What's new
  • If you don't frequent the chat forum, make sure you read this post regarding land usage. It would be great if we could get everybody to send a comment in before Oct 7th!

Ending Qualified Immunity

grapehead

Junior Woodchuck
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
187
Messages
171
Loc
raleigh, nc
This would be a great step towards leveling the playing field and beginning the healing. Let's hope it gains traction.



https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/03/new-bill-would-abolish-qualified-immunity-make-it-easier-to-sue-cops-who-violate-civil-rights/#6c54bfb86fbc

In response to the George Floyd protests, the past few days have seen a surge of police violence, with unprovoked attacks on peaceful demonstrators, journalists, and even people just standing in their own homes. Incredibly, even though there’s clear video evidence for many of these incidents, holding police accountable for their actions is far from a slam dunk.

A legal rule known as “qualified immunity” often shields police officers and other government officials from being sued by victims and their families, even if the officers violated their civil rights. And since prosecutors are loath to file criminal charges against government agents, suing rogue officers for damages in civil court is often the only recourse available to victims of government abuse.

But late Sunday night, Congressman Justin Amash (L-MI) revealed that he will introduce the End Qualified Immunity Act, which would eliminate a “permanent procedural roadblock for plaintiffs” that thwarts them from “obtaining damages for having their rights violated.”

“The brutal killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police is merely the latest in a long line of incidents of egregious police misconduct,” Congressman Amash wrote in a letter to his colleagues posted on Twitter. “This pattern continues because police are legally, politically, and culturally insulated from consequences for violating the rights of the people whom they have sworn to serve. That must change so that these incidents of brutality stop happening.”

Ever since Congress passed the Civil Rights Act in 1871, individuals have been able to sue state and local officers for infringing on their constitutional rights. But in 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government officials were entitled to qualified immunity from civil-rights lawsuits, if their actions didn’t violate “clearly established” rights.

In other words, unless a court had previously ruled that an officer’s actions were unconstitutional, police would still be immune from a lawsuit, even if they violated someone’s rights. This “clearly established” requirement was crafted whole-cloth by the Supreme Court and appears nowhere in the actual text of the Civil Rights Act or in the federal law codified today, Section 1983.

Unsurprisingly, this has helped foster a culture of impunity for law enforcement, with often absurd results. Just last year, qualified immunity was granted to Fresno officers accused of stealing more than $225,000 during a search, Idaho police who bombarded an innocent woman’s home with tear gas grenades, and a Georgia officer who tried to kill a family’s dog, but accidentally shot a 10-year-old boy instead, all on the grounds that the rights involved weren’t “clearly established.”

“This rule has sharply narrowed the situations in which police can be held liable—even for truly heinous rights violations—and it creates a disincentive to bringing cases in the first place,” Congressman Amash noted in his letter. “If a plaintiff knows there is no prior case that is identical to theirs, they may decline to even file a lawsuit because they are very unlikely to win.”

Ending qualified immunity, however, would “restore Americans’ ability to obtain relief when police officers violate their constitutionally secured rights,” he added. At the same time, it would also provide a powerful incentive for municipalities (who are generally responsible for paying out judgements and settlements) to restructure their law enforcement agencies and adopt policies and practices that curtail abuses of power. Those measures could include implementing de-escalation tactics and revising use-of-force standards, as well as firing and blacklisting rogue agents.

Proponents of qualified immunity often claim that it’s vital to protect police officers forced to make split-second decisions in life or death struggles. But that justification only applies to a fraction of qualified immunity cases. Case in point: According to the Cato Institute, the Supreme Court is currently considering eight different cert petitions on qualified immunity. Yet the overwhelming majority of those cases did not involve any clear and present danger to police.

Abolishing qualified immunity does not mean that anyone who files a civil rights lawsuit would automatically win their case against an officer. Instead, it would eliminate a barrier that arbitrarily prevents juries from hearing and deciding cases on their merits.

The doctrine’s defenders also claim that its abolition would expose police officers to financial ruin, which in turn would disincentivize people from joining the force. But thanks to indemnification by state and local governments, individual officers rarely have to pay out of their own pocket. A 2014 study by UCLA Law Professor Joanna Schwartz found that officers were “financially responsible” for just “0.02% of the total dollars paid.”

Moreover, eliminating qualified immunity would disincentivize people from abusing their authority as police officers. If being held accountable for violating the Constitution would dissuade someone from becoming a police officer, then they shouldn’t become a police officer.

Fortunately, the injustice of qualified immunity is becoming clearly established in the court of public opinion. Earlier this year, the Institute for Justice formed the Project on Immunity and Accountability to challenge qualified immunity and other legal doctrines that make it “nearly impossible for ordinary Americans to hold the government accountable in court.”

Over the weekend, The New York Timeseditorial board called on the Supreme Court to “ratchet back qualified immunity,” asserting that the doctrine “lets cops get away with murder.” On Monday, more than 400 civil rights organizations, including the Leadership Conference, the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and the NAACP, sent a letter to congressional leadership urging that they enact a package of “meaningful police reform legislation” that includes “an end to qualified immunity doctrine.”

“Qualified immunity was created by the Supreme Court in contravention of the text of the statute and the intent of Congress,” Congressman Amash wrote. “It is time for us to correct their mistake.”
 

Tmackcj5

Well-known member
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
461
Messages
110
Loc
TX
Seems like a reasonable change that could and should be made.

The article quoted states a couple possible negative results of this change:
-financial ruin for officers (clarified as not likely)
-Disincentivize people from joining the force

Neither of which see like too big of a negative to me... But, are there other stronger arguments to keep qualified immunity?
 

gunracer1

Collector of fine junk
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
645
Messages
967
Loc
azle tx, aguilar co.
no one will ever join the force, especially in urban areas. hell they don't want to deal with the bull shit now.
 

dnsfailure

WHAT GEAR ARE YOU IN?
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
198
Messages
1,082
Loc
Gilroy
no one will ever join the force, especially in urban areas. hell they don't want to deal with the bull shit now.

yep, and I can see a lot of "yeah, we're not going to respond to this call" type of action too. If you sued the police, don't ever expect them to respond to your call again.

I don't envy the job of the Police, I think most of them are good, but imagine how much harder it would make their job if they have to stop and think about being sued everytime they break a door down.
 
Last edited:

Ghetto Fab.

No idea what I'm doing
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
208
Messages
306
I don't envy the job of the Police, I think most of them are good, but imagine how much harder it would make their job if they have to stop and think about being sued everytime they break a door down.

Shouldn't they? And isn't that the point?

Kevin
 

dnsfailure

WHAT GEAR ARE YOU IN?
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
198
Messages
1,082
Loc
Gilroy
Shouldn't they? And isn't that the point?

Kevin

what I'm getting at, is that they will probably not respond to certain types of calls anymore. First they start getting sued for killing someone. Then eventually they get sued for property damage, or "emotional distress" then it gets down to petty shit like "they knocked over my trash cans". where would it stop? It's an interesting door to try and open.

Would they ever get sued for NOT stopping someone from committing suicide?

Again, I don't envy their position either way.
 
Last edited:

kf4zht

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
561
Messages
752
what I'm getting at, is that they will probably not respond to certain types of calls anymore. FIrst they start getting sued for killing someone. Then eventually they get sued for property damage, or "emotional distress" then it gets down to petty shit like "they knocked over my trash cans". where would it stop?

Again, I don't envy their position either way.

But wouldn't it be better for them to be sued in a court of law that will investigate rather than being directly sentanced by the court of twitter based on half facts?

Need to kill asset forfiture at the same time. I'm betting with that gone and they cant get fat stacks of cash on drug busts will make it the final straw in the end of the drug war that led to many of these militarization and excessive force standards.
 

Projectjunkie

Whatever
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
306
Messages
2,430
Loc
Tucson Az
yep, and I can see a lot of "yeah, we're not going to respond to this call" type of action too.

I don't envy the job of the Police, I think most of them are good, but imagine how much harder it would make their job if they have to stop and think about being sued everytime they break a door down.

They could break a lot less doors down IMO

talk people out, or arrest them when they go out for cigarettes

could have avoided waco

Look up Jose Guerena Tucson AZ. Former Marine shot 20 times in his home, took him an hour to die, the swat team refused ems to enter the home until they cleared it for an hour.

His wife and child were in the house, they fired 70 rounds into his front door. They set off his car alarm, then kicked in his door waking him up mid day, a family member of his had been a victim of a violent home invasion prior to that, he came to the hallway with an AR on safety, a POS cop shot the door jam on the way in, and they all started firing. Then they lied about him firing hours weapon, and they lied about sounding sirens and announcing they were police.

the guy had a regular job, they could have arrested him a few hours earlier when he got off his graveyard shift and served a warrant at his home simultaneously.

they didn't find any drugs, or weed.

fuck the police.
 

Ghetto Fab.

No idea what I'm doing
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
208
Messages
306
what I'm getting at, is that they will probably not respond to certain types of calls anymore. First they start getting sued for killing someone. Then eventually they get sued for property damage, or "emotional distress" then it gets down to petty shit like "they knocked over my trash cans". where would it stop? It's an interesting door to try and open.

Again, I don't envy their position either way.

I don't either and don't know what the solution is.

It seems like with even having Qualified Immunity, if you had an obvious misuse of power they could be sued or tried. We are seeing that currently.

Similarly, without Qualified Immunity, I would hope judges would throw out petty lawsuits.

Dunno.

Kevin
 

dnsfailure

WHAT GEAR ARE YOU IN?
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
198
Messages
1,082
Loc
Gilroy
I don't either and don't know what the solution is.

It seems like with even having Qualified Immunity, if you had an obvious misuse of power they could be sued or tried. We are seeing that currently.

Similarly, without Qualified Immunity, I would hope judges would throw out petty lawsuits.

Dunno.

Kevin

it would still take up alot of time and resources to deal with all the lawsuits. Because I bet lots of people would be trying to do that, threaten lawsuits every time they see the police.

I don't know what would work better though.
 

Chzbrgr

Bucket Driver
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
149
Messages
241
Loc
Peoples Republic of Maryland
I think it would cause officers to carry a personal liability insurance policy similar to what a lot of managers in the Fed world carry due to employee suits against them. Insurance companies always looking for another revenue stream.
 

Dethmachinefab

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
96
Messages
948
what I'm getting at, is that they will probably not respond to certain types of calls anymore. First they start getting sued for killing someone. Then eventually they get sued for property damage, or "emotional distress" then it gets down to petty shit like "they knocked over my trash cans". where would it stop? It's an interesting door to try and open.

Would they ever get sued for NOT stopping someone from committing suicide?

Again, I don't envy their position either way.

They would be on the same level as any other business dealing with lawsuits over everything. I support this. Maybe it would weed out the shitbags from the good guys and attract a more mindful officer instead.
 

dnsfailure

WHAT GEAR ARE YOU IN?
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
198
Messages
1,082
Loc
Gilroy
They would be on the same level as any other business dealing with lawsuits over everything. I support this. Maybe it would weed out the shitbags from the good guys and attract a more mindful officer instead.

It probably would!
 

korda

Red Skull Member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
362
Messages
97
Loc
San Diego, CA
I think it would cause officers to carry a personal liability insurance policy similar to what a lot of managers in the Fed world carry due to employee suits against them. Insurance companies always looking for another revenue stream.

Just like a doctor's malpractice suit or a professional engineer or architect. I've never bothered to look but do officers carry some sort of certification that can be stripped? or have some sort of continuing education requirements?
 

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,657
Words by morons that dont understand Qualified Immunity. QI doesnt cover officers who blatantly violate someones civil rights. It doesnt cover officers who intentionally injure or kill someone without cause or didnt follow their policy or training. It doesnt prevent victims from getting compensated "paid" for any of the above. Its not meant to nor should it protect officers who intentionally violate someones rights. If an officer is found to have intentionally violated dept policy then the dept is not obligated to cover the officer under QI.

What QI does is protect officers from being sued by people who got hurt or that may have had their rights violated, BUT only if the officers were following dept policy and or their training. Im not going to argue whether good cops violate rights, or not. It happens. Many of the times its unintentionally, during split second decisions or the officer was following dept policy which was the determined to be in violation or outdated. As an example if it is decided that the officer violated someones rights, but they followed the depts use of force policy and his training, the officer is protected under QI and the dept will be the defendant. In that case it is the depts fault for not having up to date policies or providing the proper training to ensure officers know the current law. That is what QI is for. Apparently certain govt officials dont understand what it is or they are just posturing for political gain.
 

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,657
Just like a doctor's malpractice suit or a professional engineer or architect. I've never bothered to look but do officers carry some sort of certification that can be stripped? or have some sort of continuing education requirements?

Depts and agencies are required to ensure their people are current on all necessary certs, policy and training. Thats why depts take the hit instead of the officer if the officer follows current dept training and policy. If the dept hasnt ensured that its officers are up to date its the depts fault. And yes a LEO can be stripped of their certs.
 

evernoob

Reactionary
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
1083
Messages
4,600
Can't happen, here's why:

12,000 complaints filed against Seattle Police after weekend of protests

https://www.kuow.org/stories/12-000-...nd-of-protests

Those are harassment complaints meant to flood the PD and Attorney's Office as a show of force and to paralyze the legal system.

The sad part is, of those 12,000 bogus complaints, there is now no way to find the legitimate complaints in that flood of bullshit.

'Activists' will use it as a Weapon of Mass Destruction on the legal system and flood civil Courts with complaints against the Police.



Cue 'American History X' speech: Police in the US are endowed with extraordinary privileges to enforce the Law, privileges that you and I do not, and should not have. The bar of culpability should be different for Police.

That can't change. We don't need a revolution in the system, we need to change the policing system by degrees, and I believe that will happen.

The Left is attempting the same thing against ICE (Abolish ICE!), and these things are directly out of the Antifa Anarchist cookbook.

Justin Amash is a milquetoast West Michigan Republicuck conservacuck Christcuck. He is literally what has been wrong with the Republican Party for decades, and Lolbertarianism is a dead philosophy as shown by the Immigration problem and most recently by the Riots.

This is stillborn.
 

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,657
Please... Tell me why officers are immune to the laws they "uphold"?

Can you not read? They arent immune to the laws. They are only protected if the follow the policies and training (about the law) passed down to them by their dept from the state or higher authority. If they follow those and it turns out the policies and training were wrong then the dept is held liable for failing to keep the training or information available to the officerss up to date.

The individual officers are responsible to make sure they know the current policies of the dept. The individual officers can not be expected to know every new law and training technique that comes into play. That is the depts responsibility. If the officer ignores the policies and doesnt follow his training then the dept or agency can say "you fucked up" were not protecting you. Agencies and depts will hang an officer out to dry in a heartbeat if they can. If they can avoid taking responsibility they will.

The caveat to that is when unions get involved then who can say what happens. Dont blame the system blame the unions for corrupting the system.
 

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,657
Can't happen, here's why:



https://www.kuow.org/stories/12-000-...nd-of-protests

Those are harassment complaints meant to flood the PD and Attorney's Office as a show of force and to paralyze the legal system.

The sad part is, of those 12,000 bogus complaints, there is now no way to find the legitimate complaints in that flood of bullshit.

'Activists' will use it as a Weapon of Mass Destruction on the legal system and flood civil Courts with complaints against the Police.



Cue 'American History X' speech: Police in the US are endowed with extraordinary privileges to enforce the Law, privileges that you and I do not, and should not have. The bar of culpability should be different for Police.

That can't change. We don't need a revolution in the system, we need to change the policing system by degrees, and I believe that will happen.

The Left is attempting the same thing against ICE (Abolish ICE!), and these things are directly out of the Antifa Anarchist cookbook.

Justin Amash is a milquetoast West Michigan Republicuck conservacuck Christcuck. He is literally what has been wrong with the Republican Party for decades, and Lolbertarianism is a dead philosophy as shown by the Immigration problem and most recently by the Riots.

This is stillborn.

Wow. You actually got one right.
 

Provience

Kill!
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Member Number
15
Messages
8,404
Loc
Gatesville, TX
Can you not read? They arent immune to the laws. They are only protected if the follow the policies and training (about the law) passed down to them by their dept from the state or higher authority. If they follow those and it turns out the policies and training were wrong then the dept is held liable for failing to keep the training or information available to the officerss up to date.

The individual officers are responsible to make sure they know the current policies of the dept. The individual officers can not be expected to know every new law and training technique that comes into play. That is the depts responsibility. If the officer ignores the policies and doesnt follow his training then the dept or agency can say "you fucked up" were not protecting you. Agencies and depts will hang an officer out to dry in a heartbeat if they can. If they can avoid taking responsibility they will.

The caveat to that is when unions get involved then who can say what happens. Dont blame the system blame the unions for corrupting the system.

what does it take to change No Knock Warrants?

those are codified and protected and Regularly end up violating rights of the wrong people.

ending QI might seem extreme, but it has the potential to lead to investigations over abuse more frequently. sure, they won't all go through, but it would stand to reason that it would increase the rate of legal success against the system.

what part of the system would need to change, for example, so that the parkland cop who failed to act and actively prevented others from acting during a dynamic situation doesn't get rehired and years of backpay for wrongful termination?

There is obviously no duty to protect from the police and that is what makes the case against the other 3 cops in the Floyd death so likely to end in acquittal. but why does the same accomplice charge not stick to police but can and does stick to "everybody else"?
 

evernoob

Reactionary
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
1083
Messages
4,600
what part of the system would need to change, for example, so that the parkland cop who failed to act and actively prevented others from acting during a dynamic situation doesn't get rehired and years of backpay for wrongful termination?

*Ahem*... *tap*tap*tap*.....

THE UNIONS!

He already said that.



The caveat to that is when unions get involved then who can say what happens. Dont blame the system blame the unions for corrupting the system.

As far as No Knocks, the guidelines for granting such warrants can change. This is a normal part of the legal system, and the function of bodies like the ACLU if they are not busy being taken over by Communists.

The same thing for kneeling on necks: A few targeted lawsuits will compel most Departments to change their mind, and a couple of Federal Appeals cases can blanket change the policy. Then those groups like ACLU clean up the non-compliers.

This is how the system operates, and it operates well. But the ChiComs and Antifa and Leftists have you and everybody else up in arms over it b/c muh based Dope Using Jogger, Floyd George.
 
Last edited:

evernoob

Reactionary
Joined
May 21, 2020
Member Number
1083
Messages
4,600
yeah, that is certainly a large part of the problem

I wonder if ACLU and the other muck-rakers are loathe to attack the FOPs and whatnot due to Labor connections.

It might require a new group to be founded to take on the the WORK that needs to be done which actually changes shit and doesn't involve a sexually-hysterical 20 year old girl to shout herself hoarse signalling how much she likes the black cock.
 

Provience

Kill!
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Member Number
15
Messages
8,404
Loc
Gatesville, TX
I wonder if ACLU and the other muck-rakers are loathe to attack the FOPs and whatnot due to Labor connections.

It might require a new group to be founded to take on the the WORK that needs to be done which actually changes shit and doesn't involve a sexually-hysterical 20 year old girl to shout herself hoarse signalling how much she likes the black cock.

that would be where people like amash come in handy :flipoff2:
 

Eric

Old School
Joined
May 22, 2020
Member Number
1141
Messages
1,399
Loc
Exeter, RI
Make it legal to defend your property with deadly force and i am good with eliminating police.
 

dnsfailure

WHAT GEAR ARE YOU IN?
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
198
Messages
1,082
Loc
Gilroy
Make it legal to defend your property with deadly force and i am good with eliminating police.

If I ran the state, you would get an award for doing so. I bet crime would decline pretty quickly.
 

Stuck

In Hell
Joined
May 20, 2020
Member Number
424
Messages
1,657
Make it legal to defend your property with deadly force and i am good with eliminating police.

Oooh! We got a bad ass up in here!

So what happens when your neighbor whos fucking your wife behind your back, calls you over for a beer and then shoots you in the face? He claims you broke and tried to steal his shit. Hes off scott free because he was defending his property and still fucking your wife. Then what? Whos gonna deal with the crime? Dumbass.
 

Provience

Kill!
Joined
Jul 8, 2009
Member Number
15
Messages
8,404
Loc
Gatesville, TX
Oooh! We got a bad ass up in here!

So what happens when your neighbor whos fucking your wife behind your back, calls you over for a beer and then shoots you in the face? He claims you broke and tried to steal his shit. Hes off scott free because he was defending his property and still fucking your wife. Then what? Whos gonna deal with the crime? Dumbass.

he'd still get off scot free today. dead men tell only part of the story and all that jazz
 
Top