4 ms·

That's a reasonable expectation for what qualified immunity is. But then there's the reality, which is that it's been abused via a "chicken and egg" problem.

That's a reasonable expectation for what qualified immunity is. But then there's the reality, which is that it's been abused via a "chicken and egg" problem. It's called "piercing the veil of qualified immunity" and the standard for doing so is "currently established law". IOW, if it's not been pierced in the past for exactly (and I mean exactly) the same thing, then the default is that qualified immunity applies. What ends up happening is that even if the broad strokes are exactly the same, they'll claim there is no currently established law if some of the minutia of the details is different. The police officer kicked the pregnant woman in the face instead of the stomach. The effect is that qualified immunity stopped being reasonable. --- If I may, I suspect most reasonable people understand that qualified immunity is there because police officers are human and mistakes happen. But it's been abused, and as such it needs to be reformed. --- editing this in as a perfect example of what I mean about courts using specificity to effectively make it impossible to pierce the veil of qualified immunity. Many thanks to btown for the link, I went looking for something similar and was unable to find it. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure#stringency-clearly-established-law https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-lega... > In other words, prior case law holding it unlawful to deploy police dogs against nonthreatening suspects who surrendered by laying on the ground did not make it clear that it was unlawful to deploy police dogs against nonthreatening suspects who surrendered by sitting on the ground with their hands up.

karmelapple 4y ago
I hope Congress could pass a law ending qualified immunity. If you do, too, contact your US House legislators about HR 1470 and your desire to end qualified immunity: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470
- ufmace 4y ago
  It seems pretty obvious to me that it ought to be reformed to be basically what /u/SamBam thought it was instead of being eliminated entirely.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    It was that originally, and then it was subverted. An attempt to reestablish the original intent will most likely be subverted again. Good intentions are irrelevant.
  - tremon 4y ago
    If a child can't use a dangerous toy responsibly, you take away the toy first. Maybe, when the child is more mature, it can have its toy back. You don't let the child keep the toy and wait for it to mature on its own, all the while allowing it to keep harming others and itself.
Phrodo_00 4y ago
> if it's not been pierced in the past for exactly (and I mean exactly) the same thing, then the default is that qualified immunity applies I've heard this before, but I don't completely get it. Can someone explain it in more detail? Does this mean the only thing that can pierce the veil are rulings from before qualified immunity was put in place? What about new laws or constitutional amendments?
- nzealand 4y ago
  Qualified Immunity is US case law precedent, which means the courts basically are applying existing laws to novel situations to make new laws (Harlow v. Fitzgerald.) Initially, courts ruled that the police lost qualified immunity if they performed an action that they knew violated peoples rights (Malley v. Briggs) Lately, courts have basically said "how could the government know it was a violation of this guys rights? Sure, there is a very similar case which said you can't violate this right, but the details are slightly different, so how could they know the persons rights were protected in this specific case? Case dismissed." (Zadeh v. Robinson) It's absurd, not just because the details are always different, but because the initial case law was set without any similar precedent. It basically takes a particularly egregious violation of your rights to overcome the qualified part of qualified immunity and sue the government (Taylor v. Riojas) (Not a lawyer, but married to one.)
logifail 4y ago
> qualified immunity is there because police officers are human and mistakes happen Last time I checked, all humans are human ... and mistakes happen. Try using that line the next time you're explaining yourself to the police. I'm not sure I understand why police officers should get any kind of extra leniency? I'd probably want to hold police officers to higher standards than the public, not lower.

karmelapple 4y ago

I hope Congress could pass a law ending qualified immunity. If you do, too, contact your US House legislators about HR 1470 and your desire to end qualified immunity: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470 https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1470

ufmace 4y ago
It seems pretty obvious to me that it ought to be reformed to be basically what /u/SamBam thought it was instead of being eliminated entirely.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  It was that originally, and then it was subverted. An attempt to reestablish the original intent will most likely be subverted again. Good intentions are irrelevant.
- tremon 4y ago
  If a child can't use a dangerous toy responsibly, you take away the toy first. Maybe, when the child is more mature, it can have its toy back. You don't let the child keep the toy and wait for it to mature on its own, all the while allowing it to keep harming others and itself.

Phrodo_00 4y ago

> if it's not been pierced in the past for exactly (and I mean exactly) the same thing, then the default is that qualified immunity applies I've heard this before, but I don't completely get it. Can someone explain it in more detail? Does this mean the only thing that can pierce the veil are rulings from before qualified immunity was put in place? What about new laws or constitutional amendments?

nzealand 4y ago
Qualified Immunity is US case law precedent, which means the courts basically are applying existing laws to novel situations to make new laws (Harlow v. Fitzgerald.) Initially, courts ruled that the police lost qualified immunity if they performed an action that they knew violated peoples rights (Malley v. Briggs) Lately, courts have basically said "how could the government know it was a violation of this guys rights? Sure, there is a very similar case which said you can't violate this right, but the details are slightly different, so how could they know the persons rights were protected in this specific case? Case dismissed." (Zadeh v. Robinson) It's absurd, not just because the details are always different, but because the initial case law was set without any similar precedent. It basically takes a particularly egregious violation of your rights to overcome the qualified part of qualified immunity and sue the government (Taylor v. Riojas) (Not a lawyer, but married to one.)

logifail 4y ago

> qualified immunity is there because police officers are human and mistakes happen Last time I checked, all humans are human ... and mistakes happen. Try using that line the next time you're explaining yourself to the police. I'm not sure I understand why police officers should get any kind of extra leniency? I'd probably want to hold police officers to higher standards than the public, not lower.