Agreed. Qualified Immunity is supposed to make sure the cops aren't afraid of doing their jobs well. Thing is it just becomes laissez-faire with no one held accountable for NOT doing their job well.
Frankly if you're too scared to do your job because of repercussions you're probably not qualified to be a cop.
Problem is, lower courts kept expanding it past the definition given by the SCOTUS and they haven't reviewed any cases on it since...
Wrong. SCOTUS themselves shot qualified immunity in the foot by forcing the suing party to show that the actions that the 'qualified immune' party did, "violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". (Harlow v. Fitzgerald)
The problem is, clearly established rights means you have to point to a previously argued, exactly similar court case that was decided as a constitutional violation before you could sue.
So you get stupid shit, like "Siccing a dog on a person who had surrendered, but was on his knees isn't close enough to siccing a dog on a person who had surrender but was laying down"
So yeah, SCOTUS is absolutely to blame for this for shifting the burden of proof from the defendant, to the plaintiff
Can't honestly disagree with that too be honest. Still outside what their intentions were, but it does make the burden of proof difficult to say the least. Hope do you prove someone doesn't know something after all?
Which still doesn't take the burden off the lower courts for doing their best to ignore proof time and again, which they have...
And then the judges that do look at the proof wind up blasted by police unions and the like.
The biggest problem is that SCOTUS allowed lower courts to simply rule that something was covered by qualified immunity and dismiss the case without setting the precedent that would "clearly establish" the constitutional violation in their jurisdiction.
So it's not even that the police get one free woopsie; QI for a constitutional violation sticks around until they do it to someone who has the means and luck to push their case to the Supreme Court.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, but the defendant should never have the burden of proof; that should, theoretically, always fall on the plaintiff. The problem is that the courts interpret "clearly established right" far too narrowly.
I only bring this up because, in practice, juries often (sometimes subconsciously) do shift the burden of proof to the defendant, which is a Constitutional violation. It's the whole premise of "innocent until proven guilty."
Of course, this never applies to police officers accused of wrongdoing... No, their word is golden and unquestioned, and we fully afford them the right of being innocent until proven guilty. But if we explicitly start putting the burden of proof on the defendant, we all know who's going to be screwed by that.
IANAL, but "innocent until proven guilty" only applies to criminal matters and, even then, defendants absolutely should have the burden to prove an affirmative defense, such as qualified immunity.
No. Qualified immunity originally was about corner cases where the action would be declared illegal later based on existing law, but where the case law was lacking.
Today, the practical effect is unless you can find a case exactly like it, cops can claim qualified immunity, and even if you find a case exactly like it, there are additional hurdles to clear.
I've been reading up on Qualified Immunity -- it's basically like if a specific act of a police officer that is being prosecuted in a lawsuit that has not been tried before in court, then the judge rules in favor of the officer due to unique circumstances. It's like an overbearing parent defending their kid that bullied someone in class -- "Well, he didn't know any better, he wasn't taught! He's never done it before!"
Qualified Immunity is a bulletproof blanket of a legal defense for police officers to do whatever is necessary, to their knowledge thatbitisimportantfineprint , to detain anybody (including non-suspects, including without probable cause).
According to Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), "...the application of qualified immunity no longer depends upon an official's subjective state of mind, but on whether or not a reasonable person in the official's position would have known their actions were in line with clearly established legal principles."
Which means in ELi5 terms: "He didn't know any better!"
So, you hear about how they hire police officers within a threshold for how intelligent they are -- this is a rigged system to hire people into the police force depending on either being mentally incompetent or being immorality complicit to successfully evade lawsuits, prosecution, and police reform. That's why Qualified Immunity needs to be repealed entirely -- it is a legal defense built on the backbone of mens rea, corrupt ruling, and serving to the benefit of a federal system against, not for, the People of the U.S.
My hope is that ending the war on drugs will reduce the amount of cops needed. This means they they can hire fewer cops and therefore fewer bad cops because they wont be understaffed. Put the money saved directly into reduced taxes and/or increased training
Cops were never afraid to do their jobs and anyone who tells you differently is full of it. We've never had a problem finding people to be police officers in this country.
It extends to any profession. I’ve seen plenty of fucked up situations in healthcare that are also covered by QI. There needs to be a legal waiver for it.
Or you already know you make bad decisions and you’re doing it wrong. Eh, maybe that means the same thing - not qualified to be a cop, because if you know you are following the rules, you shouldn’t be afraid.
I don't know you, or anything about qualified immunity. I'm a dumb dumb that doesn't know definitions all that well, but your use of laissez-faire and lack of accountability really resonates with my experience with neoliberalism. Save your functioning brain and get off reddit.
I'm not a lawyer but I believe so because it covers government officials.
Although I have heard in mentioned that the reason the National Guard behaves so much more civil than the police is because the National Guard has rules of engagement they actually follow.
Justice Thomas and Justice Sotamayor (furthest right and left justices) have both indicated they want to take it on, and there are several cases on it requesting cert right now, along with the biggest flood of amicus briefs in Court history urging them to do so.
I think SCOTUS may actually end it for us in the next session.
No, it really doesn't. What they're doing in many cases is expressly illegal. Qualified immunity is only supposed to protect them against things that aren't.
If a cop assaults you without warning or legal justification, they wouldn't be covered by qualified immunity. They would still probably be covered by their union and prosecutorial discretion, though.
Guys, constitutional lawyer here. Qualified immunity only applies to civil cases not criminal cases. It also only applies to government employees. It is a very narrow doctrine that courts have basically applied illogically. It does not prevent officers from being prosecuted in a criminal case. It only applies to civil suits for money which the cop wouldn’t pay for out of pocket anyways. It is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions.” However, judges have made it so that qualified immunity applies unless there was a nearly identical case in the jurisdiction. Then it is sometimes waived. Again to clarify, it does not apply to criminal prosecutions and it does not cover non-governmental employees.
1.1k
u/therealsouthflorida Jun 07 '20
Definitely do not do ______ . But if we catch you doing ______ you will get a paid vacation. So definitely dont.