4 ms·

>There's nothing wrong with the idea of qualified immunity. A government worker should not be held responsible if they make an honest mistake. In a legal syste

>There's nothing wrong with the idea of qualified immunity. A government worker should not be held responsible if they make an honest mistake. In a legal system where the average person is held responsible for an honest mistake, I think it is necessary for government agents to be held to the same standard. >Qualified immunity already doesn't protect you if you knowingly break the law Given how prosecutors so often refuse to hold cops accountable, qualified immunity prevents seeking justice through the last remaining system in place. >But we're underreaching if we focus on the fallback instead of the primary issue of holding people accountable for crimes. This is letting perfect become the enemy of better.

koheripbal 6y ago
No, this is not accurate. This is like you going to work at Starbucks, spilling coffee on a customer, and then YOU getting sued, rather than Starbucks. Employees are generally shielded from this. If you want to open it up liability against all workers, then that's a major setback for worker rights. If you only want to do this for police officers... well, then that's so unfair, no one is going to become a police officer.
- ryanlol 6y ago
  What protects the Starbucks employee from getting sued besides their lack of assets?
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    It is a core principle in Tort Law. Employers are the ones responsible for the liability of their employees. https://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15396.html https://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15396.html So what people are demanding here would set police officers specifically, in a different lesser class than the general public.
    - SkyBelow 6y ago
      In that case it would be a trade off for their increased ability to deploy lethal force or imprison a person. Honestly, I'm thinking the trade off would still be weighted too much in their favor. An alternative is to have it so police have no ability to detail, imprison, or use forced against anyone that you or I also don't have (and this would also extent to rights to be armed in places you or I don't have rights to be armed, and other similar rights).

koheripbal 6y ago

No, this is not accurate. This is like you going to work at Starbucks, spilling coffee on a customer, and then YOU getting sued, rather than Starbucks. Employees are generally shielded from this. If you want to open it up liability against all workers, then that's a major setback for worker rights. If you only want to do this for police officers... well, then that's so unfair, no one is going to become a police officer.

ryanlol 6y ago
What protects the Starbucks employee from getting sued besides their lack of assets?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  It is a core principle in Tort Law. Employers are the ones responsible for the liability of their employees. https://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15396.html https://www.inc.com/articles/1999/11/15396.html So what people are demanding here would set police officers specifically, in a different lesser class than the general public.
  - SkyBelow 6y ago
    In that case it would be a trade off for their increased ability to deploy lethal force or imprison a person. Honestly, I'm thinking the trade off would still be weighted too much in their favor. An alternative is to have it so police have no ability to detail, imprison, or use forced against anyone that you or I also don't have (and this would also extent to rights to be armed in places you or I don't have rights to be armed, and other similar rights).