4 ms·
"Also ignorance of the law is no excuse." Alas, it is an excuse for a police officer in the US. A cop performing official duties who acts unlawfully, but the l
by rendall 9y ago
"Also ignorance of the law is no excuse."
Alas, it is an excuse for a police officer in the US. A cop performing official duties who acts unlawfully, but the law they're violating has not yet been "clearly established" (TBD), is immune from prosecution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
- trapperkeeper74 9y agoThe hospital's legal team would need to determine if her rights were probably violated, in which case there could be valid challenge to qualified immunity. Furthermore, the situation at present is untenable: cops are getting away with violating people's rights and murder, so reversing key decisions is necessary to preserve a civil society or it all comes crashing down when people are tired of jack-booted thugs running amok and throw it all away.
- rayiner 9y agoWhether a right is “clearly established” has nothing to do with the officer’s knowledge, but whether courts have clearly held that the right exists in novel scenarios. The (somewhat misguided, in my opinion) premise is that we don’t want officers philosophizing about abstract legal principles, but rather there has to be appellate or Supreme Court case law they can apply to the situation at hand.