4 ms·

Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police? If not, then the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between he

Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police? If not, then the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases.

torstenvl 6y ago
> Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police No. > the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases. That makes no sense. A government official performing a government job because they are required to by the government should not then be ordered by the government's court system to pay restitution for damages caused by the government's ordered action. Beyond the principle of the matter, the pragmatic reality is that no sane person would ever work in law enforcement if their kid's college fund is subject to being raided for doing their jobs.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > government official performing a government job because they are required to by the government should not then be ordered by the government's court system to pay restitution for damages caused by the government's ordered action There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity. Government officials actions are protected so long as they are legal. If someone knowingly orders an illegal action, qualified immunity no longer applies. If someone knowingly follows an illegal order, they too may bear burden. (If they unknowingly follow an illegal order, we enter the greyer shades of grey.) (Edited.)
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    > There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity Nope, not really. > Government actions are protected so long as they are legal. If someone orders an illegal action, they are no longer protected by being government agents because they weren't lawfully acting in their capacities as one This is not correct. It is not enough for there to be "an illegal action," the action has to have been in violation of clearly established law. Please stop spreading misinformation in this thread. Having strong feelings on a legal topic does not make you a lawyer.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > Nope, not really Within the context of a political discussion among laymen, yes. The relevant case law stretches over decades and jurisdictions. That said, one person's grey is another's black and white. > This is not correct It's not phrased legally precisely. But unless I missed something recently, the clearly established law requirement set by Harlow still holds. Disclosure: I am not a lawyer. I have worked on rule making and legislation in this domain.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity. Not particularly. > Government actions are protected so long as they are legal. Generally, actions which are legal are not subject to legal liability, you don’t need immunity when your action isn’t illegal. Illegal government actions are often protected by governmental immunities, but that’s not the issue here. Illegal individual actions by government agents related to their job duties may be covered by either absolute or qualified immunity, based on the rules applicable to each type of immunity. > If someone orders an illegal action, they are no longer protected by being government agents because they weren’t lawfully acting in their capacities as one. No, such an order could easily be covered by either absolute or qualified immunity. For instance, an illegal Presidential order is within the coverage of the President's absolute immunity. An order from an official not covered by or doing the kinds of duties subject to absolute immunity, which despite being illegal is not of a kind which a closely similar fact pattern has been definitively found to be illegal in the past, would fall within qualified immunity, generally. > If someone knowingly follows an illegal order, they too bear the burden. If they know or had constructive notice through an applicable ruling that the order was illegal, sure, provided absolute immunity doesn’t apply (note that “knowingly followed an illegal order” can mean “knowingly followed an order, which order factually was illegal whether or not that was known”.)
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > Not particularly Legally, given the facts and circumstances, mostly agreed. (Though, hell, I think even Kagan and Scalia were complaining a few years ago about the circuits splitting on these questions.) Practically, I still argue it is. I'm not going out on a limb in saying that most people, cops or not, don't have a running list of unlawful behaviors for which there is clear judicial precedent. Which means when they commit an act, there is ambiguity--reasonable ambiguity, given we're consulting a litany versus heuristic--with respect to its legality. On a legal level, this is true of any action. On a practical level, it's not. (And the argument against limitedly abolishing qualified immunity largely revolves around it not being.) I've watched two law firms evaluating a specific case with respect to a hypothetical amendment to qualified immunity statute come to wildly different conclusions about how it would be interpreted by the courts. That is practically grey area, even if legally it's operating on a hard-bound checklist. (New York State law is also a mess in this particular respect.) Colloquially, if given a set of facts and circumstances it cannot confidently predict how the courts would rule, where questions must be answered about extraordinary circumstances and whether this unlawful action was sufficiently close to that case, the law can be said to be ambiguous and grey. (Note: not sure why you're being downvoted. It's a good comment. To a striking degree, it illustrates the root of this issue, politically--the spirit of the law deviates wildly from its practice.)
- thebradbain 6y ago
  > because they are required to The government is not requiring cops to send innocent people to jail, kill extrajudicially, or otherwise ruin peoples’ lives simply because they felt like it. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of justice, which is actually their mandate. > There’s no rational distinction between [police officers and health inspectors] One has leeway to kill innocent people outside of the court system based on subjective characteristics (“I was scared”) with little consequence, the other checks a court-approved checklist and passes or fails based on an objective criteria. > No same person would ever work in law enforcement if their kid’s college fund is subject to being raised because they did their jobs Again, it is antithetical to their job to carry out injustice, and when people mess up their job bad enough, such a killing or framing an innocent person (intentionally or not), there should be consequences. Similar to how bad surgeons who have a clear pattern of killing their patients (intentionally or not) are taken out of operating rooms and medicinal license potentially revoked, or the corrupt lawyer who colludes with the other side in return for kickbacks is disbarred. Unlike the overworked DMV employee who didn’t properly register someone in the system and wasted most of their day, when an overworked cop messes up, someone just lost a whole more time they’ll never get back — potentially a life’s worth.
  - torstenvl 6y ago
    > Again, it is antithetical to their job to carry out injustice, and when people mess up their job bad enough, such a killing or framing an innocent person (intentionally or not), there should be consequences. You can't talk about justice in one breath and vengeance against the fall guy in the next. If a police officer unintentionally kills an innocent person because they were, e.g., ordered to perform an armed no-knock raid in the middle of the night in a state where 42.4% of the population owns firearms, it is the local government -- not the individual police officer -- who killed that innocent person.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - thebradbain 6y ago
      That’s not the type of scenario that people have in mind when they’re talking about the systemic failure of qualified immunity — in a functional court system, such a case would shake out naturally (either a non-punishable offense or involuntary manslaughter, depending on context, as after all, an innocent person was killed), while still allowing crimes such as manufacturing evidence or reckless negligence or murder to go punished. As it is, a citizen cannot normally charge a cop with a crime, so all legal recourse against the police must go through a civil court in practice, where the doctrine of qualified immunity acts as a shield
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dk775 6y ago
If true that’s more to the point. The deal is that you work for the police, govt gives you some discretion and power to act on their behalf. If I don’t get any protection for that, why would I err on the side of intervening in ambiguous situations. I’d even argue that it’s normal to expect some mistakes, and in general QI should be protected for this reason. Govt should realize police are only real thing they have to enforce those reams of legalese (not taking about other things like fines). Meaning if they want to stop you RIGHT NOW, they going to have to use a cop. Govt shooting themselves in the foot by neutering their legitimacy to enforce what they say we have to do
vinay427 6y ago
For what it's worth, while New Mexico's law covers all governmental bodies, Colorado passed a law last June that only banned qualified immunity for law enforcement [1]. The city of New York also recently did so for NYPD officers [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-colorado-idUSKBN23R05X https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-colora... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-qualified-immunity-police-misconduct/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-qualified-immunity-police-m...

torstenvl 6y ago

> Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police No. > the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases. That makes no sense. A government official performing a government job because they are required to by the government should not then be ordered by the government's court system to pay restitution for damages caused by the government's ordered action. Beyond the principle of the matter, the pragmatic reality is that no sane person would ever work in law enforcement if their kid's college fund is subject to being raided for doing their jobs.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> government official performing a government job because they are required to by the government should not then be ordered by the government's court system to pay restitution for damages caused by the government's ordered action There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity. Government officials actions are protected so long as they are legal. If someone knowingly orders an illegal action, qualified immunity no longer applies. If someone knowingly follows an illegal order, they too may bear burden. (If they unknowingly follow an illegal order, we enter the greyer shades of grey.) (Edited.)
- torstenvl 6y ago
  > There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity Nope, not really. > Government actions are protected so long as they are legal. If someone orders an illegal action, they are no longer protected by being government agents because they weren't lawfully acting in their capacities as one This is not correct. It is not enough for there to be "an illegal action," the action has to have been in violation of clearly established law. Please stop spreading misinformation in this thread. Having strong feelings on a legal topic does not make you a lawyer.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Nope, not really Within the context of a political discussion among laymen, yes. The relevant case law stretches over decades and jurisdictions. That said, one person's grey is another's black and white. > This is not correct It's not phrased legally precisely. But unless I missed something recently, the clearly established law requirement set by Harlow still holds. Disclosure: I am not a lawyer. I have worked on rule making and legislation in this domain.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity. Not particularly. > Government actions are protected so long as they are legal. Generally, actions which are legal are not subject to legal liability, you don’t need immunity when your action isn’t illegal. Illegal government actions are often protected by governmental immunities, but that’s not the issue here. Illegal individual actions by government agents related to their job duties may be covered by either absolute or qualified immunity, based on the rules applicable to each type of immunity. > If someone orders an illegal action, they are no longer protected by being government agents because they weren’t lawfully acting in their capacities as one. No, such an order could easily be covered by either absolute or qualified immunity. For instance, an illegal Presidential order is within the coverage of the President's absolute immunity. An order from an official not covered by or doing the kinds of duties subject to absolute immunity, which despite being illegal is not of a kind which a closely similar fact pattern has been definitively found to be illegal in the past, would fall within qualified immunity, generally. > If someone knowingly follows an illegal order, they too bear the burden. If they know or had constructive notice through an applicable ruling that the order was illegal, sure, provided absolute immunity doesn’t apply (note that “knowingly followed an illegal order” can mean “knowingly followed an order, which order factually was illegal whether or not that was known”.)
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Not particularly Legally, given the facts and circumstances, mostly agreed. (Though, hell, I think even Kagan and Scalia were complaining a few years ago about the circuits splitting on these questions.) Practically, I still argue it is. I'm not going out on a limb in saying that most people, cops or not, don't have a running list of unlawful behaviors for which there is clear judicial precedent. Which means when they commit an act, there is ambiguity--reasonable ambiguity, given we're consulting a litany versus heuristic--with respect to its legality. On a legal level, this is true of any action. On a practical level, it's not. (And the argument against limitedly abolishing qualified immunity largely revolves around it not being.) I've watched two law firms evaluating a specific case with respect to a hypothetical amendment to qualified immunity statute come to wildly different conclusions about how it would be interpreted by the courts. That is practically grey area, even if legally it's operating on a hard-bound checklist. (New York State law is also a mess in this particular respect.) Colloquially, if given a set of facts and circumstances it cannot confidently predict how the courts would rule, where questions must be answered about extraordinary circumstances and whether this unlawful action was sufficiently close to that case, the law can be said to be ambiguous and grey. (Note: not sure why you're being downvoted. It's a good comment. To a striking degree, it illustrates the root of this issue, politically--the spirit of the law deviates wildly from its practice.)
thebradbain 6y ago
> because they are required to The government is not requiring cops to send innocent people to jail, kill extrajudicially, or otherwise ruin peoples’ lives simply because they felt like it. In fact, that’s the exact opposite of justice, which is actually their mandate. > There’s no rational distinction between [police officers and health inspectors] One has leeway to kill innocent people outside of the court system based on subjective characteristics (“I was scared”) with little consequence, the other checks a court-approved checklist and passes or fails based on an objective criteria. > No same person would ever work in law enforcement if their kid’s college fund is subject to being raised because they did their jobs Again, it is antithetical to their job to carry out injustice, and when people mess up their job bad enough, such a killing or framing an innocent person (intentionally or not), there should be consequences. Similar to how bad surgeons who have a clear pattern of killing their patients (intentionally or not) are taken out of operating rooms and medicinal license potentially revoked, or the corrupt lawyer who colludes with the other side in return for kickbacks is disbarred. Unlike the overworked DMV employee who didn’t properly register someone in the system and wasted most of their day, when an overworked cop messes up, someone just lost a whole more time they’ll never get back — potentially a life’s worth.
- torstenvl 6y ago
  > Again, it is antithetical to their job to carry out injustice, and when people mess up their job bad enough, such a killing or framing an innocent person (intentionally or not), there should be consequences. You can't talk about justice in one breath and vengeance against the fall guy in the next. If a police officer unintentionally kills an innocent person because they were, e.g., ordered to perform an armed no-knock raid in the middle of the night in a state where 42.4% of the population owns firearms, it is the local government -- not the individual police officer -- who killed that innocent person.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - thebradbain 6y ago
    That’s not the type of scenario that people have in mind when they’re talking about the systemic failure of qualified immunity — in a functional court system, such a case would shake out naturally (either a non-punishable offense or involuntary manslaughter, depending on context, as after all, an innocent person was killed), while still allowing crimes such as manufacturing evidence or reckless negligence or murder to go punished. As it is, a citizen cannot normally charge a cop with a crime, so all legal recourse against the police must go through a civil court in practice, where the doctrine of qualified immunity acts as a shield

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

dk775 6y ago

If true that’s more to the point. The deal is that you work for the police, govt gives you some discretion and power to act on their behalf. If I don’t get any protection for that, why would I err on the side of intervening in ambiguous situations. I’d even argue that it’s normal to expect some mistakes, and in general QI should be protected for this reason. Govt should realize police are only real thing they have to enforce those reams of legalese (not taking about other things like fines). Meaning if they want to stop you RIGHT NOW, they going to have to use a cop. Govt shooting themselves in the foot by neutering their legitimacy to enforce what they say we have to do

vinay427 6y ago

For what it's worth, while New Mexico's law covers all governmental bodies, Colorado passed a law last June that only banned qualified immunity for law enforcement [1]. The city of New York also recently did so for NYPD officers [2]. [1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-colorado-idUSKBN23R05X https://www.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-colora... [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-qualified-immunity-police-misconduct/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nyc-qualified-immunity-police-m...