3 ms·

English is not my first language. I just cannot wrap my head around this sentence, can’t figure out what it means. “... cases that asked the court to revisit a

English is not my first language. I just cannot wrap my head around this sentence, can’t figure out what it means. “... cases that asked the court to revisit a doctrine which shields police from lawsuits for conduct that does not involve a “clearly established” violation of the law.”

sewer_bird 6y ago
It's pretty dense because of all the subordinate clauses. "... cases that asked the court to revisit the existing doctrine. This doctrine protected police from lawsuits concerning police conduct, where their conduct didn't involve an obvious crime."
silvat 6y ago
maybe something like: 'cases that asked the court to _return to the practice of: preventing lawsuits against police, unless the law was clearly broken (therefore indefensible)_
goodluckchuck 6y ago
To break it down: - Police can only be sued personally if they violate "clearly established" law. - They can't be sued if they did their best in an area where the law isn't clear. - This doctrine was established by older cases. - The court is going to let those older cases stand, for now.
alistairSH 6y ago
...cases that asked the court to revisit a doctrine... The Court was asked to review cases. Those cases relate to a doctrine known as qualified immunity. ...a doctrine which shields police from lawsuits... Qualified immunity shields government officials (police, in this case) from civil lawsuits (suing for damages - officials can still be held criminally accountable). ...conduct that does not involve a “clearly established” violation of the law... The QI only applies when there is not a "clearly established" violation of the law. That last phrase is the real killer. Courts require the aggrieved party to cite previous cases with EXACTLY the same set of facts. Of course, no two cases are exactly the same, so the courts have effectively given police officers blanket immunity to civil claims...

sewer_bird 6y ago

It's pretty dense because of all the subordinate clauses. "... cases that asked the court to revisit the existing doctrine. This doctrine protected police from lawsuits concerning police conduct, where their conduct didn't involve an obvious crime."

silvat 6y ago

maybe something like: 'cases that asked the court to _return to the practice of: preventing lawsuits against police, unless the law was clearly broken (therefore indefensible)_

goodluckchuck 6y ago

To break it down: - Police can only be sued personally if they violate "clearly established" law. - They can't be sued if they did their best in an area where the law isn't clear. - This doctrine was established by older cases. - The court is going to let those older cases stand, for now.

alistairSH 6y ago

...cases that asked the court to revisit a doctrine... The Court was asked to review cases. Those cases relate to a doctrine known as qualified immunity. ...a doctrine which shields police from lawsuits... Qualified immunity shields government officials (police, in this case) from civil lawsuits (suing for damages - officials can still be held criminally accountable). ...conduct that does not involve a “clearly established” violation of the law... The QI only applies when there is not a "clearly established" violation of the law. That last phrase is the real killer. Courts require the aggrieved party to cite previous cases with EXACTLY the same set of facts. Of course, no two cases are exactly the same, so the courts have effectively given police officers blanket immunity to civil claims...