9 ms·

Lets say you want to build a deck. You put together the plans, take them to the planning commission, and they rightfully reject it for being structually unsound

by dsl 6y ago

Lets say you want to build a deck. You put together the plans, take them to the planning commission, and they rightfully reject it for being structually unsound. Qualified immunity is what prevents you from personally suing each member of the planning commission to pressure them in to reversing their decision. Think of it like the legal system throwing an exception, we aren't even going to consider this because your beef is with the city not an individual employee. Police have qualified immunity because otherwise they would face personal lawsuits every time they wrote a rich guy a speeding ticket, or a convicted murderer has nothing better to do but get his law degree in prison. In my opinion, qualified immunity is _not_ the problem. If an officer does something in their official capacity that is wrong, it is up to the department and the DA to deal with. Just like if the hypothetical planning commission did something illegal. Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option.

_bxg1 6y ago
> Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option. Exactly: this should really be in the realm of criminal prosecution, not civil suits, in which case the positives of qualified immunity could remain in place. But we have such a toxic, broken, in-group culture in our police force that we cannot rely on self-directed justice to happen. So I think we have no other option but to open the floodgates on civil suits.
- londons_explore 6y ago
  Most other countries have a police-police, whose only job is to prosecute misbehaviours of the police. Anyone can make a complaint to them, and they will investigate, and if they believe the law has been broken, can prosecute individuals (in a regular court) or fine police departments as they see fit.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    Sounds great. In the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised to see such a group develop a shared identity with the regular police and become corrupt, but maybe it's worth a try.
    - pc86 6y ago
      The thing we already have is worth a try? Every police department with more than a couple officers has an official structure for reporting abuse to leadership (either police leadership, or civilian leadership). State agencies and police forces absolutely have jurisdiction to investigate local departments, and the FBI and DOJ can investigate anyone they want.
      - londons_explore 6y ago
        By having a team of people whose only job is to investigate the police, they look bad if they don't uncover issues like this. I suspect the mistake in the US is that all the people who could punish the police are 'too busy' with other things. Make a dedicated team who has nothing else to do, and suddenly they'll be snooping around like journalists looking for dirt so they can make a conviction and get a promotion.
        samatman 6y ago
        Exactly this. FBI doesn't want to investigate LAPD. They need LAPD, down the line, when there's some case for which they'll need cooperation. What's needed is a Federal policing agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting police misconduct. That's the whole remit; police misconduct is their alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
  - tracker1 6y ago
    In the US there are oversight departments/agencies and even the FBI that are responsible for legal enforcement above and beyond the general Police. However, they usually wind up in closer relationships professionally and rarely ever prosecute criminal actions of Police. Both my parents were retired Police, and I know there's a lot of good people that work in those fields. I also know that not every community, situation or person is the same and there are a lot of people on power trips that even fellow cops don't always like. It's often hard to speak out from within a group. Some of the more recent events are particularly grievous and should absolutely be prosecuted... There are many more incidents that should be as well. I tend to say it's rarely (though sometimes is) about race, it's usually a matter of blue vs everyone else.
- Nelson69 6y ago
  Can they not buy insurance for this?
  - downerending 6y ago
    That is exactly what will happen if QI goes away, and taxpayers will ultimately pay the premiums. Maybe that would be better, or maybe not. But in general, few policemen could withstand the risk of a single ruinous suit, and without insurance of some kind, would be forced to flee the occupation.
    - camgunz 6y ago
      As an American I'm fine funding justice (freedom isn't free, as they say) and as a liberal I'm double fine taxing the rich for it.
      - downerending 6y ago
        > I'm double fine taxing the rich for it Is that how it usually ends up?
        camgunz 6y ago
        Nah it isn’t but, vote progressive if you think it should be.
    - _bxg1 6y ago
      I'm fully okay with having officers flee the occupation if they've given themselves reasons to fear a legitimately ruinous suit.
      - ambicapter 6y ago
        You realize that reason could totally be "He's a police officer in 90210 and rich people don't like being pulled over for speeding".
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
michaelbuckbee 6y ago
A semi-joking suggestion I've heard with respect to police unions is to make the settlement agreements from police abuse cases come out of the union pension fund.
- gav 6y ago
  While the idea has some merit in making the cost of repeat offenders expensive so that the force polices itself to protect their pensions, it is unfair to penalize those that have no control including officers that have already retired. I think the best way forward is to force individual officers to carry liability insurance that covers settlements. This will have the effect of pricing out repeat offenders from the job.
  - kasey_junk 6y ago
    The intent isn’t to stop repeat offenders it’s to encourage culture change through peer pressure. Liability cards don’t have the collective punishment characteristics necessary.
  - WhatIsDukkha 6y ago
    Penalizing the pension fund would give incentive for police officers to police bad apples and that's exactly what's lacking in cases like the Minneapolis. Those other 3 officers (and the entire department) need to have skin in the game in that situation. Yes retired officers should also be "reaping what they sow". I don't know if would work in practice but there are multiple reasons to recommend it. edit- just to be clear this would have to be negotiated as part of the union agreement and not something a court could just do.
    - cool_dude85 6y ago
      A pension is an agreement between me and my employer to give me certain benefits after I retire. The pension fund, established by my employer to pay for my pension, doesn't really enter into it. Its existence is convenient for both of us to a certain extent, but it doesn't matter to me if the fund has a billion dollars or a million dollars. The boss still owes me what he promised either way. The police pension funds work the same way. If the Minneapolis police pension fund was sued tomorrow and wiped out, the city still owes the police their pensions just the same as before. The money to pay those obligations has to come from somewhere. I suspect that it would come from the city.
empath75 6y ago
> it is up to the department and the DA to deal with. They have zero incentive to do this.
baddox 6y ago
I still don't get it though. What would you be suing a commissioner over that would get them to reverse their decision? If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit. If you're suing them for some unrelated valid issue, but using that as pressure for them to change their decision, then surely that's already illegal. Isn't it considered extortion or blackmail to compel someone to give you something of value by threatening to sue them or report them to law enforcement?
- tathougies 6y ago
  > If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe.
  - mcny 6y ago
    > The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe. One idea: If a lawyer brings n invalid lawsuits within m months (where n, m are magic numbers, n preferably under three, m preferably over twelve), the lawyer gets disbarred. The only problem is: who decides whether a lawsuit is valid? Is there an objective way to judge this?
    - scott_w 6y ago
      That would cause lawyers to avoid cases like the plague unless they’re airtight. In truth, if the opposition is big enough, they’d probably avoid it in case they end up disbarred. I could see a strategy here being to make the case seem invalid (by some definition) as the defence, essentially playing the man and not the ball.
  - baddox 6y ago
    Why shouldn't it also be invalid in an analogous non-government situation?
selimthegrim 6y ago
I’m sure those bar associations and prosecutor’s associations have been as hard at work on that as the cop in The Big Lebowski was on the car theft.
mcguire 6y ago
"Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option." Well, police unions, district attorneys, judges, elected officials, and the political process itself. Oh, and the police themselves. Without the cooperation of the entire system, police unions have little power over situations involving illegal acts.
analyst74 6y ago
It's not the union, expecting a group to police themselves is just unrealistic, that's against human nature. In theory, elected officials and journalists should be able to keep police force in check. But in reality, if you make enemy of your local police force, life is going to be very hard for you. A friend gave up on journalism, in major part due to her stint at reporting on local police issues.
stefan_ 6y ago
This ignores the entire practical reality of qualified immunity and isn't helpful in the discussion at all.

by dsl 6y ago

_bxg1 6y ago

> Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option. Exactly: this should really be in the realm of criminal prosecution, not civil suits, in which case the positives of qualified immunity could remain in place. But we have such a toxic, broken, in-group culture in our police force that we cannot rely on self-directed justice to happen. So I think we have no other option but to open the floodgates on civil suits.

londons_explore 6y ago
Most other countries have a police-police, whose only job is to prosecute misbehaviours of the police. Anyone can make a complaint to them, and they will investigate, and if they believe the law has been broken, can prosecute individuals (in a regular court) or fine police departments as they see fit.
- _bxg1 6y ago
  Sounds great. In the U.S. I wouldn't be surprised to see such a group develop a shared identity with the regular police and become corrupt, but maybe it's worth a try.
  - pc86 6y ago
    The thing we already have is worth a try? Every police department with more than a couple officers has an official structure for reporting abuse to leadership (either police leadership, or civilian leadership). State agencies and police forces absolutely have jurisdiction to investigate local departments, and the FBI and DOJ can investigate anyone they want.
    - londons_explore 6y ago
      By having a team of people whose only job is to investigate the police, they look bad if they don't uncover issues like this. I suspect the mistake in the US is that all the people who could punish the police are 'too busy' with other things. Make a dedicated team who has nothing else to do, and suddenly they'll be snooping around like journalists looking for dirt so they can make a conviction and get a promotion.
      - samatman 6y ago
        Exactly this. FBI doesn't want to investigate LAPD. They need LAPD, down the line, when there's some case for which they'll need cooperation. What's needed is a Federal policing agency tasked with investigating and prosecuting police misconduct. That's the whole remit; police misconduct is their alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.
- tracker1 6y ago
  In the US there are oversight departments/agencies and even the FBI that are responsible for legal enforcement above and beyond the general Police. However, they usually wind up in closer relationships professionally and rarely ever prosecute criminal actions of Police. Both my parents were retired Police, and I know there's a lot of good people that work in those fields. I also know that not every community, situation or person is the same and there are a lot of people on power trips that even fellow cops don't always like. It's often hard to speak out from within a group. Some of the more recent events are particularly grievous and should absolutely be prosecuted... There are many more incidents that should be as well. I tend to say it's rarely (though sometimes is) about race, it's usually a matter of blue vs everyone else.
Nelson69 6y ago
Can they not buy insurance for this?
- downerending 6y ago
  That is exactly what will happen if QI goes away, and taxpayers will ultimately pay the premiums. Maybe that would be better, or maybe not. But in general, few policemen could withstand the risk of a single ruinous suit, and without insurance of some kind, would be forced to flee the occupation.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    As an American I'm fine funding justice (freedom isn't free, as they say) and as a liberal I'm double fine taxing the rich for it.
    - downerending 6y ago
      > I'm double fine taxing the rich for it Is that how it usually ends up?
      - camgunz 6y ago
        Nah it isn’t but, vote progressive if you think it should be.
  - _bxg1 6y ago
    I'm fully okay with having officers flee the occupation if they've given themselves reasons to fear a legitimately ruinous suit.
    - ambicapter 6y ago
      You realize that reason could totally be "He's a police officer in 90210 and rich people don't like being pulled over for speeding".

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

michaelbuckbee 6y ago

A semi-joking suggestion I've heard with respect to police unions is to make the settlement agreements from police abuse cases come out of the union pension fund.

gav 6y ago
While the idea has some merit in making the cost of repeat offenders expensive so that the force polices itself to protect their pensions, it is unfair to penalize those that have no control including officers that have already retired. I think the best way forward is to force individual officers to carry liability insurance that covers settlements. This will have the effect of pricing out repeat offenders from the job.
- kasey_junk 6y ago
  The intent isn’t to stop repeat offenders it’s to encourage culture change through peer pressure. Liability cards don’t have the collective punishment characteristics necessary.
- WhatIsDukkha 6y ago
  Penalizing the pension fund would give incentive for police officers to police bad apples and that's exactly what's lacking in cases like the Minneapolis. Those other 3 officers (and the entire department) need to have skin in the game in that situation. Yes retired officers should also be "reaping what they sow". I don't know if would work in practice but there are multiple reasons to recommend it. edit- just to be clear this would have to be negotiated as part of the union agreement and not something a court could just do.
  - cool_dude85 6y ago
    A pension is an agreement between me and my employer to give me certain benefits after I retire. The pension fund, established by my employer to pay for my pension, doesn't really enter into it. Its existence is convenient for both of us to a certain extent, but it doesn't matter to me if the fund has a billion dollars or a million dollars. The boss still owes me what he promised either way. The police pension funds work the same way. If the Minneapolis police pension fund was sued tomorrow and wiped out, the city still owes the police their pensions just the same as before. The money to pay those obligations has to come from somewhere. I suspect that it would come from the city.

empath75 6y ago

> it is up to the department and the DA to deal with. They have zero incentive to do this.

baddox 6y ago

I still don't get it though. What would you be suing a commissioner over that would get them to reverse their decision? If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit. If you're suing them for some unrelated valid issue, but using that as pressure for them to change their decision, then surely that's already illegal. Isn't it considered extortion or blackmail to compel someone to give you something of value by threatening to sue them or report them to law enforcement?

tathougies 6y ago
> If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe.
- mcny 6y ago
  > The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe. One idea: If a lawyer brings n invalid lawsuits within m months (where n, m are magic numbers, n preferably under three, m preferably over twelve), the lawyer gets disbarred. The only problem is: who decides whether a lawsuit is valid? Is there an objective way to judge this?
  - scott_w 6y ago
    That would cause lawyers to avoid cases like the plague unless they’re airtight. In truth, if the opposition is big enough, they’d probably avoid it in case they end up disbarred. I could see a strategy here being to make the case seem invalid (by some definition) as the defence, essentially playing the man and not the ball.
- baddox 6y ago
  Why shouldn't it also be invalid in an analogous non-government situation?

selimthegrim 6y ago

I’m sure those bar associations and prosecutor’s associations have been as hard at work on that as the cop in The Big Lebowski was on the car theft.

mcguire 6y ago

"Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option." Well, police unions, district attorneys, judges, elected officials, and the political process itself. Oh, and the police themselves. Without the cooperation of the entire system, police unions have little power over situations involving illegal acts.

analyst74 6y ago

It's not the union, expecting a group to police themselves is just unrealistic, that's against human nature. In theory, elected officials and journalists should be able to keep police force in check. But in reality, if you make enemy of your local police force, life is going to be very hard for you. A friend gave up on journalism, in major part due to her stint at reporting on local police issues.

stefan_ 6y ago

This ignores the entire practical reality of qualified immunity and isn't helpful in the discussion at all.