4 ms·

> We need to take away qualified immunity (which incorrectly protects the police officer involved from any kind of prosecution). Not a lawyer, but I thought qu

by dghf 5y ago

> We need to take away qualified immunity (which incorrectly protects the police officer involved from any kind of prosecution). Not a lawyer, but I thought qualified immunity gave protection from civil liability, not criminal.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
Civil is a lower bar than criminal so removing QI and and making the officers personally (in reality they'll all just buy insurance like doctors do, some do this already) is simply a step in the right direction (equality under law being said direction). If you aren't found to be on the hook by a civil court you basically can't be found guilty by a criminal one (barring very specific statutes or legal precedents that are relevant to the facts in question).
- papercrane 5y ago
  You're talking about two different things. QI has nothing to do with the level of proof needed (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt.) Qualified Immunity only exists in civil litigation and has no bearing on criminal cases.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Correct. But if you can't even take someone to civil court you have no chance of criminal charges sticking (barring some specific statute or precedent to the contrary)
    - papercrane 5y ago
      They are completely different things. People can sue each other for things that are not crimes, and you can go to criminal court over things you can't be sued for. Qualified immunity has no bearing on criminal proceedings. For example, if George Floyd's estate sued Chauvin directly I wouldn't be surprised if they lost because of QI, even though Chauvin was charged and convicted for murder.
btilly 5y ago
Qualified immunity does only give protection from civil liability, not criminal. However civil lawsuits can be brought by the victim. Criminal lawsuits have to be brought by the state. Which usually will mean the District Attorney. Who normally has a close relationship with the police and should be assumed to be reluctant to bring cases against them. Therefore, in practice, civil law is the only meaningful remedy. So qualified immunity has been a huge civil rights problem since it was invented in 1982. (Not a lawyer, but I like to read. BTW it could be worse - look up judicial immunity some time. Corrupt judges truly have nothing to fear from their corruption.)

by dghf 5y ago

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

Civil is a lower bar than criminal so removing QI and and making the officers personally (in reality they'll all just buy insurance like doctors do, some do this already) is simply a step in the right direction (equality under law being said direction). If you aren't found to be on the hook by a civil court you basically can't be found guilty by a criminal one (barring very specific statutes or legal precedents that are relevant to the facts in question).

papercrane 5y ago
You're talking about two different things. QI has nothing to do with the level of proof needed (preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt.) Qualified Immunity only exists in civil litigation and has no bearing on criminal cases.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  Correct. But if you can't even take someone to civil court you have no chance of criminal charges sticking (barring some specific statute or precedent to the contrary)
  - papercrane 5y ago
    They are completely different things. People can sue each other for things that are not crimes, and you can go to criminal court over things you can't be sued for. Qualified immunity has no bearing on criminal proceedings. For example, if George Floyd's estate sued Chauvin directly I wouldn't be surprised if they lost because of QI, even though Chauvin was charged and convicted for murder.

btilly 5y ago

Qualified immunity does only give protection from civil liability, not criminal. However civil lawsuits can be brought by the victim. Criminal lawsuits have to be brought by the state. Which usually will mean the District Attorney. Who normally has a close relationship with the police and should be assumed to be reluctant to bring cases against them. Therefore, in practice, civil law is the only meaningful remedy. So qualified immunity has been a huge civil rights problem since it was invented in 1982. (Not a lawyer, but I like to read. BTW it could be worse - look up judicial immunity some time. Corrupt judges truly have nothing to fear from their corruption.)