15 ms·
Police act like laws don't apply to them because of Qualified Immunity
- JadeNB 6y agoIn other words, police act like laws don't apply to them because they don't (not in some "that's what it feels like" sense, but as a matter of precedent and court finding). See starting at 3 here https://threader.app/thread/1266053291684827138 https://threader.app/thread/1266053291684827138 , and the linked https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-poli... .
- hedora 6y agoCall your representatives. Demand qualified immunity (and civil forfeiture) be eliminated.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoIt cannot be eliminated by legislation. It arises from a SCOTUS decision, and can only be undone by them (at least in the broadest sense).
- chrismcb 6y agoThat isn't how it works. Of course it can be done through legislation. That is how the branches balance each other.
- cwhiz 6y agoThe Supreme Court has ruled on this subject. The Congress can pass a new law but it is unlikely to stand up in court. The existing case law on this is pretty well established. We need a constitutional amendment.
- stonogo 6y agoThat's not how this works. Laws can absolutely be changed; in the case of a SCOTUS decision, that's what constitutional amendments are for.
- wlesieutre 6y agoOnly required if SCOTUS’s opinion is on a constitutional matter, like 1st amendment rights. If SCOTUS writes an opinion on a law like DMCA and then the legislature repeals the DMCA, it doesn’t much matter how SCOTUS interprets it because it’s not a law anymore.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoAs you may have noticed, whether by design or social context or both, constitutional amendments are essentially impossible to pass.
- stonogo 6y agoWhat I've noticed is that we have nearly thirty of them, and two of them were passed in my lifetime.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThe timeline looks like this: http://www.paufler.net/brettrants/161_amendments_graphs.html http://www.paufler.net/brettrants/161_amendments_graphs.html I wouldn't consider that indicative of the ease of passing an amendment. Perhaps you do. It appears to require an increasingly-hard-to-get combination of (1) widespread agreement that a problem requiring an amendment exists and (2) widespread agreement on what the nature of the amendment should be.
- cataphract 6y agoThis is not true. Only their interpretation of the Constitution cannot be overridden by legislation (requires a constitutional amendment). Here, where the Court is interpreting a federal statue, namely 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Congress could in fact change the law to make it clear that the qualified immunity defense the Court made up does not apply.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoThis doesn't appear necessarily correct to me. The statute provides the basis for a suit based on deprivation of rights. SCOTUS determined that (potentially independently of any language in the statute) QI exists for various classes of government officials. Now, if SCOTUS's QI theory is based on the text of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 then certainly the legislature could change/update/replace the statute with something worded differently. But it isn't clear that their decision is based on that (or any other) statute at all. Some interpretations of Harlow vs Fitzgerald seem to point more to the idea that SCOTUS decided that this immunity was derived from other aspects of the totality of the constitution, USC and precedent. Others see it more the way you suggest, which is that SCOTUS concluded that QI existed based on specific statutory language. Apparently, we don't have to wait that long to find out, since they will be reconsidering it starting tomorrow.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoRep. Justin Amash, at least, appears to agree with you (and has proposed an act to make it clear that QI is not a defense). So for now, pending further SCOTUS decisions, I concede that I'm wrong, and that it would be possible to change this via legislation. I apologize for any confusion.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago“Call your representative” is vacuous advice. It will achieve nothing. It’s going straight to /dev/null.
- skadamou 6y agoDoes anyone know some examples of organizations that work to change laws like this? Or organizations that work with victims of police brutality to hold perpetrators accountable? I would like to support changing some of the things about our society that contribute to overreach by police but it is hard to know where to begin
- Covzire 6y agoIt would probably need support from police/ex-police to be truly effective. One of my in-laws was with the highway patrol for over a decade and it's interesting how it changes someone when they're around crime all the time. It does something to the human psyche to be around violent or dishonest people all the time so it might be very difficult to find cops/excops to help reforms because most have probably had their outlook of people/society permanently changed, often for the worse.
- smichel17 6y agoRight, this is why it's important for police to have other duties in their communities in addition to fighting crime.
- Pxtl 6y agoOh, so Trump's supreme court gets to decide this? Yeah, in suuuuuuper confident this will go well.
- ta17711771 6y agoWhy do I get the feeling you're not super familiar with the Supreme Court?
- hprotagonist 6y agoI have been meta-worried about the optics of protests because as a student of history i see echoes of 1964 and 1968, and i am horrified at the idea of a “law and order” second term. USA Today publishing something like this does a bit to assuage my fears! For the non-American HN audience, USA Today is the anodyne newspaper you get for free at a business hotel chain with your crappy refrigerated muffin or yogurt and instant coffee. It’s about as intentionally bland and inoffensive to everyone newspaper as still exists. If the message there is this, we might pull it off and meaningfully address something instead of wanking about protestors like we usually do.
- newacct583 6y agoI'll raise you one level of meta, and note how surprised I am that the discourse right here on HN, which is normally populated heavily with a... let's say reactionary conservative worldview... has swung hard to the "left" on this issue and others in recent weeks. Indeed the perception of "mainstream" seems to have shifted away from the messaging the administration wants to present in lots of forums like this.
- solveit 6y agoHN is more libertarian than conservative. The libertarianism often aligns HN with conservatives, but HN and conservatives diverge wildly when it comes to government overreach, whether that be police brutality, cryptography regulation, or the war on drugs. Note how even within the police brutality issue, HN is focusing on organisational incentives for police recruiting and conduct instead of the more mainstream race angle. HN believes in well-designed systems of incentives. The (ideal of the) free market with appropriate minimal regulations is the dream, which usually sides HN with small-c conservatives on economic issues and even makes HN look reactionary from time to time. Of course, as you say, the administration is anathema to any group of intellectuals. And I'm sure previous administrations would have spun their cases to be more appealing to HN and similar forums. But I don't think the basic position of HN on police brutality is particularly new or surprising. Disclaimer: Obviously HN is many people who have many opinions which I wrote as a single entity for convenience.
- 6y ago
- remote_phone 6y agoThey need to double the pay for cops and remove their protections like qualified immunity and the right to fire if they feel threatened. This is the only way we get higher quality cops in the system, we incentivize better people to join with money. Maybe once we have a critical mass of great cops we will need less cops overall. All of these extra costs associated with overtime etc because of these riots and looting are a direct result of employing shitty cops and completely avoidable. The costs should be taken directly from the pension funds of cops as far as I’m concerned, cities should not bear the costs of overtime because of riots caused by cops killing people. If we had a critical mass of good cops, we likely would need less overtime overall because the relationship would be better between law enforcement and citizens, especially minorities.
- mydongle 6y agoI feel like the privilege to carry a gun and be allowed to use it should be an earned one as well. Police need to remember they serve us, and by taking the job, they have vowed to put their lives on the line for people. We have no need for cowards who fear for their life and just shoot every possible threat.
- ultrarunner 6y agoWho determines when the right is earned? Civilian review boards have been resisted consistently and internal reviews are heavily biased (as evidenced by such things as rehiring officers who resigned amidst arguably criminal infractions).
- mydongle 6y agoSuch details are to be determined over discussion from experts yes. I think that cops should undergo on the job training and experience how to handle people, learning to exhaust every non-violent option they have before escalating if needed. There should be at least one or two cops who do have the privilege to carry be around when they are on duty/training, in case of emergency. Basically I think it would be good if we could separate cops into two classes, armed and unarmed. And to earn the privilege to carry a gun, they need to prove themselves to prioritize deescalation first and foremost. They need to live up to the badge, actually working to serve and protect, not be a coward who needs to pull out a gun to handle an unarmed civilian.
- ykevinator 6y agoI don't know about the "because" part, I think the job attracts tough guys and racists (not saying all cops are bad)
- polynomial 6y agoTBF, Plato's Republic explicitly states the guardians of the Polis were not subject to the same laws, and refers to the idea that there is no hierarchy as the "noble lie."
- reducesuffering 6y agoThe "noble lie" was not that there's no hierarchy. It was that there was an oracle that the city would be overthrown if the lowest rank became the guardian or leaders of the city. This would lead the people to always let a person's rank be formed appropriately. Higher rank parents would let their offspring be lower rank, and lower rank parents would push their offspring to the higher rank, as would the rest of society. Because they would all fear the city being overthrown.
- polynomial 6y agoAnd here we are.
- ashtonkem 6y agoIt is extremely hard to believe that we live in a lawful society if the keepers of the peace are considered to be above the law.
- ineedasername 6y agoMaybe qualified immunity needs to be reduced in scope, but what is the alternative? Without something like it, police might otherwise be held liable for something like having to taser a violent person, only they hit their head on the way down?
- freeone3000 6y agoIf I tasered a person, I'd have to justify it. I'd like the police to be forced to do the same.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoIn the current climate in the US, there will be lawyers eager to find any possible grounds to file a lawsuit for stupendous amounts because the cop looked at someone wrong, and hurt their fragile self-esteem (I exaggerate, slightly). That's probably going to make an environment where police cannot operate effectively. Yes, they'd be careful not to step across the line. But they'd have to give no grounds for a lawyer looking for a payday to even be able to claim that they had stepped across the line. The current abuses are horrible. But cops fearful of their own shadow is not a better outcome for society.
- corrys 6y agoYou can already do that right now. You can already file a lawsuit for a stupendous amounts because the cop looked at you the wrong way. Would the cop get prosecuted? No. Losing qualified immunity doesn't mean that cops will automatically be at fault for anything you desire. The laws would still exist.
- corrys 6y agoYes, that's how responsibility works. Doesn't mean that cops will be sentenced and go to jail for every person they tased, just means they won't be immune by default.
- ineedasername 6y agoHow would that differ, functionally, from what we have now? Clearly a prosecutor can already bring charges when a cop steps over the line. Assuming that "line" wouldn't change, how does that differ from qualified immunity? I'm honestly asking here, because I'm not a huge fan of QI but I don't see a good alternative.
- qualifiedai 6y agoIf your are angry about injustice it is wrong to be angry against police and courts enforcing wrong laws. Demand action from politicians to change those laws (e.g. remove qualified immunity, etc). While protesting is important, engaging with your representatives and VOTING is very important too.
- WealthVsSurvive 6y agoGerrymandering, mass surveillance, oligarch-owned news media that works in conjunction with the state. VOTING doesn't do much. No confidence. They are dismissed.
- rayiner 6y agoIt's sad to see how little progress has been made on concrete reforms that would meaningfully reduce these problems. Curtailing qualified immunity, and limiting the power of police unions to protect "bad apples" is something with bi-partisan ideological support. https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/less-government-more-gorsuch https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/less-government-m... https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-gives-police-green-light-shoot-first-and https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-poli... https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity You'd think reforms to qualified immunity--which everyone from the ACLU to Heritage to Cato agrees on--would be on the fast track to legislation, at least in left-leaning states. There is no reason a state like California, where politicians habitually genuflect to social justice, couldn't pass legislation to create causes of action against police officers that aren't subject to the federal constitution's qualified immunity doctrine. None at all. Instead, for some reason the debate is now about whether rioting and property destruction is an acceptable response to police brutality--an extreme position that is not going to carry the day with anyone but a tiny minority.
- corrys 6y agoPolice unions are the real problem in this situation. There will always be criminal cops. As long as they are protected by corrupt and powerful unions - they will have very little incentive to change.
- newacct583 6y agoI don't know that the unions are the problem per se. They're just the face of the advocacy for the interests of criminal cops (which isn't surprising: it's literally their job to advocate for their members). In fact when this gets polled, police rank and file are absolutely behind their "bad apple" compatriots. There is deep mistrust of public oversight within the law enforcement community as a whole, and that doesn't have to do with their labor organization.
- corrys 6y ago
- stevehawk 6y agoThey have immunity and no requirement to protect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
- throwlaplace 6y agoAnother case https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po... >The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
- ashtonkem 6y agoWhich kinda seems like a bad deal for society. No guarantee of (an attempt at) protection, but immunity for those who abuse the power of the state.
- cordite 6y agoWould military like training help? Drilling events, having high quality roleplay? It's not like Nasa flies to space without drilling everything.
- dang 6y agoRelated ongoing thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371537
- Ididntdothis 6y agoI don't want to excuse the abuses but I think in a sense the cops are the victims of bad politics and management. Obviously shooting innocent people is not acceptable but on the other hand they are being thrown into a bad situation and don't get much help coping with that. I know a guy (very nice guy) who started as a cop two years ago. Since then he had to shoot somebody in the leg who attacked him with a knife, had to deal with a teenage girl hanging herself, lots of domestic violence and a lot of other really bad stuff that's very tough to deal with. They don't get any psychological counseling so a lot of the old-timers are either alcoholics or have some other kind of psychological damage. In the end politics needs to have the courage to address the underfunding and also address the training and management situation. They don't want to do either because it may cost money so the bad situation just keeps going. Reminds me of the healthcare situation where even the most blatant problems go unaddressed because it's more important to do partisan fighting instead of addressing issues. I think it's well understood that the drug laws are damaging so it would be a good start to clean them up.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- darksaints 6y agoI'd like to point out that even when police officers have their hearts in the right places, they don't do themselves any favors by going after those in blue who abuse their power. We have heard countless stories of police officers that crossed the blue line to do what was right, only for extreme retaliation to occur, to the point of getting fired, harassed, assaulted, stalked, and even murdered. And the idea that people can just join the police force with good intentions is fatally flawed. The police is a hierarchical organization with a culture that is characterized by its top down command structure. In order to have any influence at all, you have to be at the top...and by the time you get to the top, you're assimilated into the culture. It is self perpetuating. Absent of firing all the police and starting over from scratch (an option I'm oddly not opposed to), I think the only way we can accomplish this is with strong carrots and even stronger sticks. Taking away qualified immunity is just the first step. We have laws that punish doctors and lawyers and even commercial truck drivers more harshly when they commit crimes that directly relate to their jobs, under the premise that they know better and should be held to a higher standard. No such laws exist for police, but they should. I think most importantly though is that we need to protect those who break ranks for good reasons. Retaliation, in any way, shape, or form, by police officers for enforcing the law against another police officer, should be a Class A felony with sentencing in the double digits. And we shouldn't just stop there. Good cops that enforce the law against bad cops deserve our protection, much like how we go out of our way to protect witnesses and whistle-blowers. And not only that, but there should never be investigations into criminal misconduct by a police officer by other police officers of the same jurisdiction. Once it crosses the line from department policy violation to criminal violation, that investigation should be handed over to a superceding jurisdiction, and any local jurisdiction on the matter should be voided.
- _bxg1 6y ago> firing all the police and starting over from scratch I honestly think this might be the only true solution. We have to have police. But right now we have such an entrenched, caustic, tribal, "swamp" of a culture that I don't see how it could possibly be changed without first draining it completely.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
- Consultant32452 6y agoCitizens should be able to pull some of their tax money away from ineffective police departments to hold them accountable. There could be competing police forces, all run by the government, and the citizens should get to fund the ones they prefer, not unlike charter schools allow parents to fund the schools they prefer, and food stamps allow the poor to buy the food they want from the grocery store they prefer.
- ashtonkem 6y agoIt rankles me to no end knowing that I’m on the hook financially whenever cops misbehave. They should have to pay settlements personally.
- jeffdavis 6y agoIsn't qualified immunity only for civil suits? Police can still be criminally charged. Perhaps police aren't charged criminally when they should be, but that doesn't seem to be because of qualified immunity. Suing over murder is not a great recourse, anyway. You still lost your loved one, and the individual you sue probably can't pay you much.
- _bxg1 6y ago> Perhaps police aren't charged criminally when they should be, but that doesn't seem to be because of qualified immunity. But qualified immunity prevents those who care to take recourse from acting to take recourse. That's the issue. The police virtually never bring criminal charges against their own. > and the individual you sue probably can't pay you much I'm sure the police department can. They sure can afford military-grade gear.
- ashtonkem 6y agoI don’t want the department to pay; that’s our tax money. If I run over someone with my car and I’m found criminally liable, then I have to pay. Why should the state step in to pay when cops misbehave?
- jeffdavis 6y ago"But qualified immunity prevents those who care to take recourse from acting to take recourse." If a cop murders someone, we need a way to get them into prison, not a way to sue them (or sue the taxpayers). More bodycams, more dash cams. Maybe every arrest video should be reviewed by an independent organization even without a complaint. Usually bad behavior starts with little things, and its easier to correct before it escalates.
- _bxg1 6y agoOne thing I don't understand is why the taxpayer ends up paying settlements. If I sue the individual, why does his employer (and therefore the employer's funders) pay the settlement?
- rowawey 6y agoIt's entirely naïve to believe that an apartheid for the primary benefit of the wealthy can or will ever be reformed from within. Citizens' United, "campaign finance reform", lack of action on climate change, and many, many other examples of the corrupting influences of the very rich will preclude significant change because the status quo is how the aristocracy prefers it. Voting/media-driven popularity contests masquerading as elections without exit polls, protests, petitions, and nibbling around the periphery on small issues like QI or as Rachel Maddow doesn't do a damn bit of good because the bigger problem is who's in control: it's not We The People. If a citizen really wanted change, voting, running for office, looting, and peaceful protests with prayer sticks aren't the answer. There is no reforming a system that has no mechanism for reforming pervasive corruption within and above it! Therefore and unfortunately, the rich have left us with no other answer other than focused, strategic rebellion, and overthrow of their greedy, vampiric apartheid that too many people are blind to because it benefits them. Queue predictable pearl-clutchers and naysayers
- masonic 6y agoRelated, from earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23371537