7 ms·

Police in the US are becoming lawless gangs. Abolish qualified immunity. Stop having taxpayers' foot the bill, start using their pension fund and watch police m

Police in the US are becoming lawless gangs. Abolish qualified immunity. Stop having taxpayers' foot the bill, start using their pension fund and watch police make a 180 degree turn in terms of behavior and professionalism.

mikem170 3y ago
That's a neat idea. Too often miscreants face no consequences worse than being suspended for a while, with pay. Something needs to change with Internal Affairs, also. Local police departments are often investigating themselves, with predictable results.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  But none of this would stick without judge, jury and lawyers colluding, surely? Seems to me the problem isn't the police but is systemic.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
shrubble 3y ago
There is a 'Bivens claim' but I have no idea how easy it is to use, and whether its scope extends beyond federal police officers... https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bivens_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bivens_action
ghastmaster 3y ago
Qualified immunity does not protect government employees who break the law. There are laws/rulings that specifically disqualify them from using qualified immunity as a defense. The problem is prosecutors, judges, and juries who allow government employees to commit illegal actions with no consequences. This is furthered by citizens who pay no attention and let these people stay in power.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- squeaky-clean 3y ago
  It does protect them from civil suits, which have a lower bar for the burden of proof. When a citizen does manage to win damages in a civil case, it is paid by the city (aka the taxpayers). It should be paid from the police pension or an individual insurance similar to malpractice insurance.
- sobkas 3y ago
  Of course it does, especially when they don't know that they are breaking it. So much for "ignorance of the law excuses not", it does if you are a cop. And for someone who invented “clearly established right"... And if prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute cops, judge, jury, etc. isn't even involved. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity--both-sides-of-debate.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-c...
- opo 3y ago
  >Qualified immunity does not protect government employees who break the law. Well qualified immunity doesn't apply to criminal cases, but civil suits are generally the only way survivors and their families can get compensation for violations of their rights. Reading about egregious conduct where the government was somehow able to be granted qualified immunity will make anyone wonder how we could allow this to happen.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- qingcharles 3y ago
  It's near impossible to even charge a cop or a prosecutor with a crime. I had cops and prosecutors commit crimes against me, but I ran into dead ends every which way I tried to even file police reports etc. Not a single police agency will take a report against an officer or a prosecutor. And in theory you can report crimes directly to a prosecutor's office, but again, they won't take reports against police officers (who are the ones that keep them in business) nor other prosecutors. I don't know what the solution is. Chicago has an agency specifically to report police misconduct, but it seems to get shut down every couple of years due to rampant misconduct inside the agency.
jimbob45 3y ago
Abolishing qualified immunity leads to situations like Uvalde where police don’t want to intervene for fear of reprisal. Also, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree. Instead of pissing off the police unions and dealing with the eternal backlash from that, you could instead push for something like Florida’s Sunshine Laws which would provide needed transparency into universities, the police, and the government.
- delecti 3y ago
  What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change.
  - vGPU 3y ago
    Indeed. Hence, we get the latest FBI public execution of a “right wing terrorist”: a 75 year old obese mobility-scooter-bound vet.
    - ozaark 3y ago
      Idk much about the situation but in a few of that guys posts he made prior to being raided he talked about sniping potusa from afar with time, place in mind, pictures of him with rifles, and threats to answer FBI with guns. Afaik obese scooter bound people can still aim a rifle from afar. He basically provoked a situation and was treated as credible threat based on his own actions.
      - vGPU 3y ago
        In the video it appears to be an obvious execution. The classic fbi “shoot him through the window” maneuver.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change. This is a confusing statement. Isn't it good if police aren't used to confronting armed criminals?
raincom 3y ago
Prosecutors, judges, law enforcement agents all belong to the same group: so, they collude in the name of co-operation; they are paid by the government. They are the enforcers of "state monopoly on violence". Usually, these folks (prosecutors, judges, LE agents) don't want to step on the powerful elite, as the latter can take these cases all the way to SCOTUS to clamp down on abuses. That's why prosecutors use "prosecutorial discretion" to NOT prosecute so that these cases won't get appealed further. When elites splinter into two groups, that's when you see some progress. Otherwise, two-tier justice is a common, hidden, feature of any system out there (be it Western democracy, communist, dictatorship, etc).
hammock 3y ago
Surprised that these stories get 200+ votes but stories on the weaponized federal police (DOJ) get flagged to death
- predictabl3 3y ago
  Yeah because people can use their brains? Just because Trump was in bed with his Justice Dept doesn't mean Biden is. I haven't seen a SINGLE shred of evidence that Biden has even so much as thought about Merrick during the last 3 years. It's almost like a police force trampling on first amendment rights is appalling like a candidate trying to subvert the results of an election, incite a riot, pressure election officials, put up a knowingly fraudulent, illegal fake voter scheme, or pay off a porn star. Whatever, you know this, you don't care.
  - hammock 3y ago
    I was talking about Trump’s DOJ.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
crazygringo 3y ago
"Becoming"? I'm pretty sure the evidence points to the contrary -- police are less corrupt than ever before. That doesn't mean there isn't still corruption (such as is claimed in this case), but you're claiming this is something getting worse. I really don't think you want to go back to policing in the 1960's and 70's.
- itronitron 3y ago
  https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens
- sobkas 3y ago
  Well maybe because stealing, getting bribed by rich(individuals or corps) and doing nothing to serve and protect became legal. They no longer need to break law, when they can make same things within the law.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    My point remains that this has always been the case and if anything is getting better, not worse. You can always cherry-pick examples of individual things getting worse, but I ask again: do you really want to go back to the 60's and 70's? Because yikes.

mikem170 3y ago

That's a neat idea. Too often miscreants face no consequences worse than being suspended for a while, with pay. Something needs to change with Internal Affairs, also. Local police departments are often investigating themselves, with predictable results.

Dah00n 3y ago
But none of this would stick without judge, jury and lawyers colluding, surely? Seems to me the problem isn't the police but is systemic.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

shrubble 3y ago

There is a 'Bivens claim' but I have no idea how easy it is to use, and whether its scope extends beyond federal police officers... https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bivens_action https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bivens_action

ghastmaster 3y ago

Qualified immunity does not protect government employees who break the law. There are laws/rulings that specifically disqualify them from using qualified immunity as a defense. The problem is prosecutors, judges, and juries who allow government employees to commit illegal actions with no consequences. This is furthered by citizens who pay no attention and let these people stay in power.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
squeaky-clean 3y ago
It does protect them from civil suits, which have a lower bar for the burden of proof. When a citizen does manage to win damages in a civil case, it is paid by the city (aka the taxpayers). It should be paid from the police pension or an individual insurance similar to malpractice insurance.
sobkas 3y ago
Of course it does, especially when they don't know that they are breaking it. So much for "ignorance of the law excuses not", it does if you are a cop. And for someone who invented “clearly established right"... And if prosecutor doesn't want to prosecute cops, judge, jury, etc. isn't even involved. https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity--both-sides-of-debate.html https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-c...
opo 3y ago
>Qualified immunity does not protect government employees who break the law. Well qualified immunity doesn't apply to criminal cases, but civil suits are generally the only way survivors and their families can get compensation for violations of their rights. Reading about egregious conduct where the government was somehow able to be granted qualified immunity will make anyone wonder how we could allow this to happen.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
qingcharles 3y ago
It's near impossible to even charge a cop or a prosecutor with a crime. I had cops and prosecutors commit crimes against me, but I ran into dead ends every which way I tried to even file police reports etc. Not a single police agency will take a report against an officer or a prosecutor. And in theory you can report crimes directly to a prosecutor's office, but again, they won't take reports against police officers (who are the ones that keep them in business) nor other prosecutors. I don't know what the solution is. Chicago has an agency specifically to report police misconduct, but it seems to get shut down every couple of years due to rampant misconduct inside the agency.

jimbob45 3y ago

Abolishing qualified immunity leads to situations like Uvalde where police don’t want to intervene for fear of reprisal. Also, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree. Instead of pissing off the police unions and dealing with the eternal backlash from that, you could instead push for something like Florida’s Sunshine Laws which would provide needed transparency into universities, the police, and the government.

delecti 3y ago
What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change.
- vGPU 3y ago
  Indeed. Hence, we get the latest FBI public execution of a “right wing terrorist”: a 75 year old obese mobility-scooter-bound vet.
  - ozaark 3y ago
    Idk much about the situation but in a few of that guys posts he made prior to being raided he talked about sniping potusa from afar with time, place in mind, pictures of him with rifles, and threats to answer FBI with guns. Afaik obese scooter bound people can still aim a rifle from afar. He basically provoked a situation and was treated as credible threat based on his own actions.
    - vGPU 3y ago
      In the video it appears to be an obvious execution. The classic fbi “shoot him through the window” maneuver.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change. This is a confusing statement. Isn't it good if police aren't used to confronting armed criminals?

raincom 3y ago

Prosecutors, judges, law enforcement agents all belong to the same group: so, they collude in the name of co-operation; they are paid by the government. They are the enforcers of "state monopoly on violence". Usually, these folks (prosecutors, judges, LE agents) don't want to step on the powerful elite, as the latter can take these cases all the way to SCOTUS to clamp down on abuses. That's why prosecutors use "prosecutorial discretion" to NOT prosecute so that these cases won't get appealed further. When elites splinter into two groups, that's when you see some progress. Otherwise, two-tier justice is a common, hidden, feature of any system out there (be it Western democracy, communist, dictatorship, etc).

hammock 3y ago

Surprised that these stories get 200+ votes but stories on the weaponized federal police (DOJ) get flagged to death

predictabl3 3y ago
Yeah because people can use their brains? Just because Trump was in bed with his Justice Dept doesn't mean Biden is. I haven't seen a SINGLE shred of evidence that Biden has even so much as thought about Merrick during the last 3 years. It's almost like a police force trampling on first amendment rights is appalling like a candidate trying to subvert the results of an election, incite a riot, pressure election officials, put up a knowingly fraudulent, illegal fake voter scheme, or pay off a porn star. Whatever, you know this, you don't care.
- hammock 3y ago
  I was talking about Trump’s DOJ.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

crazygringo 3y ago

"Becoming"? I'm pretty sure the evidence points to the contrary -- police are less corrupt than ever before. That doesn't mean there isn't still corruption (such as is claimed in this case), but you're claiming this is something getting worse. I really don't think you want to go back to policing in the 1960's and 70's.

itronitron 3y ago
https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens https://www.americanheritage.com/battle-athens
sobkas 3y ago
Well maybe because stealing, getting bribed by rich(individuals or corps) and doing nothing to serve and protect became legal. They no longer need to break law, when they can make same things within the law.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  My point remains that this has always been the case and if anything is getting better, not worse. You can always cherry-pick examples of individual things getting worse, but I ask again: do you really want to go back to the 60's and 70's? Because yikes.