3 ms·

I think anything that can be undone by the state should be subject to QI. If the State takes money from you, maybe QI applies to that, because if the State is

I think anything that can be undone by the state should be subject to QI. If the State takes money from you, maybe QI applies to that, because if the State is in the wrong it can make you whole. But if the State's agents take your life, or if they take your freedom, the State cannot make you whole. Maybe, then, QI immunity should not apply. These actions are irreversible and do irreparable harm. Further, I think the "knowledge" aspect needs to be dialed way back. Way way back. It shouldn't be sufficient for the state agent to not know about a law. For QI the State should need to show that its legal argument would have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. Courts already think about irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the merits when they grant things like a TRO. I think QI could be workable if it applied on similar grounds as a TRO. It's a test courts are familiar with, and it's almost certainly enough to prevent nuisance lawsuits against individuals reasonably discharging their duties.

sokoloff 7y ago
I'm not the biggest "law and order" fan, but we are asking law enforcement officers to make split-second decisions with limited information about the intention of the people they're interacting with. Even believing that government power must be carefully and scrupulously limited, I would hesitate to put a police officer into a mindset where they're adopting the obligations to enforce society's laws but where we force them out somewhat naked in terms of support from that society.
- afthonos 7y ago
  I think that’s only valid if there is actually a serious danger to being a police officer. While officers really like to play up their dangerous job, it’s actually quite safe, because it turns out most people know that killing a cop is a stupid thing to do for a near infinite number of reasons. A clear example is the common “split second decisions” scenario. No one is complaining about shoutouts with drug dealers. They’re complaining about a kid getting shot by a cop repeatedly trying (and failing) to kill the tied down family dog. They’re complaining about correctional officers leaving people in a room with their own feces for a week. Those are not split-second decisions, yet they got QI. Using that trope is exactly like using child abuse as an excuse to curtail privacy and other liberties: it’s a ploy to paint opponents as morally reprehensible, because who could support that? In fairness, some version of QI is, in my opinion, necessary; we’ve just gone way too far towards no consequences for egregious behavior.
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    100% agree with your last paragraph! In terms of danger by the numbers, while commercial fishing is about 10x more dangerous than police work, police work is about 10x more dangerous than office work in terms of workplace fatality rate.
- scarface74 7y ago
  Cops get paid and chose that line of work. My 6 foot 3 200 pound Black son shouldn’t feel in danger of his life because he is walking down the street in our own mostly White neighborhood.
- ncallaway 7y ago
  QI doesn't just apply to officer involved shootings. QI also applies to the cop you tells you that you can't be recording and takes your cell-phone to prevent you from filming something that you have every right to be filming. In fact, there are many _other_ protections for an OIS than just QI.
- ashtonkem 7y ago
  Cops should receive less consideration for split second decisions than random citizens. They’re trained, armed, and given authority by the state; with that increased power comes increased security and expectations. Also, cops make far fewer split second decisions than they talk about. Being a cop is far less dangerous than being a garbage truck driver, and far more cops die from medical issues and car crashes than violent encounters. Pregnant women have a much higher risk of being murdered than a cop does.

sokoloff 7y ago

I'm not the biggest "law and order" fan, but we are asking law enforcement officers to make split-second decisions with limited information about the intention of the people they're interacting with. Even believing that government power must be carefully and scrupulously limited, I would hesitate to put a police officer into a mindset where they're adopting the obligations to enforce society's laws but where we force them out somewhat naked in terms of support from that society.

afthonos 7y ago
I think that’s only valid if there is actually a serious danger to being a police officer. While officers really like to play up their dangerous job, it’s actually quite safe, because it turns out most people know that killing a cop is a stupid thing to do for a near infinite number of reasons. A clear example is the common “split second decisions” scenario. No one is complaining about shoutouts with drug dealers. They’re complaining about a kid getting shot by a cop repeatedly trying (and failing) to kill the tied down family dog. They’re complaining about correctional officers leaving people in a room with their own feces for a week. Those are not split-second decisions, yet they got QI. Using that trope is exactly like using child abuse as an excuse to curtail privacy and other liberties: it’s a ploy to paint opponents as morally reprehensible, because who could support that? In fairness, some version of QI is, in my opinion, necessary; we’ve just gone way too far towards no consequences for egregious behavior.
- sokoloff 7y ago
  100% agree with your last paragraph! In terms of danger by the numbers, while commercial fishing is about 10x more dangerous than police work, police work is about 10x more dangerous than office work in terms of workplace fatality rate.
scarface74 7y ago
Cops get paid and chose that line of work. My 6 foot 3 200 pound Black son shouldn’t feel in danger of his life because he is walking down the street in our own mostly White neighborhood.
ncallaway 7y ago
QI doesn't just apply to officer involved shootings. QI also applies to the cop you tells you that you can't be recording and takes your cell-phone to prevent you from filming something that you have every right to be filming. In fact, there are many _other_ protections for an OIS than just QI.
ashtonkem 7y ago
Cops should receive less consideration for split second decisions than random citizens. They’re trained, armed, and given authority by the state; with that increased power comes increased security and expectations. Also, cops make far fewer split second decisions than they talk about. Being a cop is far less dangerous than being a garbage truck driver, and far more cops die from medical issues and car crashes than violent encounters. Pregnant women have a much higher risk of being murdered than a cop does.