Ideally, QI would function to protect the officer and the jurisdiction (and taxpayers thereof) while ALSO providing citizens who have been wronged an appropriate legal framework to seek redress. That all means that if the officers is acting outside of established protocols, the OFFICER should be considered negligent or malfeasant and be liable for legal damages - protecting the taxpayer from having to pay the bill for the officer's negligence or malfeasance. When the officer is acting within established protocols, the city (or county/state/federal gov) should be liable for enacting protocols that led to the citizen being wrongfully harmed, protecting the officer from suffering consequences just for doing their job as they are directed. Sadly, most of the time, QI does neither of these. It mainly blocks legal redress, allowing officers to abuse their power essentially at will without fear of consequences.
Small town woes. The police already know your name 🤣
Ideally, QI would function to protect the officer and the jurisdiction (and taxpayers thereof) while ALSO providing citizens who have been wronged an appropriate legal framework to seek redress.
That all means that if the officers is acting outside of established protocols, the OFFICER should be considered negligent or malfeasant and be liable for legal damages - protecting the taxpayer from having to pay the bill for the officer's negligence or malfeasance.
When the officer is acting within established protocols, the city (or county/state/federal gov) should be liable for enacting protocols that led to the citizen being wrongfully harmed, protecting the officer from suffering consequences just for doing their job as they are directed.
Sadly, most of the time, QI does neither of these. It mainly blocks legal redress, allowing officers to abuse their power essentially at will without fear of consequences.
Yes. That is true.
Don't listen, you sue personally.
If parolee is not supposed to be in a bar, he’s not supposed to be in the bar. Please be reasonable.