4 ms·

In fact, I think "not often enough" is most likely the case. It may seem pedantic to others, but I think there's a huge difference between this claim and that m

In fact, I think "not often enough" is most likely the case. It may seem pedantic to others, but I think there's a huge difference between this claim and that made by OP. One suggests a problem of deficient enforcement, the other asserts that something is fundamentally wrong with our society and its legal system. The first can be addressed through improvement to law, the second suggest much more radical change is necessary. Saying it's the problem is the second when it's actually the first actually hinders effective change.

tsimionescu 4y ago
Changing the law can't change the principle of qualified immunity, unless you ammend the constitution. And, as others have pointed out, qualified immunity has been used to save a police office that loosed violent dogs on a suspect sitting on the ground with their hands up, because while there was established precedent that loosing violent dogs on suspects laying on the ground is illegal, this had not yet been tested in court for suspects sitting on the ground with their hands up, so how could the officer had known that the court would look down on such a thing? If this decision doesn't show there is something deeply, fundamentally, disgustingly wrong with your legal system, I don't think anything else can show that.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  I hadn't heard that claim before. It doesn't seem to be correct: https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-immunity.aspx#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20qualified%20immunity,when%20Congress%20adopted%2042%20U.S.C https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/qua.... It seems to me like in fact governments are working to improve the law in that area.
xapata 4y ago
An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force by Roland G. Fryer might support that. He concludes that oversight of gun use (by police officers) effectively removes the statistically significant racial bias that non-gun use of force has.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Changing the law can't change the principle of qualified immunity, unless you ammend the constitution. And, as others have pointed out, qualified immunity has been used to save a police office that loosed violent dogs on a suspect sitting on the ground with their hands up, because while there was established precedent that loosing violent dogs on suspects laying on the ground is illegal, this had not yet been tested in court for suspects sitting on the ground with their hands up, so how could the officer had known that the court would look down on such a thing? If this decision doesn't show there is something deeply, fundamentally, disgustingly wrong with your legal system, I don't think anything else can show that.

seti0Cha 4y ago
I hadn't heard that claim before. It doesn't seem to be correct: https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/qualified-immunity.aspx#:~:text=The%20doctrine%20of%20qualified%20immunity,when%20Congress%20adopted%2042%20U.S.C https://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/qua.... It seems to me like in fact governments are working to improve the law in that area.

xapata 4y ago

An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force by Roland G. Fryer might support that. He concludes that oversight of gun use (by police officers) effectively removes the statistically significant racial bias that non-gun use of force has.