Only for undercover? Why?
I don’t feel like I have a full grasp of what qualified immunity means in practice right now, and in previous thread I was corrected by either idaho or marine on some details so I’m not sure I can discuss it adequately.
That said, I didn’t say “only” for undercover. I mentioned them specifically because I feel like qualified immunity applies most directly to situations they will encounter, and my understanding is that it was a concept largely developed for undercover officers who were forced into no-win choices in attempts to keep viable cover for future operations.
I feel that uniformed officers will be less likely to encounter these situations, but I think we ought to protect them as well. That said, a significant portion of my beef is with the legal framework surrounding QI. As I understand it, almost all judges will throw out a challenge to QI if there is not already precedent on the action. In other words, if there’s a “new” situation under lawsuit the judge will almost invariably side with police.
I’m explaining rather poorly but I feel the that legal framework needs to be adjusted. However, like I said I’m not sure I can really talk about it adequately.
Did all Democrats skip that part? This is my problem with the things you’re saying: I agree that Joe’s statement was fucking absurd and he should never have inserted himself into the judicial process, just like Obama’s “he could have been my son” comment. But there’s a difference between prominent Democrats doing something and all Democrats (within reason) doing something. Surely you agree that state and municipal politics are often different than national planks. There are many things that local and state GOP do differently than the national GOP.
I’m not really well informed on the George Floyd act so I’m not sure I can make a good point, but my impression was not that it was going to completely END QI, rather limit it. I support limiting it more than it is currently based on my current understanding. I do not support ending it.
1 Like
For the most part, yes, they did. Name me one notable Democrat from the last six years who is calling bullshit on the narrative of a white supremacist police force in need of dramatic reform. You could go back even further in Democrat strongholds like Chicago and St. Louis, where the anti cop drums have been beating for decades.
See the unanimous Democrat vote for a bill named after a crook whose death sparked months of anti-cop protests. If that’s not mainstream, nothing is. In simple terms, ending or even limiting qualified immunity means they want to be able to sue individual cops, not just their departments like they can now. Do you think that will help or harm police morale, performance and recruitment in our current situation? And remember, that’s just one part of the bill.
See the staggering support Democrats showed Black Lives Matter. It’s no surprise, at it was polling at 62 percent favorable about a year ago. Remember when Democrats painted it on the streets of our largest cities? Remember the “mostly peaceful” anti-cop riots supported both universally and enthusiastically by every Democrat of note?
See the scorn and accusations of racism heaped on those who dared question the narrative or called BLM the anti-American racist communists that they are.
See the insane racist rhetoric that weaves the false narrative of white supremacy. That narrative is at the center of modern Democrat policy and rhetoric. Not the fringe, the center.
See the insane push to indoctrinate the next generation of children in the racist ideology of CRT, which describes law enforcement as literally racist and makes the absurd claim that law enforcement as a concept arose from slave patrols. Joe Biden makes teaching this to children and even adults a federal policy priority and so do Democrats at all levels of government and society, from school boards to the White House.
Ironically, Joe Biden was right on this issue 30 years ago when he insisted that flooding the cities with cops was needed to fight crime. Lo and behold, crime went down when we did that along with locking up violent people.
For me personally, it matters very little that not all Democrats came out against cops in the most stupid and sociopathic of terms when they, as a political party, are still using police as political scapegoats. Most significant to me is that they are getting the actual anti-cop policies passed and moving ahead with more, not reversing course or changing rhetoric.
What is that difference in practical terms as it relates to law enforcement policy? It seems to me that clearly and unequivocally supporting the police is, in fact, the fringe Democrat position these days. Instead you have Joe Biden talking out of both sides of his mouth, saying he supports funding the police but still characterizes them as racist murderers of innocent black men.
And here we are, with stupid and sociopathic policies still being advanced by Democrats, still calling anyone who disagrees a racist monster. It would appear to me that sane LEO reform is the fringe policy among Democrats.
1 Like
I don’t think qualified immunity is what you are talking about. I may be wrong, but I’m almost positive I’m not. When you mentioned “undercover,” I assumed you were talking about something else(I’m not sure what it’s called…whatever it is that allows an undercover officer to violate laws in order to remain undercover), and that’s why I asked my question.
Qualified immunity protects government officials from being held personally liable in civil suits unless they violate clearly established law. It protects the patrol officer who detains one of the guys running from the scene of a shots fired call in the park and later finds out one of the guys that was detained by another officer did it. It protects the patrol officer who arrests a guy on a recalled warrant that is inaccurately confirmed active by his dispatchers and the personnel with access to warrants.
This is my understanding of it as well. What qualified immunity does not do is protect an officer from criminal prosecution and I think this is where a lot of people get confused. I’m far from an expert on this but QI came into being in the 19th century so it has been around for a while. In the 80’s for various reasons that I don’t fully understand it became harder for plaintiffs to hold LEO’s accountable for civil rights abuses due to some changes in how QI was interpreted.
Tim Scott has proposed that QI be reformed so that departments, but not individual LEO’s are held accountable for civil rights violations which sounds reasonable.
1 Like
Not sure I’m going with far right as much as unable or unwilling to discuss any problems with the right. If those are brought up it’s immediately ignored or glossed past so we can get right back to attacking Dems.
And like you said it’s not like anyone on this whole forum has even really posted anything consistently anti-police or defund the police. Most people might want some type of reforms, but that’s also long been a position of the right and left. Long before it became ultra politicized you can find polling where Republicans overwhelmingly supported body cameras, independent prosecutors, banning chokeholds, etc.
But yes with social media the fringes have become louder and with people almost predominantly taking in news from places that confirm what they want to believe it’s even worse. Loud people does not mean majority of people. But both sides will absolutely continue to paint the picture that can score them political points. You’ve got less Dems wanting to defund the police than Republicans who are still supporting the insane notion that Trump won.
2 Likes
If you ignore the obvious bias in the framing, this article gives a decent overview of why QI in it’s current form is problematic, IMO. Making it easier to hold cops accountable for screwups that harm others shouldn’t be controversial, but it is.
Mostly, Under this doctrine, government agents—including but not limited to police officers—can never be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly established law.” While this is an amorphous, malleable standard, it generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule , but a prior case with functionally identical facts .
In other words, it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the victim has no legal remedy, simply because that precise sort of misconduct had not occurred in past cases.
1 Like
@Californiagrown That’s a long-winded explanation (in someone else’s words that you linked) for a rather simple question. Do you think it will lead to improved outcomes if LEO’s can be sued as individuals? To be clear, I’m talking about today, not in 1871.
I don’t think it’d necessarily be a bad thing if it were to be implemented in Australia… That’s just me, granted in America you can sue anyone for just about anything.
Can you explain why it isn’t a bad thing?
You’re right that in America you can sue nearly anyone for nearly anything. That’s generally a good system, albeit one with deep flaws.
I don’t believe we should allow the people we ask to be on standby to rush into the worst situations that materialize in our community to be sued by nearly anyone for nearly anything. In fact, I think it is a good idea to direct any and all such lawsuits to the department/jurisdiction.
Change my mind.
1 Like
Yes, in Australia excessive force mediated by police towards peaceful protestors, innocent civilians etc isn’t all that uncommon; particularly considering we have laws banning peaceful protests depending on the circumstance. We just had a few cops get off scot free for stomping on a mans head (mental patient who left psychiatric inpatient facility) multiple times until he was in a coma. You can watch the video, it’s extremely obvious the force used is excessive.
Remove qualified immunity and you can sue for something like this. Unlike America, you can’t sue anyone in Aus for anything, but without qualified immunity you’d certainly be able to sue for something like this.
I’d think it’d be harder to win a case against the entire department/jurisdiction as opposed to a few lone police officers.
Why would anyone want to sue a cop who is far from wealthy when they can sue the department or city for millions? It’s like suing a walmart employee vs suing walmart.
1 Like
I’m sure you’ll end up living in the cop’s mansion and driving his Ferrari.
lol
na, but you can probably get the cop to shell out just enough to cover the medical expenses.
Why not both? One for the money, one for the principle.
What will you buy with that?
Isn’t heathcare free?
No, it’s subsidised. Even then, elective surgeries, hospital stays etc can rack up quite the cost.
6 pack of feel goods.
The point would be to make it sting for the perpetrator of the violation. Otherwise the dept becomes the whipping boy for the officer.