3 ms·

He didn't include ending qualified immunity under the list of things he thought have to change, even though it's one of the most important. Plus, all the things

He didn't include ending qualified immunity under the list of things he thought have to change, even though it's one of the most important. Plus, all the things he included are social changes or executive policy changes rather than a specific legal change like ending qualified immunity. There are specific efforts to end qualified immunity [1], while his suggestions amount to "we need to change culture", which is completely true but not as actionable. It could be that he meant to include ending qualified immunity, but being specific doesn't hurt. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/03/new-bill-would-abolish-qualified-immunity-make-it-easier-to-sue-cops-who-violate-civil-rights/#232ced116fbc https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/03/new-bill... (direct source at https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1267267244029083648 https://twitter.com/justinamash/status/1267267244029083648)

shkkmo 6y ago
"law that heightens the penalties when cops attack the press" seems to be talking about increased criminal penalties not civil liability. Ending qualified immunity doesn't do anything to help the application of criminal penalties against police who violate the law, it only restores the civil liability for those actions.
thephyber 6y ago
> He didn't include ending qualified immunity under the list of things he thought have to change, even though it's one of the most important. I didn't name check it, but if you check my post history there's a reason I didn't call for an outright repeal of QI -- I don't yet know what the effect of that would be or what measures might replace it. I'm all for removing QI (and outlawing indemnification of LEOs in employment contracts) and replacing QI with something like professional insurance, but from my understanding the problem isn't that "QI prevents cases from being brought to court", but that DAs don't actually bring cases to court which could beat the QI standard. Also, in my understanding, QI is simply protection against civil actions, not criminal prosecution. To repeat - I think the core problem is more that DAs don't bring the cases, not that the law is insurmountably high.
- zucker42 6y ago
  Yeah like I said, I largely agree with you, I was just tacking on QI.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

shkkmo 6y ago

"law that heightens the penalties when cops attack the press" seems to be talking about increased criminal penalties not civil liability. Ending qualified immunity doesn't do anything to help the application of criminal penalties against police who violate the law, it only restores the civil liability for those actions.

thephyber 6y ago

> He didn't include ending qualified immunity under the list of things he thought have to change, even though it's one of the most important. I didn't name check it, but if you check my post history there's a reason I didn't call for an outright repeal of QI -- I don't yet know what the effect of that would be or what measures might replace it. I'm all for removing QI (and outlawing indemnification of LEOs in employment contracts) and replacing QI with something like professional insurance, but from my understanding the problem isn't that "QI prevents cases from being brought to court", but that DAs don't actually bring cases to court which could beat the QI standard. Also, in my understanding, QI is simply protection against civil actions, not criminal prosecution. To repeat - I think the core problem is more that DAs don't bring the cases, not that the law is insurmountably high.

zucker42 6y ago
Yeah like I said, I largely agree with you, I was just tacking on QI.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]