuits if employees act "in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property."
The appeals court, upholding a decision by a Broward County circuit judge, said the allegations in the case were adequate to consider whether Medina acted with "willful and wanton" disregard.
More here: https://www.wflx.com/2020/07/02/court-clears-way-case-against-parkland-school-monitor/
-------------
The above overruled the below-
Aug 2019
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff's Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.
https://www.governing.com/archive/tns-parkland-lawsuit-school.html
He may be acquitted, however, a trial will have him publicly scrutinized more than he already has. I would argue that the public humiliation that he has already received is worse than any criminal punishment he will receive. That is in addition to a 30+ year cop being arrested and submitted to the "walk of shame", so to speak. So, no, he will not be "fine." I am surprised that he has not eaten his gun yet. agenda.
I think it is best to err on the side of caution and give the officers their day in court, criminal and civil as opposed to rolling the dice on feelings of guilt or shame.
In all honesty, the idea of a badge being the entirety of a person's being that they just couldn't go on living without isn't exactly impressive to me. I could kind of understand it as part of a larger issue such as developing a health issue and turning a person's entire life upside down, but in cases like this not at all.
The left doesn't trust law enforcement in this country. Their recent hunt for right wing extremism among law enforcement agencies is example. I think the multiple sheriffs who have stood up to the left's agenda over the last decade or so have scared and convinced that law enforcement won't automatically do their bidding.
This ties in with the QI topic as well. While not encoded in law, implied QI is more prevalent for federal agencies (FBI) than local law enforcement. Time after time, we see local law enforcement targeted for actions in which Federally employed agents would skate. You didn't see Obama's DOJ go after Federal LE for civil rights violations. Do we think Lon Horiuchi would have been cleared had he been locally or state employed? Maybe, maybe not.
I think that the Progressive Elites know they can count on the FBI (at least at the leadership level). Local sheriff's, not so much. So, just being LE does not make them part of the Progressive's "state."
Undermining our faith in society (including the LE institution in this country) is absolutely a Marxist agenda.
I have said several times the exemptions and immunities enjoyed by judges, prosecutors, and so on shouldn't be. When their privileges are far above a regular citizen's rights then they have no compelling reason to place any value on rights at all.
A lot of people have no idea what qualified immunity actually is. It doesn't cover criminal activity and it doesn't cover blatant violations of rights.
In theory in doesn't.
In practice it does.
Attorney explaining it.
https://youtu.be/Lbj2bWz_0Ds
sidewaysil80
03-27-21, 07:52
Attorney explaining it.
https://youtu.be/Lbj2bWz_0Ds
Much better then the other video you referenced. I absolutely agree with everything he said. He really eloquently explained the “clearly established” part and showed its only part of the determination. Moreso that it doesn’t mean an identical case has to have been tried (like previous video ignorantly asserted), but merely similar details to the offense (Ie excessive force, search seizure, etc) has to have case law. I think his example of serving arrest warrant to third party really drove that point home and broke that stigma.
Again, I think that is the best (albeit dry at times) explanation of qualified immunity. Did that change or affect your opinion on the issue at all?
sidewaysil80
03-27-21, 07:53
Double tap
Much better then the other video you referenced. I absolutely agree with everything he said. He really eloquently explained the “clearly established” part and showed its only part of the determination. Moreso that it doesn’t mean an identical case has to have been tried (like previous video ignorantly asserted), but merely similar details to the offense (Ie excessive force, search seizure, etc) has to have case law. I think his example of serving arrest warrant to third party really drove that point home and broke that stigma.
Again, I think that is the best (albeit dry at times) explanation of qualified immunity. Did that change or affect your opinion on the issue at all?
I still think LE who violate rights need to get their day in court for civil suits.
I don't agree with the immunity granted to judges, prosecutors, and others either.
kaiservontexas
03-27-21, 15:44
Doctors, and I figure nurses to some nurses, have malpractice insurance
Lawyers and paralegals both also carry malpractice insurance. This surprised me when I went into a graduate cert. program at Rice University after my undergrad at University of Saint Thomas (Houston, Texas not the Virgin Islands for some reason people always think it is the Virgin Islands, and yes I know they have a city called St. Thomas.) and we were specifically told by our professors to make sure our malpractice insurance was apart of our pay.
Maybe police should have malpractice insurance? I know it is a sticky situation, but that sounds better than having no protections. And I agree tort reform would be a very good thing, a very good thing.
kaiservontexas
03-27-21, 15:44
Doctors, and I figure nurses to some nurses, have malpractice insurance
Lawyers and paralegals both also carry malpractice insurance. This surprised me when I went into a graduate cert. program at Rice University after my undergrad at University of Saint Thomas (Houston, Texas not the Virgin Islands for some reason people always think it is the Virgin Islands, and yes I know they have a city called St. Thomas.) and we were specifically told by our professors to make sure our malpractice insurance was apart of our pay.
Maybe police should have malpractice insurance? I know it is a sticky situation, but that sounds better than having no protections. And I agree tort reform would be a very good thing, a very good thing.
New Mexico has nixed it in their state courts.
https://youtu.be/pb86wWmz9OU
You know local LE doesnt enforce federal law right?
Plus if you think that not taking enforcement actions results in you losing your job you dont understand how modern policing works. I havent written a speeding ticket in over 12 years. Havent heard a peep about it. I have more important things to worry about.
Mentions local/state enforcement of federal laws and several sheriff's associations opposing laws against that enforcement.
https://youtu.be/Osbwd6d66wA
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.