Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Following this thread.
Protecting And Serving: Cop (mis)behavior and consequences general discussion
- Thread starter Abhorsen
- Start date
Car thieves fired on a Tennessee homeowner. He fired back. Guess who the police arrested?
Someone explain to me why these cops would want to alienate law-abiding, crime-fighting homeowners, one of the most police-friendly constituencies on the planet?notthebee.com
He admitted to shooting at fleeing suspects with his eyes closed.
More bluntly, he talked to the police and undermined his argument.
"I saw people messing with my van on my security camera and went outside to ask them what they were doing. They shot at me, fearing for my life, I shot back." should have been the absolute maximum that he said to the police.
More properly, he should have said "Look Officer, I would love to walk you through the incident but my gun safety classes were VERY clear that in the event I am ever involved in a use of force incident then I am not to say anything to the police without my lawyer present."
But once you straight up confess to shooting at people who are running away from you, in the dark, with your eyes closed, you are very likely to get charged.
Terthna
Professional Lurker
Learn from this man's mistake; do not talk to the police under any circumstances without a lawyer present. Even then, don't say anything you haven't already run by said lawyer first.
Doomsought
Well-known member
What we need is a criminal charge, probably constructed as a constitutional amendment:
Obstruction of Constitutionality: Criminal charges and Torts based on violations of constitutional law may only be defeated under factual grounds. Any person, whether part of the Judicial, Executive, or legislative, whom grants immunity to a charge or tort based on a violation of the constitution shall be put to death.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
No, we just need "qualified immunity" actually codified in legislation with clear language explaining the limits of it. Because the utter bullshit that crops up with it revolves around its nature as a construct wholly of the judiciary, thus allowing it to be re-defined by judges at will to excuse law enforcement of absolutely anything.
It's rather necessary to keep police offices from being crippled by civil suits. That's exactly why it was invented to begin with. But it needs clearly defined restrictions on when it can apply to keep corrupt judges from bouncing all imaginable abuses of power.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
I think Doom and Morphic Tide are both right.
Qualified Immunity is essential to having a functional police force in the modern litigious society. If a cop is going to have his life ruined for daring to stop someone for speeding, he's not going to risk being a cop for long.
At the same time, those who do cross the line and violate constitutional rights should absolutely be prosecuted for such. Politicians even more so.
Qualified Immunity is essential to having a functional police force in the modern litigious society. If a cop is going to have his life ruined for daring to stop someone for speeding, he's not going to risk being a cop for long.
At the same time, those who do cross the line and violate constitutional rights should absolutely be prosecuted for such. Politicians even more so.
Nah, Qualified Immunity needs to be tossed wholesale; it has been abused far, far to often.
If cops do not want to get sued for frivolous, abusive, or unConstitutional actions, then don't violate them to begin with, and stop treating the 'Thin Blue Line' as 'above' the common person.
That's how we get abuses like what The FBI has done to protect Biden and Hillary from open and obvious corruption charges, while harassing Trump for bullshit that is usually beyond petty and often is fabricated entirely (Russian Collusion hoax).
And after the Wu Flu lockdowns/vax mandates/George Floyd riots, and how cops embraced them/openly operated a two-tier justice system, the LEO community and DoJ as whole has lost the benefit of the doubt about being non-partisan and 'equal'.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
The problem is that the civil suits get absurdly petty, rapidly adding up to a ludicrous amount of money and time because you still have to fight them off one by one unless they are so absurd that they reach the rare bar of being dismissed with prejudice. It would likely be less hazardous to one's livelyhood to clear a minefield by hand than try to head anti-gang operations for a year.
See, that supposes that they need QI to do any of that.
If the cop is not violating the dept guidelines or US Constitution in their actions, and still gets sued, then dismissing the suites and sticking the complainant with the legal fees is straight-forward enough and should discourage frivolous lawsuit's while not allowing QI to continued to be abused.
Though with a two-tier justice system already in play, getting rid of QI is like a band-aid on an arterial wound at this point.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
That is literally what Qualified Immunity started as. "Officer was doing job in accordance with all guidance from the office on what the job entailed, he's not personally at fault for any issues in the process of upholding the law". Going through those motions still costs time and money, and not a small amount when you add up the sheer volume of litigious bullshit this country has.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
As Morphic Tide said, you're just going to end right back at the start of Qualified Immunity.
It needs to be clearly delineated with what it does and does not cover laid out, but getting rid of it basically makes any cop that doesn't have the protection of the ruling class subject to having their life destroyed at whim.
Yeah, but you two forget that QI is often paired with Civil Asset Forfeiture in terms of being abused, and CAF wasn't really a thing when QI was thought up.
And as I said, if the law is made so those bringing the frivolous lawsuit's end up bearing the cost when they lose, it will discourage such actions, while helping ensure that righteous lawsuits against abusive cops cannot just be waived away under QI's very vague guidelines/definitions.
I cannot in good faith say I think QI's reduction of litigation for LEO's is worth the abuses it has enabled, and the whole LEO system in the US is becoming more and more openly partisan and two-tier, all the way up to all the abuses carried out against Trump and all the Right Wing folks who were unjustly treated during the Wu Flu by LEO's and DA's who let Antifa and BLM run riot.
I know QI isn't going anywhere, just like I know the abuses towards Trump will probably never be rectified, and that most of the purely partisan hackery in LEO/intel agencies since 2016 will never truly be punished. Doesn't mean I don't still wish it was gone.
There is a bar for some type of cop immunity, probably based on objective reasonableness (would other cops in a similar situation act similarly?). But qualified immunity, which applies to all governmental agents, and is based on whether a court case has established whether an action is constitutional or not, clearly isn't the bar.
First, it's a judicial invention in direct contradiction of the written law, which do establish that one can sue government agents for violations of the constitution and make no immunity carve out. So it's just bad law to start with.
Second, the cop getting qualified immunity or not isn't solely dependent on the cops actions, but also on court precedent. This means we aren't judging people on what they have done, but instead encouraging inventive violations and testing of the constitution because if it's new they know they are in the clear. This not only means "it's not a crime the first time", but allows for cops to safely expand their connotational authority without fear of lawsuits.
The third problem with immunity, and here I mean any immunity, is that it stops one of the key parts of justice, which is restitution. Even if a cop acts in good faith but injures someone, that man was still injured by the cops. If it had been a private citizen who had done the injury, the person could get compensation, but not for a cop.
So I think the best method is a law enforcement insurance, similar to doctor insurance, taken out by the city (or state or whatever jurisdiction) for each cop. The controlling city/state would always be directly responsible for some % to ensure skin in the game (this keeps bad cops getting fired, along with insurance premiums), while still dealing with nuisance payments. The cop themself would only become personally responsible for paying if some higher bar was cleared (maliciousness or some such).
First, it's a judicial invention in direct contradiction of the written law, which do establish that one can sue government agents for violations of the constitution and make no immunity carve out. So it's just bad law to start with.
Second, the cop getting qualified immunity or not isn't solely dependent on the cops actions, but also on court precedent. This means we aren't judging people on what they have done, but instead encouraging inventive violations and testing of the constitution because if it's new they know they are in the clear. This not only means "it's not a crime the first time", but allows for cops to safely expand their connotational authority without fear of lawsuits.
The third problem with immunity, and here I mean any immunity, is that it stops one of the key parts of justice, which is restitution. Even if a cop acts in good faith but injures someone, that man was still injured by the cops. If it had been a private citizen who had done the injury, the person could get compensation, but not for a cop.
So I think the best method is a law enforcement insurance, similar to doctor insurance, taken out by the city (or state or whatever jurisdiction) for each cop. The controlling city/state would always be directly responsible for some % to ensure skin in the game (this keeps bad cops getting fired, along with insurance premiums), while still dealing with nuisance payments. The cop themself would only become personally responsible for paying if some higher bar was cleared (maliciousness or some such).
I don't have a problem with it following a conviction, though. For example, if someone got paid $5M for murder, then got convicted for the murder, they should end up forfeiting that money.
Last edited:
Wargamer08
Well-known member
Making the people suing the State pay legal fees sounds like a good way to suppress people disliked by the State. The State already has a bunch of other intrinsic advantages, this would just add to it.
The legal fees for what I was talking about were if someone filed a frivolous lawsuit against a cop, and lost; if they bring such a suit, the person who filed the frivolous suit pays the legal fees.
It's not that odd for the person who losses a suit to have the burden of the legal fees, and the idea would allow the removal of QI while not allowing/encouraging frivolous lawsuits against police who didn't violate dept policies or the Constitution.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
In practice that would just let the State double dip on fucking people it doesn't like. Judges already defacto side with police, letting them then dismiss cases they don't like and stick them with the bill?
You keep thinking that the courts in general and judges in particular are neutral. This is not the case, they side with the police in almost all circumstances. QI is asmuch an acknowledgement of expected outcome as it is a law.
Thus letting the courts punish claimants as a way of deterring claims is likely just going lead to QI with extra teeth.
I think the insurance idea is more workable. Allows for restitution without admitting fault or culpability. Your house get burnt down because of flashbacks in a noknock raid with the wrong number? Insurance pays out and the PD handle the clown internally for making their premiums go up.
Insurance payouts from city's/dept's instead of QI removal would be acceptable, if not ideal.
Wargamer08
Well-known member
While holding dumbasses responsible would be great, I'd settle for people not being rendered homeless and end with nothing.
Crime is going out of control in certain cities, run by morons. For the next while anti-police policies are not going to be popular. Methods of making whole people who get caught in the crossfire is in my mind the priority.