upvote

points

by infinite_spin1 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby cortesoft7 minutes ago|
next
[-]
It literally is not supposed to. The ruling that is currently used for the precedent is Harlow v Fitzgerald, which states:

> The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known."

It seems to me that a reasonable person would know this violates constitutional rights if you arrest people that criticize the government.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlow_v._Fitzgerald

reply
upvoteby jopsen57 minutes ago|
prev|
next
[-]
It's weird to me that courts don't at-least attempt to review if the conduct was in good faith and plausibly reasonable given the facts know at the time.

The idea that officials aren't personally liable for mistakes made in good faith isn't bad. But somehow the US tends to produce a lot of cases where good faith requires a lot of faith :)

reply
upvoteby jazzypants1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Qualified Immunity should not apply ever. Period. No one should be above the law for any reason ever.
reply
upvoteby pdpi1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.

The issue isn't qualified immunity itself, but rather the maximalist interpretation that seems pervasive in the US justice system, and the overwhelmingly broad definition of "honest mistake" that seemingly applies to the police, and the police alone.

reply
upvoteby jazzypants1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think you would find that they would make far fewer illegal mistakes if they actually had to deal with the consequences of those mistakes.

Qualified Immunity didn't exist as a concept until the 1960s, and it was put in place to shield policemen enacting racist policies and corrupt cronies of Nixon.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

reply
upvoteby hk133757 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
I think we would see far fewer actions at all for fear of being sued.
reply
upvoteby array_key_first1 minutes ago|
parent|
next
[-]
As it currently stands the police already do almost nothing. Any kind of push back or critique of the police leads to inaction by the union. Meaning, police twiddle their thumbs and take your tax money because they can. It's a very effective technique from them to get what they want, because ultimately we need them and we can't actually force them to work.
reply
upvoteby jazzypants53 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
They could just buy insurance. You know, like doctors, lawyers, and a wide variety of other professionals that deal with liabilities in their field.

Regardless, the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.

reply
upvoteby drbscl8 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
> They could just buy insurance. > the police get sued all the time anyways. It's just that the burden currently falls on the taxpayers.

I fail to see how this would change anything other than increasing taxpayer costs further in the form of insurance profit margin.

reply
upvoteby 58 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby wvenable48 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
"Doctors and nurses will make mistakes in performing medicine. Making those doctors and nurses personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive."

How many other jobs can we apply this to?

reply
upvoteby ceejayoz30 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
And does it apply to, say, my tax returns?
reply
upvoteby isityettime43 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
> Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.

Or maybe police training should be longer than a coding bootcamp... in some countries, police work is an undergraduate major and the programs are quite competitive. Similarly, there are countries without qualified immunity as a policy, and it doesn't seem to fundamentally undermine policework there.

reply
upvoteby mpalmer55 minutes ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]

    Qualified immunity, as a concept, makes perfect sense. Police officers are not jurists, and they will make mistakes in enforcing the law. Making those officers personally liable for honest mistakes is, IMO, excessive.
Your own usage of "honest mistake" is overwhelmingly broad, so it's not at all clear what alternative definition of qualified immunity you are advocating.
reply
upvoteby balderdash1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
yup, i think a majority of people would agree with you, so why hasn't it happened? I think the answer is that elected representatives are more beholden to public sector unions than their constituents.
reply
upvoteby estearum1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Texas: Famously pro-union
reply
upvoteby balderdash44 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
yeah texas is definitely not pro-union - except that the only public sector unions that are allowed are for police and firemen... with Texas police unions contributing the the 3rd highest amount to politicians (behind CA and NY) - so its a real thing.

https://www.pelrb.nm.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Public-S...

https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2022/06/police-unions-spend...

reply