7 ms·

Qualified immunity does not allow assault or murder.

by lawnchair_larry 6y ago

klmadfejno 6y ago
Well it does protect your from civil penalties for law and murder
- austincheney 6y ago
  Not in the case of criminal law violations. Civil suits should not be used as a blunt weapon to end run criminal complaints only because they set the bar lower. This is antithetical to tort reform.
  - Ceezy 6y ago
    Most police officers don't get murder charges anyway. Civil court exist for something. Saying that people should sue criminal instead of civil is up to the victim team not you. If people don't want to be sued civil they should do a better job first. Removing bs laws that don't regulate anything anyway would be good also. Laws are meant to be respected not to be dodge because your job is important. Everybody job is.
    - austincheney 6y ago
      > Civil court exist for something. Sure, but that something isn't criminal law.
      - Ceezy 6y ago
        What you are saying is factually wrong. If I can sue a mall security for something. I should be able to sue a police officer for the same. The job of the defendant doesn't change the status of the charge/request. Most public servant don't work as a spy imbedded in Russia.
        austincheney 6y ago
        Your logic doesn't make any sense. You can sue for absolutely anything, but that doesn't mean a judge is willing to hear your case or that it is grounded upon any law.
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    An individual can be found innocent in criminal court and guilty in civil court for the same incident
Broken_Hippo 6y ago
It allows for harassment, though, and for folks to arrest people willy-nilly. And as the other person said, you are never really responsible for the assault or murder like you would be if you were a private person.
- austincheney 6y ago
  Qualified immunity does not shield police from wrongful detention or arrest. An arrest must be valid according to a given charge and evidence even if those do not survive to trial.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    In practice, it does. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/they-get-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-why-law-enforcement-and-other-government-officials-are-protected-from-civil-lawsuits-2020-06-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/they-get-a-get-out-of-jail... > “In such cases, when the court declines to establish whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it avoids setting a clearly established precedent for future cases, even for the most egregious acts of police violence,” the report said. “In effect, the same conduct can repeatedly go unpunished.” > For example, there’s Jessop v. City of Fresno, Calif., in which a pair of businessmen alleged that police officers had stolen some $225,000 in cash and rare coins they had seized while executing search warrants. The officers were deemed entitled to qualified immunity because “at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant.”
    - austincheney 6y ago
      Those are both irrelevant to the issue at hand: wrongful arrest. Wrongful arrest occurs when either the incorrect person is detained or when a person is detained without merit. In order for police to detain people they need to place them under arrest, which includes Maranda warnings, or have a signed warrant.

Qualified immunity does not allow assault or murder.

klmadfejno 6y ago

Well it does protect your from civil penalties for law and murder

austincheney 6y ago
Not in the case of criminal law violations. Civil suits should not be used as a blunt weapon to end run criminal complaints only because they set the bar lower. This is antithetical to tort reform.
- Ceezy 6y ago
  Most police officers don't get murder charges anyway. Civil court exist for something. Saying that people should sue criminal instead of civil is up to the victim team not you. If people don't want to be sued civil they should do a better job first. Removing bs laws that don't regulate anything anyway would be good also. Laws are meant to be respected not to be dodge because your job is important. Everybody job is.
  - austincheney 6y ago
    > Civil court exist for something. Sure, but that something isn't criminal law.
    - Ceezy 6y ago
      What you are saying is factually wrong. If I can sue a mall security for something. I should be able to sue a police officer for the same. The job of the defendant doesn't change the status of the charge/request. Most public servant don't work as a spy imbedded in Russia.
      - austincheney 6y ago
        Your logic doesn't make any sense. You can sue for absolutely anything, but that doesn't mean a judge is willing to hear your case or that it is grounded upon any law.
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  An individual can be found innocent in criminal court and guilty in civil court for the same incident

Broken_Hippo 6y ago

It allows for harassment, though, and for folks to arrest people willy-nilly. And as the other person said, you are never really responsible for the assault or murder like you would be if you were a private person.

austincheney 6y ago
Qualified immunity does not shield police from wrongful detention or arrest. An arrest must be valid according to a given charge and evidence even if those do not survive to trial.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  In practice, it does. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/they-get-a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-why-law-enforcement-and-other-government-officials-are-protected-from-civil-lawsuits-2020-06-24 https://www.marketwatch.com/story/they-get-a-get-out-of-jail... > “In such cases, when the court declines to establish whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it avoids setting a clearly established precedent for future cases, even for the most egregious acts of police violence,” the report said. “In effect, the same conduct can repeatedly go unpunished.” > For example, there’s Jessop v. City of Fresno, Calif., in which a pair of businessmen alleged that police officers had stolen some $225,000 in cash and rare coins they had seized while executing search warrants. The officers were deemed entitled to qualified immunity because “at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant.”
  - austincheney 6y ago
    Those are both irrelevant to the issue at hand: wrongful arrest. Wrongful arrest occurs when either the incorrect person is detained or when a person is detained without merit. In order for police to detain people they need to place them under arrest, which includes Maranda warnings, or have a signed warrant.