4 ms·
That's fundamentally impossible. It's nonsensical to suggest that the government punish a private citizen for doing what the government forced that private citi
by torstenvl 3y ago
That's fundamentally impossible. It's nonsensical to suggest that the government punish a private citizen for doing what the government forced that private citizen to do.
Any attempts to implement your proposal will lead to exactly one inevitable outcome: lawlessness. This is because, if the government does start punishing a certain class of private citizens for doing what the government forces them to do, private citizens will no longer voluntarily join that class.
- LgWoodenBadger 3y agoIt’s not fundamentally impossible. The US armed forces and the UCMJ is centuries-old evidence of that.
- torstenvl 3y agoWhat argument are you trying to make here? I have over a decade of experience in prosecuting and defending cases under the UCMJ, I have an LL.M. in military criminal justice, I am qualified as a Special Trial Counsel, and I recently served as the Marine Corps Senior Defense Counsel for the National Capital Region. Let me assure you that military law enforcement has qualified immunity.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago> if the government does start punishing a certain class of private citizens for doing what the government forces them to do, private citizens will no longer voluntarily join that class. The government "forces" the police officers to engage in this malfeasance?
- stonogo 3y agoThat's a bad-faith interpretation of removing qualified immunity. If a police officer's actions can be found to have been necessary to their duty, the laws already protect them. Nobody proposes to "punish a private citizen for doing what the government forced that private citizen to do." The proposal is to hold them accountable when they exceed their remit.
- torstenvl 3y ago> That's a bad-faith interpretation of removing qualified immunity. No. On the contrary, it is the only good faith engagement with the issue. Bad faith arguments are in the majority on this thread. > If a police officer's actions can be found to have been necessary to their duty, the laws already protect them. Yes. By qualified immunity. > Nobody proposes to "punish a private citizen for doing what the government forced that private citizen to do." Yes. Removing immunity would do exactly that. > The proposal is to hold them accountable when they exceed their remit. That is already the substantive law. That's why the immunity is "qualified." * (* EDIT: I should note that we're conflating a couple concepts here for the sake of general discussion, because the precise applicable doctrine depends on the method of holding them accountable. Qualified immunity is specifically a doctrine invoked in civil suits, typically in § 1983 suits.)
- specialist 3y agoWhat should happen when police officers commit perjury?
- torstenvl 3y agoIf it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, they should be prosecuted. If it can be proven by a preponderance standard, the prosecutor should issue a Brady notice to the defense bar, which will in most cases naturally result in the police officer being fired or assigned to administrative duties.
- patrickmay 3y agoWhich is why QI needs to be eliminated. As it stands now, even getting the case heard is nearly impossible.
- torstenvl 3y agoNo. That is a fundamentally dishonest and incoherent position.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- tehwebguy 3y agoSorry but there’s not an option out there that’s worse than the police being virtually immune to prosecution.