6 ms·

Qualified immunity already doesn't protect you if you knowingly break the law, and it doesn't protect you if you are clearly incompetent. If you believe the ex

Qualified immunity already doesn't protect you if you knowingly break the law, and it doesn't protect you if you are clearly incompetent. If you believe the experts that are well-versed in this area, this is not how it works in practice. The Wikipedia article covers a lot of the controversy around this doctrine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Objections_and_criticisms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Objections_... Here is an example of a man in Grand Rapids, Michigan, who was brutally assaulted by undercover officers because they believed he was somebody else. Take a look at how difficult it has been for him to get any recourse for a blatantly obvious abuse of power (6 years and counting): https://twitter.com/AaronParseghian/status/1270181815664496640 https://twitter.com/AaronParseghian/status/12701818156644966...

tick_tock_tick 6y ago
In practice means DA's aren't doing their job.
- bgentry 6y ago
  Qualified Immunity is a protection against civil liability. This does not generally involve District Attorneys, whose job is to prosecute criminal cases. The lack of criminal prosecutions is more of an indication that District Attorneys aren't doing their job (or that the reality of their job is that they are disincentivized from prosecuting criminal cops).
parsimo2010 6y ago
You're right that there is a problem with how the standard is applied- requiring prior cases with extremely similar facts for precedent is the most dumb sounding thing to me. But the complaint about how qualified immunity is applied doesn't change the bigger issue that those cops in your example beat up someone and were acquitted of assault. This is focusing on how the fallback lawsuit was prevented by qualified immunity instead of the primary issue that those cops should have gone to jail.
- bgentry 6y ago
  Completely agree! Qualified Immunity only frustrates civil suits and does not impact criminal prosecutions, and IMO it is more important that cops who break the law or take away rights be criminally prosecuted for it. Ending Qualified Immunity only unlocks what should be a last resort for accountability; the larger problems is that cops don't generally face criminal charges or convictions when they violate the law or others' rights.
- rabidrat 6y ago
  Okay so what would you propose as the mechanism for focusing on that primary issue?
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    For a start the media should focus on exposing inadequately prosecuted cops that broke the law instead of focusing on qualified immunity after the system already failed. One way to actually fix the problem is external investigation of police complaints and the power to press charges separate from the DA. The vast majority of the time the people investigating a police shooting work in the same building as the shooters, and are often police themselves. Then the DA, which works with the police on most of their cases, ends up being the one that has to prosecute them. These should both be considered conflicts of interest. We need people that aren't friends with the cops to have the power to do something. The investigators should be limited to bringing criminal charges to police that must be tried in court to prevent abuses of their power (otherwise we risk a situation of "who watches the watchmen of the watchmen"). The idea of special prosecutors exists, but for some reason isn't applied to police matters. Police unions are a problem now, but only because they have the power to fight a police chief over employment terms and threaten to strike. They would not be able to fight the prosecutor from an external organization. Let them fight the police chief over administrative actions and discipline for minor violations all they want (that's what unions are for) as long as punishment for crimes is handled by someone else. This is exactly how it works with every other union- they can fight employers on all sorts of matters, but they don't get a say once a member commits a crime, and police unions should be the same. Also, with police matters, a lack of evidence should be viewed as suspicious, and possibly considered as supporting evidence for a complaint. The police should wear cameras but they shouldn't manage the recordings. Body cameras should be allowed to be turned off to deal with sensitive issues, but those occasions should be limited and reviewable. If a cop is about to go talk to a rape victim, then the footage leading up that point should be reviewed. If a body camera was turned off when someone filed a complaint about assault, it should be pretty easy to look at the footage leading up to that point and determine if the camera was turned off for an appropriate reason, or if the cop turned the camera off so they could crack some skulls without being recorded. Excuses like "I forgot to turn my camera back on" can be handled with indicator lights and audible tones or having the camera turn back on after a while. Excuses like "my camera stopped working" can be checked to see if the police officer submitted a service request. None of these issues are controversial. The controversial part is that it costs money to set up an oversight investigation. Usually a politician running with a platform like this is doomed to lose an election because they are talking about raising taxes and they won't have the support of the police union. But if there were ever a time to get this implemented it would be now.
koheripbal 6y ago
Without QI, I can't imagine ANYONE would ever sign up to be a police officer. People don't appreciate how many frivolous lawsuits go on currently. Imagine getting sued out of your home because some rich asshole you arrested decided to sue you personally.
- wahern 6y ago
  > [P]olice officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct. https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/police-indemnification/ https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/polic...
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    ...and that's good, because that's the point of QI.

tick_tock_tick 6y ago

In practice means DA's aren't doing their job.

bgentry 6y ago
Qualified Immunity is a protection against civil liability. This does not generally involve District Attorneys, whose job is to prosecute criminal cases. The lack of criminal prosecutions is more of an indication that District Attorneys aren't doing their job (or that the reality of their job is that they are disincentivized from prosecuting criminal cops).

parsimo2010 6y ago

You're right that there is a problem with how the standard is applied- requiring prior cases with extremely similar facts for precedent is the most dumb sounding thing to me. But the complaint about how qualified immunity is applied doesn't change the bigger issue that those cops in your example beat up someone and were acquitted of assault. This is focusing on how the fallback lawsuit was prevented by qualified immunity instead of the primary issue that those cops should have gone to jail.

bgentry 6y ago
Completely agree! Qualified Immunity only frustrates civil suits and does not impact criminal prosecutions, and IMO it is more important that cops who break the law or take away rights be criminally prosecuted for it. Ending Qualified Immunity only unlocks what should be a last resort for accountability; the larger problems is that cops don't generally face criminal charges or convictions when they violate the law or others' rights.
rabidrat 6y ago
Okay so what would you propose as the mechanism for focusing on that primary issue?
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  For a start the media should focus on exposing inadequately prosecuted cops that broke the law instead of focusing on qualified immunity after the system already failed. One way to actually fix the problem is external investigation of police complaints and the power to press charges separate from the DA. The vast majority of the time the people investigating a police shooting work in the same building as the shooters, and are often police themselves. Then the DA, which works with the police on most of their cases, ends up being the one that has to prosecute them. These should both be considered conflicts of interest. We need people that aren't friends with the cops to have the power to do something. The investigators should be limited to bringing criminal charges to police that must be tried in court to prevent abuses of their power (otherwise we risk a situation of "who watches the watchmen of the watchmen"). The idea of special prosecutors exists, but for some reason isn't applied to police matters. Police unions are a problem now, but only because they have the power to fight a police chief over employment terms and threaten to strike. They would not be able to fight the prosecutor from an external organization. Let them fight the police chief over administrative actions and discipline for minor violations all they want (that's what unions are for) as long as punishment for crimes is handled by someone else. This is exactly how it works with every other union- they can fight employers on all sorts of matters, but they don't get a say once a member commits a crime, and police unions should be the same. Also, with police matters, a lack of evidence should be viewed as suspicious, and possibly considered as supporting evidence for a complaint. The police should wear cameras but they shouldn't manage the recordings. Body cameras should be allowed to be turned off to deal with sensitive issues, but those occasions should be limited and reviewable. If a cop is about to go talk to a rape victim, then the footage leading up that point should be reviewed. If a body camera was turned off when someone filed a complaint about assault, it should be pretty easy to look at the footage leading up to that point and determine if the camera was turned off for an appropriate reason, or if the cop turned the camera off so they could crack some skulls without being recorded. Excuses like "I forgot to turn my camera back on" can be handled with indicator lights and audible tones or having the camera turn back on after a while. Excuses like "my camera stopped working" can be checked to see if the police officer submitted a service request. None of these issues are controversial. The controversial part is that it costs money to set up an oversight investigation. Usually a politician running with a platform like this is doomed to lose an election because they are talking about raising taxes and they won't have the support of the police union. But if there were ever a time to get this implemented it would be now.

koheripbal 6y ago

Without QI, I can't imagine ANYONE would ever sign up to be a police officer. People don't appreciate how many frivolous lawsuits go on currently. Imagine getting sued out of your home because some rich asshole you arrested decided to sue you personally.

wahern 6y ago
> [P]olice officers are virtually always indemnified: During the study period, governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement. Law enforcement officers in my study never satisfied a punitive damages award entered against them and almost never contributed anything to settlements or judgments—even when indemnification was prohibited by law or policy, and even when officers were disciplined, terminated, or prosecuted for their conduct. https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/police-indemnification/ https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/polic...
- koheripbal 6y ago
  ...and that's good, because that's the point of QI.