4 ms·
Police forces have protections as extension of the state, it was decided they’re necessary to keep the state from being stuck on a catch-22. The state can’t br
by tisFine 5y ago
Police forces have protections as extension of the state, it was decided they’re necessary to keep the state from being stuck on a catch-22.
The state can’t bring criminal charges if the violation was due to performing work for the state.
It’s legal to sue government agents as private citizens for violation of rights.
- eikenberry 5y agoConsidering some states have already removed this immunity and others are considering it, I don't think it is required. That is to say that the state can and does bring charges for violations done while performing work for the state.
- tisFine 5y agoThat’s fair. I should say instead the historical basis for such protections is rooted in logic similar to what I wrote.
- shkkmo 5y ago> it was decided they’re necessary to keep the state from being stuck It wasn't necessarily decided by elected representatives, most of these protections have be put in place by courts and are based purely on legal precedent rather than legislation. > It’s legal to sue government agents as private citizens for violation of rights. It is legal to sue anyone for anything. The standards of proof required to win such a lawsuit make it generally ineffective at rectifing most cases where rights are violated.