9 ms·

These types of occurrences are my number one argument for eliminating qualified immunity. Police officers should face significant, personal liability for flagra

These types of occurrences are my number one argument for eliminating qualified immunity. Police officers should face significant, personal liability for flagrant violations of individual rights like this. It happens every day, and in almost every case, there's literally zero recourse no matter how much money you have to throw at the problem.

systemvoltage 4y ago
This sounds good. What may be the unintentional side-effects? Downsides? I guess, another way to question this is why is it the way it is?
- anonymousab 4y ago
  Cops might hesitate to act if their were repercussions, accountability or responsibility for their actions.
  - astrange 4y ago
    They already don't act because there's no repercussions for not doing anything; the SF DA is being recalled today because the cops decided they didn't like him and just haven't been doing their job for months as a result.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      Chesa Boudin is the opposite problem. The answer to our broke-ass, classist, unjust "justice" system isn't to abandon prosecution almost entirely. If I had a magic wand, the DA's offices across America would review cases promptly, prosecute justifiable cases, and preemptively drop unjustified cases as soon as possible — and report truly questionable policing to a real oversight board, while actually charging and prosecuting police officers for genuinely bad policing. In reality, in most jurisdictions, the DA's office often doesn't even look at most cases until the day of arraignment, months after someone's life has already been run through a ringer and they've spent tens of thousands on retaining a defense attorney (if they're lucky enough to afford one), not to mention therapy (again, if they're lucky enough to afford that). All too often they'll try to coerce a plea deal for a bad case, rather than simply dropping it — and people accept the offered deal, because the alternative is incredibly expensive, and incredibly risky. As for holding police accountable for bad policing? Unless it's a case that garners the political will to prosecute (usually due to massive negative media attention), a ski holiday in hell is more likely. However, Chesa Boudin's office swung way too far in the opposite direction, failing to even prosecute strong cases for real crimes that resulted in real harm. Eventually, the police gave up — why bother going through the effort of policing if the DA is just going to drop the case anyway? It's like writing code only to have `git` erase your entire branch when you `git push`. I'm not a police apologist ("fuck the police" would find a spot on my top-100 playlist!) but Chesa Boudin absolutely deserved to be recalled.
  - DuskStar 4y ago
    Like the cops at our most recent school shooting in Texas, you mean? Seems like they already hesitate to act.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      I agree but I also think that lot of cops are good folk and doing dirty work of keeping streets safe. Talk to them sometime outside of the media messaging. Absolute statements painting the entire police force one way or the other is wrong and disingenious.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    that's sort of the point, but since accountability or responsibility are words generally given positive spin - that is to say these are things we want everyone to have in society - I'm supposing your post is extremely dry sarcasm?
  - ikiris 4y ago
    Cops hesitating to break the law is the goal here. They already hesitate to do protecting at their own peril, as evidenced by that recent school shooting.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    Umm...good? In true life-or-death situations, instinct and training still kicks in. But maybe cops should be hesitating before deciding to escalate a situation just because someone challenged them when they overstepped their legal authority.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  I'm the wrong person to steel-man the argument for qualified immunity, and will have to leave that to someone else. I'd recommend this argument against, which does provide significant context: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-21/issue-1/qualified-immunity/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...
- smolder 4y ago
  It's well known how courts/DAs here in the states pressure people to accept lesser charges to avoid the expense of a trial. There's no guarantee an innocent party will win at trial, and that risk of losing coupled with the cost of fighting can and does lead innocent parties to accept a plea bargain. The courts are run like a business, in that efficiency is a concern. Pragmatism outweighs idealism. The downside of taking away qualified immunity for police is the same as the downside of bringing every case to trial. Put simply, it would result in a more costly process, impeding the work of doling out punishment.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > impeding the work of doling out punishment. I'm OK with this; Blackstone's ratio applies here, too ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.")
    - smolder 4y ago
      Yep, the way things operate currently is shameful.
ls15 4y ago
Same for politicians
whatshisface 4y ago
Eliminating qualified immunity won't help when judges are reluctant to award judgments against the whole department or the municipality that is responsible for them, which are not covered under qualified immunity. First you have to get the judges to stop protecting the executive side of the justice system, and then that may be enough already. (How long would a PD let these things go on if appropriate relief was awarded every time it happened?)
- ncmncm 4y ago
  Lawsuits should be filed both against the department and each responsible officer, including any that refuse to help when they know better. Whenever an officer or public official exceeds his lawful authority, he should have liability same as any random Joe on the street for the same offense. This sort of thing happens to thousands of people in the US every day, routinely.
  - elcritch 4y ago
    I mean doctors and engineers can both face jail time for negligence. The US Military has strict rules of engagement and soldiers can face court marshal. There’s no reason the police can’t or shouldn’t be held accountable for negligence or worse behavior.
derefr 4y ago
IMHO you don't even need to remove/alter qualified immunity to make it happen. Instead: 1. make a policeman's professional licensing body and require all police to join it. (Take the police unions and turn them into that.) 2. Have the licensing body introduce the concept of professional malfeasance. 3. Make a simple regulatory statute where professional malfeasance as decided by that licensing body, creates civil/criminal liability. Y'know — just like engineers!
- notch656a 4y ago
  Honestly the details of licensing, while charitable and productive to mention, are nearly irrelevant. The government has no problem setting up licensing systems. The merits can be debated, but doing what you call for is pretty well oiled machinery at this point. The challenge is you're seeking to overturn the systems of violence with peaceful legislative action. This is a lofty goal with historically rare outcome.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    The police aren’t the arm of a ruling class abusing the less fortunate (much though some want to believe this). They’re just bad at their jobs. There are no incentives really to be good at their jobs, and very few people are motivated to get them to do high quality work. Nobody wants to understand the complexity of a police force, people are either mildly annoyed or can only grasp a message that fits on a protest sign. “Systems” should be a dirty word when it comes to discussing social issues, it’s just a catchall boogeyman for people who don’t want to understand complexity and often (as is done subtly here) an prelude to suggesting violence.
    - emodendroket 4y ago
      They seem to be pretty effective at organizing and advocating for themselves.
      - colechristensen 4y ago
taurath 4y ago
We need to stop treating people as disposable and subhuman in this country.

systemvoltage 4y ago

This sounds good. What may be the unintentional side-effects? Downsides? I guess, another way to question this is why is it the way it is?

anonymousab 4y ago
Cops might hesitate to act if their were repercussions, accountability or responsibility for their actions.
- astrange 4y ago
  They already don't act because there's no repercussions for not doing anything; the SF DA is being recalled today because the cops decided they didn't like him and just haven't been doing their job for months as a result.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Chesa Boudin is the opposite problem. The answer to our broke-ass, classist, unjust "justice" system isn't to abandon prosecution almost entirely. If I had a magic wand, the DA's offices across America would review cases promptly, prosecute justifiable cases, and preemptively drop unjustified cases as soon as possible — and report truly questionable policing to a real oversight board, while actually charging and prosecuting police officers for genuinely bad policing. In reality, in most jurisdictions, the DA's office often doesn't even look at most cases until the day of arraignment, months after someone's life has already been run through a ringer and they've spent tens of thousands on retaining a defense attorney (if they're lucky enough to afford one), not to mention therapy (again, if they're lucky enough to afford that). All too often they'll try to coerce a plea deal for a bad case, rather than simply dropping it — and people accept the offered deal, because the alternative is incredibly expensive, and incredibly risky. As for holding police accountable for bad policing? Unless it's a case that garners the political will to prosecute (usually due to massive negative media attention), a ski holiday in hell is more likely. However, Chesa Boudin's office swung way too far in the opposite direction, failing to even prosecute strong cases for real crimes that resulted in real harm. Eventually, the police gave up — why bother going through the effort of policing if the DA is just going to drop the case anyway? It's like writing code only to have `git` erase your entire branch when you `git push`. I'm not a police apologist ("fuck the police" would find a spot on my top-100 playlist!) but Chesa Boudin absolutely deserved to be recalled.
- DuskStar 4y ago
  Like the cops at our most recent school shooting in Texas, you mean? Seems like they already hesitate to act.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    I agree but I also think that lot of cops are good folk and doing dirty work of keeping streets safe. Talk to them sometime outside of the media messaging. Absolute statements painting the entire police force one way or the other is wrong and disingenious.
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  that's sort of the point, but since accountability or responsibility are words generally given positive spin - that is to say these are things we want everyone to have in society - I'm supposing your post is extremely dry sarcasm?
- ikiris 4y ago
  Cops hesitating to break the law is the goal here. They already hesitate to do protecting at their own peril, as evidenced by that recent school shooting.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  Umm...good? In true life-or-death situations, instinct and training still kicks in. But maybe cops should be hesitating before deciding to escalate a situation just because someone challenged them when they overstepped their legal authority.
teakettle42 4y ago
I'm the wrong person to steel-man the argument for qualified immunity, and will have to leave that to someone else. I'd recommend this argument against, which does provide significant context: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/insights-on-law-and-society/volume-21/issue-1/qualified-immunity/ https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...
smolder 4y ago
It's well known how courts/DAs here in the states pressure people to accept lesser charges to avoid the expense of a trial. There's no guarantee an innocent party will win at trial, and that risk of losing coupled with the cost of fighting can and does lead innocent parties to accept a plea bargain. The courts are run like a business, in that efficiency is a concern. Pragmatism outweighs idealism. The downside of taking away qualified immunity for police is the same as the downside of bringing every case to trial. Put simply, it would result in a more costly process, impeding the work of doling out punishment.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > impeding the work of doling out punishment. I'm OK with this; Blackstone's ratio applies here, too ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.")
  - smolder 4y ago
    Yep, the way things operate currently is shameful.

ls15 4y ago

Same for politicians

whatshisface 4y ago

Eliminating qualified immunity won't help when judges are reluctant to award judgments against the whole department or the municipality that is responsible for them, which are not covered under qualified immunity. First you have to get the judges to stop protecting the executive side of the justice system, and then that may be enough already. (How long would a PD let these things go on if appropriate relief was awarded every time it happened?)

ncmncm 4y ago
Lawsuits should be filed both against the department and each responsible officer, including any that refuse to help when they know better. Whenever an officer or public official exceeds his lawful authority, he should have liability same as any random Joe on the street for the same offense. This sort of thing happens to thousands of people in the US every day, routinely.
- elcritch 4y ago
  I mean doctors and engineers can both face jail time for negligence. The US Military has strict rules of engagement and soldiers can face court marshal. There’s no reason the police can’t or shouldn’t be held accountable for negligence or worse behavior.

derefr 4y ago

IMHO you don't even need to remove/alter qualified immunity to make it happen. Instead: 1. make a policeman's professional licensing body and require all police to join it. (Take the police unions and turn them into that.) 2. Have the licensing body introduce the concept of professional malfeasance. 3. Make a simple regulatory statute where professional malfeasance as decided by that licensing body, creates civil/criminal liability. Y'know — just like engineers!

notch656a 4y ago
Honestly the details of licensing, while charitable and productive to mention, are nearly irrelevant. The government has no problem setting up licensing systems. The merits can be debated, but doing what you call for is pretty well oiled machinery at this point. The challenge is you're seeking to overturn the systems of violence with peaceful legislative action. This is a lofty goal with historically rare outcome.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  The police aren’t the arm of a ruling class abusing the less fortunate (much though some want to believe this). They’re just bad at their jobs. There are no incentives really to be good at their jobs, and very few people are motivated to get them to do high quality work. Nobody wants to understand the complexity of a police force, people are either mildly annoyed or can only grasp a message that fits on a protest sign. “Systems” should be a dirty word when it comes to discussing social issues, it’s just a catchall boogeyman for people who don’t want to understand complexity and often (as is done subtly here) an prelude to suggesting violence.
  - emodendroket 4y ago
    They seem to be pretty effective at organizing and advocating for themselves.
    - colechristensen 4y ago

taurath 4y ago

We need to stop treating people as disposable and subhuman in this country.