Want to violate someone with a reduced chance of being sued? [Archive]

View Full Version : Want to violate someone with a reduced chance of being sued?

jsbhike

08-08-21, 21:07

Manchester, NH police have a deal for you and they are now hiring. Vacation, insurance, and qualified immunity as job benefits.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/566550-new-hampshire-police-chief-apologizes-for-job-posting-listing-qualified?amp

SomeOtherGuy

08-08-21, 21:48

They must have seen Libertarian PBS and thought it was good marketing. Go to 1:30 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4tEkUqPrk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4tEkUqPrk

Co-gnARR

08-08-21, 22:39

They must have seen Libertarian PBS and thought it was good marketing. Go to 1:30 in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4tEkUqPrk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE4tEkUqPrk

Do not have the ability to watch above posted video, however, having lived sorta in the area, Manchester is a rather desirable area to live. But seeing this liberal backlash, I commend CoP for taking the fall and owning the ‘regrettable’ comments. Why would someone not local to the region choose to live there? Yeah, can’t fathom any reason to, myself. I think this job posting is solely for those who cannot/will not vacate the area for familial roots…there are no good reasons for capable people to move there. Best of luck to deep rooted New Englanders stepping up to this challenge.

jsbhike

08-08-21, 22:43

jsbhike

08-09-21, 05:55

Do not have the ability to watch above posted video, however, having lived sorta in the area, Manchester is a rather desirable area to live. But seeing this liberal backlash, I commend CoP for taking the fall and owning the ‘regrettable’ comments. Why would someone not local to the region choose to live there? Yeah, can’t fathom any reason to, myself. I think this job posting is solely for those who cannot/will not vacate the area for familial roots…there are no good reasons for capable people to move there. Best of luck to deep rooted New Englanders stepping up to this challenge.

So you want police officers that have violated someone's rights to not be on the hook in the civil suit?

chuckman

08-09-21, 08:46

As someone who works in a job where there is zero immunity and a job in which lawsuits abound, the whole concept of 'qualified immunity', 'limited immunity,' or 'office immunity' is just nuts.

Co-gnARR

08-09-21, 12:36

So you want police officers that have violated someone's rights to not be on the hook in the civil suit?

No, of course I want accountability for gross misconduct. At the same time, LEO need to be free to act with discretion. My point is the chief should not have made that statement the QI is a perk given the public visibility. If the good citizens are highly critical of every move the local police make they risk turning the officers into criminals. This happened in Albuquerque after the DOJ intervened, and the city has suffered for it.

As for QI and due process, I am not LEO nor health care professional, so my understanding is limited. What I am worried about is the thin line between officer safety and over reach/abuse of power. If officers are hesitant to act in critical situations because of optics, public back lash, etc, we as society lose the police as a means of public safety.

jsbhike

08-10-21, 08:41

No, of course I want accountability for gross misconduct. At the same time, LEO need to be free to act with discretion. My point is the chief should not have made that statement the QI is a perk given the public visibility. If the good citizens are highly critical of every move the local police make they risk turning the officers into criminals. This happened in Albuquerque after the DOJ intervened, and the city has suffered for it.

As for QI and due process, I am not LEO nor health care professional, so my understanding is limited. What I am worried about is the thin line between officer safety and over reach/abuse of power. If officers are hesitant to act in critical situations because of optics, public back lash, etc, we as society lose the police as a means of public safety.

QI isn't self defense/defense of others or scenarios that are covered under good Samaritan laws as one of the sides wants to believe and/or wants others to believe. QI also isn't about criminal charges for crimes committed as another side believes and/or wants others to believe. On tbe latter, the free pass given by the higher rungs on the legal system ladder is a problem to those they support which is its own problem.

QI was created by 2 court decisions(in 1967 and 1983 iirc), not legislation. It is granted when a person's rights have been violated, but shields the offender from being sued if the offender did not violate rights in nearly an identical manner to a previous civil case. So if an officer did not get sued for violating rights in a specific manner prior to 1983(or 1967...not sure how the window works) an officer post 1983 can't be sued for committing a rights violation unless they do it in an almost identical way to a case prior to 1983.

Co-gnARR

08-10-21, 17:04

QI isn't self defense/defense of others or scenarios that are covered under good Samaritan laws as one of the sides wants to believe and/or wants others to believe. QI also isn't about criminal charges for crimes committed as another side believes and/or wants others to believe. On tbe latter, the free pass given by the higher rungs on the legal system ladder is a problem to those they support which is its own problem.

QI was created by 2 court decisions(in 1967 and 1983 iirc), not legislation. It is granted when a person's rights have been violated, but shields the offender from being sued if the offender did not violate rights in nearly an identical manner to a previous civil case. So if an officer did not get sued for violating rights in a specific manner prior to 1983(or 1967...not sure how the window works) an officer post 1983 can't be sued for committing a rights violation unless they do it in an almost identical way to a case prior to 1983.

Thank you for the clarification. I did not know QI was set by legal precedent. That certainly changes my opinion.