3 ms·
Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.
by ch4s3 4y ago
Sure I'm glossing over that, but for practical purposes you have no redress because the officers were acting in their official capacity.
- bradleyjg 4y agoThey key difference here is whether you care more about bad officers facing consequences or the victims getting compensation. Eliminating qualified immunity only helps with the second part and does zero with respect to the first, but advocates of reform never make that clear. Even with qualified immunity sometimes victims win judgments. On the other hand indemnification is 100% universal and effective at protecting cops. No cop ever pays anything out of his own pocket, period.
- landemva 4y agoSame with judges and court clerks. 'Because government'.
- bradleyjg 4y agoThey have absolute immunity. That’s a separate issue.
- ch4s3 4y agoI have a feeling that if municipalities start having to pay out lots of settlements for civil rights abuses by police, they'll start reconsidering the limits of indemnification.
- bradleyjg 4y agoIt hasn’t happened in practice. NYC’s is way up this year, Adams is doubling down on supporting the police. Instead of hoping for trickle down to work why not attack the problem directly?
- landemva 4y agoPractically speaking there is no effective recourse. For things to change, need USSC to remove the qualified immunity doctrine which USSC basically created on their own in 1970s. State law could put in a few fixes, but generally few people are really interested. A couple years ago BLM had energy yet was distracted and diverted from the enabling problem - USSC qualified immunity.