3 ms·

you are mischaracterizing... again. No one wants to sue a police officer for doing their job. They want to sue them when they commit crimes. No one should be

you are mischaracterizing... again. No one wants to sue a police officer for doing their job. They want to sue them when they commit crimes. No one should be above the law: especially those that enforce it.

s1artibartfast 1y ago
no, I dont think I am. Have you considered where we agree? Im fine with cops being sued for abuse, I dont think they should be personally liable for doing their job as trained. This means a different qualified immunity standard. Most countries have abundant protections for police operating in good faith as they were trained. Further, US Qualified immunity doesnt protect police against tort claims assault, battery, negligence, or wrongful death. Those arent constitutional suits. You can sue cops for that just fine. Im getting the impression that you are using QI as a proxy for a whole host of things you dont like.
- fzeroracer 1y ago
  > Im fine with cops being sued for abuse, I dont think they should be personally liable for doing their job as trained. Doctors have malpractice insurance specifically for cases like this. I see zero reason why police should not be forced to have that as well, which comes out of their retirement funds for when they fuck up. Do you believe doctors should have qualified immunity for just doing their job? > US Qualified immunity doesnt protect police against tort claims assault, battery, negligence, or wrongful death Yes it does. You would have to be utterly willfully ignorant of the history of qualified immunity and how it's been used in the US to say otherwise. Qualified immunity has been used to set the bar incredibly high for being able to sue the police and it's only in extremely exceptional circumstances that you will ever jump over that bar. I fully reject your claim and require you to substantiate it.
  - s1artibartfast 1y ago
    I think that doing their job correctly, as trained, and following best practices, should be a valid defense for doctors. If you are familiar with the history of qualified immunity, you may know that there have been multiple standards over the decades. For example, consider the state of qualified immunity at the time of Pierson v.Ray [1]. Do you think you should be able to sue a cop (as an individual) for enforcing a law that is on the books, acting in good faith, because the law is determined afterwards to be unconstitutional? They arent constitutional scholars, and even if they were, they wouldn't get it right all the time. It is crazy to hold them liable, especially personally, for bad laws. As I said originally, "Qualified immunity needs a new standard, but it is necessary." cchttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray

s1artibartfast 1y ago

no, I dont think I am. Have you considered where we agree? Im fine with cops being sued for abuse, I dont think they should be personally liable for doing their job as trained. This means a different qualified immunity standard. Most countries have abundant protections for police operating in good faith as they were trained. Further, US Qualified immunity doesnt protect police against tort claims assault, battery, negligence, or wrongful death. Those arent constitutional suits. You can sue cops for that just fine. Im getting the impression that you are using QI as a proxy for a whole host of things you dont like.

fzeroracer 1y ago
> Im fine with cops being sued for abuse, I dont think they should be personally liable for doing their job as trained. Doctors have malpractice insurance specifically for cases like this. I see zero reason why police should not be forced to have that as well, which comes out of their retirement funds for when they fuck up. Do you believe doctors should have qualified immunity for just doing their job? > US Qualified immunity doesnt protect police against tort claims assault, battery, negligence, or wrongful death Yes it does. You would have to be utterly willfully ignorant of the history of qualified immunity and how it's been used in the US to say otherwise. Qualified immunity has been used to set the bar incredibly high for being able to sue the police and it's only in extremely exceptional circumstances that you will ever jump over that bar. I fully reject your claim and require you to substantiate it.
- s1artibartfast 1y ago
  I think that doing their job correctly, as trained, and following best practices, should be a valid defense for doctors. If you are familiar with the history of qualified immunity, you may know that there have been multiple standards over the decades. For example, consider the state of qualified immunity at the time of Pierson v.Ray [1]. Do you think you should be able to sue a cop (as an individual) for enforcing a law that is on the books, acting in good faith, because the law is determined afterwards to be unconstitutional? They arent constitutional scholars, and even if they were, they wouldn't get it right all the time. It is crazy to hold them liable, especially personally, for bad laws. As I said originally, "Qualified immunity needs a new standard, but it is necessary." cchttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray