Qualified Immunity: A Debate
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 авг 2024
- Created by the Supreme Court in 1967, the legal doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials from being sued even if they violate someone’s constitutional rights, as long as they are not violating what the Court calls "clearly established law."
Proponents of qualified immunity argue that it is necessary for police officers to perform their job without the fear of being sued. Critics say that qualified immunity offers too much protection for the police and lessens their accountability.
The Federalist Society's Nebraska Lawyers Chapter hosted a zoom debate on the issue, covering points ranging from the merits of the doctrine as it is applied today to which branch of government-the Judiciary or Congress-should change it, if at all.
Featuring:
- Dave Lopez, Co-President, Nebraska Lawyers Chapter
- Trent Tanner, Co-President, Nebraska Lawyers Chapter
- Josh Hammer, Opinion Editor at Newsweek; Of Counsel at First Liberty Institute; syndicated columnist
- Jay Schweikert, Policy Analyst, Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
*END QUALIFIED IMMUNITY*
You have to be a lawyer, gov't agent, or low info to have any faith in the just-us system of 'justice'.
And IF you will not end it, then GIVE IT TO EVERYONE.
Radical idea? Sure.
Almost as radical as giving it to the most evil among us... gov't agents.
Does lawyer talk for "mis-interpretation of the statue" really mean collusion to screw innocent people out of their rights?
@@ragmon1000 yes
@@ragmon1000 no immunity if it shall exhist should only apply to civilians. The government should be held to an even hivher standard. Therefore prosecuted much harsher
Im not sure why we have QI. Citizenry cannot say to an officer "Sir, I didn't know I was committing a crime" So why is an officer able to do the same and claim QI
thats not what qualified immunity is. There is so much misunderstanding of QI. QI does not mean the police dept cant be sued...but the officer has some (not all)immunity when he acts within scope and authority of his employment. there is federal and state level liability. so a suit that is stopped at soe level for QI federally, can still be used in a state level and in both cases the City etc is still liable.
If you’re caught doing something that’s not clearly established as a crime, then you shouldn’t be punished. QI works that way too.
People who make statements like this and use the words Carte Blanche have no idea what Qualified Immunity is. The media and left wing groups have made it out to be something it is not and these idiots believe it. It is much harder to claim QI than you have been lead to believe.
@@raymonddrennon6522 maybe for law enforcement, because the caselaw there is well developed. But when a bureaucrat in some agency screws up, or a state school administrator hates your guts and gets you expelled, or any other of the new and interesting ways that the state can ruin your life, unless there is an appellate or supreme court case exactly on point, they will get QI.
I was nearly killed by a runaway police horse while standing outside a college football stadium. I sued the city police force and didn't get summary judgement. My appeal was shot down as well as my request to the Kentucky supreme court. Records indicated that the horse had worked a full shift prior to coming to the game. Funny thing is, the mayor at the time promised not to use QI, but he lost the election and the new mayor used it. The incident cost me my health, job, and sent me to bankruptcy.
Well tell all your white people to change the law. But you won't because it makes whites feel safe.
@@SirNic4180 that's insane.
That law, if it is law only protect the cops.
@@auntjenifer7774 PLEASE GO READ A BOOK. THE COPS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN EX- SLAVE CATCHERS. THE LAWS ARE TO KEEP BLACK PEOPLE IN CHECK. NO MATTER WHAT CRIME A WHITE PERSON COMMITS THEY ARE ALLOWED AN OUT. NO MATTER HOW MUCH EVIDENCE YOU HAVE AGAINST THEM.
You should have linked a reference to it
@@SirNic4180 You’re talking to someone on the Internet, whom you’ve never met before, and you’re immediately assuming that they’re White - and also that all Whites must feel the same way. Oh, I’m sure you also believe you can’t possibly be racist yourself.
I do not see how you can defend qualified immunity when it clearly is at odds with the original statute.
The guy in the upper right spoke really well and provided good examples of how qualified immunity is bad.
how can you clearly establish if you can't get passed qualified immunity? seems like a trick.
What does the Crimes committed by Criminals have anything to do with the CRIMES COMMITTED BY POLICE!! Criminals do not get *QUALIFIED IMMUNITY,* no one is and should ever be above the Law. PERIOD!!
when it's the traitors running and ruining 'our' NATION, what else could you expect but more DECEPTION AND CORRUPTION.
Joe Magnets
Maybe because qualified immunity does not apply to criminal cases, and only civil cases? PERIOD (LOOK I USE ALL CAPS THAT MAKES ME LOOK INTELLIGENT RIGHT?)
@@warrior_catyou’re an airhead if you’re trying to defend qualified immunity.
Policing is difficult. But if we put people's rights on the line to protect the job, it defeats the entire purpose of policing.
I'm more concerned about police violating rights than I am about police retiring. If you're rather retire than risk accountability, I'd take that as a win.
You are talking as if Police Officers are human beings.
....You fell for their all important fronts, as they work under their very fake fronts of "protecting and serving".
....They need to fool people as you so that no one is going to investigate them.
Don't be a fool.
.... Every Pig Nationwide lives only selfishly for themselves, their corrupt Police Departments, and to extort people's money into their States (lawfully and also "unlawfully").
...They are literally hired mobsters by our Government for our Government's money extortion crime ring against us.
....To further, any honest person that ever got into a Police Department will guaranteed be quickly released.
....Our "Swine-est".
Josh Hammer is not a qualified speaker 🙄
He pretend to be neutral but we can all see he’s a bootlicker 😂😂 dude pretend so hard, but we all know!
@@huallacanes100 It won't be a debate if nobody disagrees
Government officials,which include police, should not be placed above the law. QI makes a mockery of that principle. It also makes it incredibly difficult to hold bad cops accountable, to the detriment of good ones
I agree.
Well said.
19:25 you see one now. I'm a person who says George Floyd was not murdered, and I can say it because I watched the full trial, and the jury selection. I thus understand that while the cops have responsibility and Floyd should be alive, to claim it was murder as generally understood is a result of the climate created by a press eager to make hay with a hot topic, not a result of the facts.
Furthermore according to the testimony it is not clear how Floyd died, and the viewing of the knee videos is strongly prejudicial, not clarifying. What is clarifying is the totality of the defense presentation vs the prosecution presentation. By those facts there is reasonable doubt that Floyd died not just because he was put in a very poor breathing position, but because the drugs he was taking strained his capacity to stay alive.
Chauvin is guilty of complicity to a killing, but the summary application of the worst charge was not a result of a reasoned review of evidence but a lynching. Verdicts where the press coverage is overwhelming and utterly biased, the jury is not sequestered and takes less time to reach a verdict than would be necessary to review the evidence once, should always be considered suspect. In this case from my observations, it is likely the jury never entered the process under the full acceptance that the defendant was innocent until deliberations were complete.
For the record I have been mistreated by police, and neither like or trust law enforcement.
That being said, qualified immunity is absolutely not in the constitution or any document that favors the rights of a free and fair nation. Qualified immunity is tyranny in a suit and tie, assuring you that your rights aren’t being infringed upon.
Always remember and never forget that the lawyers write the laws that make victims into defendants that have to hire expensive lawyers to defend them from the 'laws' that lawyers write.
Joe Magnets
From behind their desk...
I'm with Shakespeare on what to do with lawyers.
Imagine any other profession, where lives can be ended or drastically altered, having qualified immunity. Imagine doctors having no consequences for their actions. Imagine the pharmaceutical industry having qualified immunity. Imagine Wall Street having qualified immunity.
You must lack imagination is all I can say. We empower the police to use violence on our behalf, we do this to address violence that would be done by our fellow citizens. This is a social contract we enter into to end disorder. We could have militias run by the richest guy in any town or city, if you think that would be better.
@@johnsmith1474 Well as you can see, qualified immunity also excuses police from accountability when they "use violence" not on our behalf. What then is the distinction between police protected by qualified immunity vs militias run by the riches guy in any town or city? It seems that both are excused from accountability?
@@johnsmith1474 Also, violence is a useful tool to enforce order. It's also a very dangerous tool. Are satisfied that this tool can be wielded by an idiot that is ignorant of the laws they are "enforcing" and is protected because of its ignorance? You must lack imagination if you assume that all police are idiots that will immediately suffer from qualified immunity getting revoked? Removing QI should be effective in removing "bad apple" while leaving the majority of the police force unaffected is it not?
If you're right and the entire police force falls apart without the immunity, then were they ever qualified to "use violence on our behalf"?
Oh you brought up doctors. Doctors kill 250,000 Americans a year (350 times more than cops do) due to their incompetence or negligence. Guess how many of them go to jail?
@@johnsmith1474 that's pretty amazing since we didn't have law enforcement til sometime in 1930's or 40's but does it really matter. We weren't descending into a dystopia of violence and disorder.
That didn't start happening till the government started putting it's nose and mits where they didn't belong.
And now we have absolute morons thinking that the government is the law of the land when in fact they are supposed to be the custodians of the law and not the authority of law.
But ignorant and stupid people out number the ones who actually know what it means to be an actual American.
Why have Josh Hammer speak it seems like he can not finish a thought or a sentence with any cognitive end
Josh Hammer in essence "there is an increase in violent crime therefore law enforcement should be free to engage in egregious unlawful/ un-Constitutional behavior." Josh represents why ordinary citizens have lost respect for law enforcement, for the law, for the judicial system and to a lesser degree for lawyers themselves.
I fail to understand why Josh keeps mentioning Floyd. That was a criminal case and qualified immunity only pertains to civil suit. The civil suit was settled out of court.
Also, as a conservative, who believes in the rule of law, I fault anyone who defends qualified immunity, and fails to realize that law enforcement officers are government agents and should only ever be viewed as such.
The problem with people like Josh is that they ignore the fact that LEOs frequently ruin innocent people's lives. Victims of LEO malfeasance are frequently triple victims. They are victimized first by the LEO, then victimized by the Judicial system based upon the lies of the same LEO(s), finally they are victimized by society by being labeled a criminal, when in fact they are innocent.
Privileged members of society like Josh (and by extension, most Judges and prosecutors) cannot ever understand what that is like. To be crushed, stomped on and beat down by the very apparatus that is supposed to protect them. Law enforcement and the judiciary in the USA today think nothing of depriving citizens of their rights and of their freedom.
I am sick and tired of hearing LEOs say "I feared for my safety." Until LEOs stop placing their own safety above the public they claim to serve, there will never be any meaningful reform.
Qualified Immunity has no basis in law, nor in the Constitution. It was fabricated out of whole cloth by SCOTUS.
Qualified immunity is an abomination and must be abolished.
Qualified immunity is antithetical to any concept of a fair and impartial judicial system and to any concept of a free society.
THE COPS WILL NEVER BE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY DAMAGES TO ANYONE. Why? Because the LAWYERS want the 'municipalities' that have loads of money to pay the LAWYERS.
Joe Magnets
We the people are the cash cow.
@@SuperJoobers, and 'our' corrupted 'gov't' is the FARMER.
Joe Magnets
I notice no one is trying to deo away with QI completely. If you're going to take QI from police then why not other members of government? Other government employees also have QI but they only want to take it away from L.E.?
Because politicians are never going to get rid of QI for themselves lol
My thoughts exactly. QI extends to all government employees giving them carte blanche to trample over citizens rights without any accountability. Funny how they never mention taking it away from anyone other than the police as if they’re the only ones abusing it.
Did govt employee violate policy?
Did govt employee violate law?
Did govt employee violate civil rights?
Did govt employee knowingly or unknowingly violate all 3 of the above?
Qualified Immunity and Police Unions must be Abolished.
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Qualified immunity is against the law. Our forefathers stated that no entity or individuals shall be above the law.
It's not about being above the law. You must not understand beans about QI.
@@bobbybishop5662 i know you have to actually qualify for it. But they use it as a standing umbrella for all the illegal shit they do. And that's law enforcement, DA's, judges, and pretty much anyone in government.
But since you're the all knowing. Please explain QI for us laymen.
@@MrSlicky77 With that last statement you make it even clear you don't understand the doctrine or you just never bothered reading it maybe , or most likely you watched to many cop hater channels. Also you must not understand the purpose of the Supreme Court if you think it's against the law.
@bobbybishop5662 i know it has no legal justification as in. There is nothing to base the doctrine on at all. It's something the lawyers cooked up and brought forth to protect themselves and their cronies.
But please tell me how wrong i am without actually making any valid points or reasons as to why that is 🤷
And saying you haven't read anything without anything to validate what you say makes you look like a person who says things just to hear themselves speak.
Just to recap, there is no legal basis for this doctrine "kinda tells you all you need to know in its title, but stupid is as stupid does 🤷" so this "doctrine" you're talking about. What legal roots does it have? Where do they get they can protect themselves from the law.
I would say I'm looking forward to your reply, but we all with a brain know theres no such laws to root this doctrine into any justified body of the constitution. But hey, maybe you'll be able to pull a rabbit out of your ass🤷
@@MrSlicky77 The supreme court disagrees and you are clueless.
Holding people accountable for their own actions wouldn't solve the problem? You're kidding right?
If police violence is not big enough of an issue to cause concern, violence against police is statistically a far lesser issue and should have never been a concern.
Thusly, we should remove protection out in place to protect policeman since the laws aren't necessary....by a similar analysis.
The gentleman on the top right corner won the debate hands down. Excellent analysis sir 👏
Qualified immunity needs to be dismantled, and destroyed as a black man I feel that this will greatly neutralize police's conduct from running Wild, Wild, West in 2023
Qualified immunity violates the 1st amendment in redress of grievances. It gives government impunity to kill without consequence, there is several widows and parents who lost the ones they love and could do nothing because of the supreme court legislating from the bench because they dont want to do their jobs.
I really enjoyed hearing both sides of the discussion. Although I don’t see QI as being legal in general, I would understand some degree of “well meaning” protections… but that gets into a slippery slope of subjectivity that is not nearly as useful as objectivity when looking at civil (or especially criminal) actions. I’m a big believer that a police officer’s authority over a citizen is the SAME as any other citizen until there’s a law being broken - and I feel that many LEOs let the power go to their head and use QI as a shield for their bad actions instead of protecting the Citizenry.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
“Where rights secured by the Constitution(s) are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them.”
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws and the individual’s rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary.
The good faith defense doesn't hold water!!!!!!! Anyone who is not a government worker gets told ignorance of the law is no excuse!!!!!!! If ignorance of the law is no excuse how can you excuse someone who should be trained more in the law!!!!!!!
I was a long term caregiver I was told the company gave you training if you
break the rules and hurt somebody you are personally liable the company
will not support you. So basically most jobs you work within certain parameters
does that not apply to Law Enforcement.
37:30 "in civil rights judgments against law enforcement ninety-nine point nine eight percent of those dollars were paid by municipalities not by the individual officers so one the immediate effect of getting rid of qualified immunity would not be that police officers are suddenly on the hook for judgments ... the right policy approach (might be) something like a liability insurance scheme for police officers the way lawyers and doctors carry liability insurance."
True
Look at your history and see were qualified immunity comes from , it comes from Law Enforcement not wanting to be liable for their disgusting brutality just look up freedom riders in Mississippi That’s where it stems from
If LE were only using this against hardened criminals maybe we could understand it
but against elderly people and children no way. They man handle people regularly
and are used as security for hospitals it's despicable.
Getting rid of Qualified Immunity would obviously then discourage criminal Police Officers from falsely arresting people.
... Many of the falsely arrested will also be wrongfully convicted, and also be coerced into taking plea deals.
...That would cost the Government literally Billions of dollars a year.
.... That is what I am getting by the Supreme Court's decision to disregard petitions to end Qualified Immunity.
I'm a Brit, but I'm pretty sure that the US Constitution doesn't say that it no longer applies if the offender is a Police Officer.
The Founding Fathers made the Constitution clear and easy to read for exactly this reason - so that it wouldn't require lawyers to interpret it.
Awesome.. we need this at a NATIONAL LEVEL.
One problem is that law enforcement has convinced judges that they are all on the same side!!!!!!! The courts and everyone working in the court system is supposed to be neutral!!!!!!!
The forth guy i do not like that is the guy in blue coat. Seems like he is on the cops side. QI is outrageous. Police Officers should know the law. Some Officers know the law and still violate the law and uses QI to get away with it. If i don't know the law i still get arrested and go to court and i am told ignorance of the law is no excuse. Officers should pay for lawsuits not the public. Require them to get insurance just like i do if i drive a car or like doctors etc. Do away with internal affairs and have an outside source handle cases.
This relies on one person's judgement right or wrong and others supporting it
without question how is that right.
If you remove QI to gain the public trust, and it leaves you with no law enforcement, what have you gained? When you want to begin paying cops like professional athletes (to continue to take all the risks of dealing with a failing society), then you can remove all protections and will still have enough bodies to do the job. If we stay the current course, we're in for serious issues.
We the people are the cash cow.
Who else could be?
5:18-cv-01436-KK The hypocrisy of DA representation and Discovery motions in a police violence/civil rights trial
(1) The local District Attorney (the SBCC in my case) has the job of defending law enforcement in allegations of excessive force. Their representation is free to the officers throughout the five years it takes to bring one of these cases to trial.
Analysis: That’s wrong. The DA will file a Qualified Immunity motion before all of the witnesses have been formally deposed under oath and in front of DA A/V cameras. The vast majority of Qualified Immunity rulings are upheld in favor of law enforcement and that will stop the case in it’s tracks and it will be dismissed. When law enforcement fails the Qualified Immunity test, they should be on their own afterwards, no free DA legal representation or involvement after that.
As a retired LAUSD District Intern, the highest level of recruitment, a public school teacher,....we'd be run out of town for beating, hog tying and confining anybody in an inhumanely small space (for 45 minutes according the 911 CAD incident report!). Even if they were acting up (I wasn't!). No free legal representation and suspended without pay, their career ruined on the basis of just the allegation.
And teachers can never, just transfer to another district - that's considered not cooperating with Big Brother. It's time for another career, and,.... in a way, that's healthy for the students. It does, indeed, take a community to raise the next generation.
And, like fish, TEACHERS AND COPS START TO STINK if they get too complacent and comfortable with their jobs. Diversity in education is absolutely essential in a global economy. And letting law enforcement officers earn benefit packages of up half a million dollars/yr for hanging around for 20 years is preposterous - read a little Machiavelli!
Why: Qualified Immunity cannot be granted unless there is abundant, overwhelming evidence of a civil rights violation (of clearly accepted laws) with malice, because of a persons racial/social background. The only recourse of a plaintiff when no criminal charges are filed is a civil suit for money. The only question is how much!
Anybody who has passed the Bar knows that they must do whatever it takes to win a case, therefore all DA defense and conviction rates are in the high 90%s. They will (and did) refuse a bench trial by a two judges, who will be more likely to issue a verdict in line with the law,... and hope to sway a jury with inductive logic like “the officers are innocent BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING DEFENDED BY THE DA!” That's FACISM under the guise of law and order - there is a tremendous difference in practice, so we lock more innocent people up who can't pay competent representation.
(2) Discovery is where each side, in carefully worded legal jargon, requests the evidence the other side has. The DA has an insurmountable advantage in that they can track, subpoena, coerce, depose and bribe their witnesses, a plaintiff can’t.
ALL MY DOCTORS were harassed into bring a lawyer to deposition, or ignoring the subpoena completely. And I'm talking about my primary care physician and county assigned neurologist.
The DA can write and file as many motions (electronically, plaintiffs must file in person) as they want, to hide or delay releasing relevant information, like dash A/V data and investigative reports eg. FOI reports).
Analysis: That’s wrong. When all of the new, high tech data is used only, against citizens that are not committing a criminal act,.... to protect law enforcement that is,..... that’s counter intuitive. Nobody wants to protect criminals and criminal law enforcement, do they?
The SBCC had five years to bring some kind of charges against my family: A 100 year old white woman, her 58 year old black husband and caretaker, and me her 71 year old son. I was disabled by the attack, advised not to drive by my neurologist, but my step father, Robert (a black man) works every day at the family gas station at the I 10/Arizona border - I don't.
So they harassed Mr. Dismuke (Papa) with Adult Protective Services and violent Animal Control officers. They combed through his previous statements and deposition testimony threatening prosecution if he testified at trial. A man, going blind from Diabetes, me, diagnosed as needing a heart transplant in 2005 and mom, 100 years old!
Why: No profession is above reproach. Catholic priests (including the Pope) got away with a lot before the latest WOKE testimonies. And protestants burned Catholics at the stake, remember Joan of Arc.
Law enforcement types with military backgrounds just aren’t the best choice for non violent police encounters, women or sociology graduates are, not Police Science majors. Let em go to Swat, or better yet, get a real productive job that doesn't destroy people's lives in the process.
If law enforcement JUST TOLD THE TRUTH, the prisons would empty, THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS, WAKE UP!
And Judges appointed by Democratic presidents (Bernal and Kato) are THE ONLY HOPE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL, REGARDLESS OF RACE. And so,....I see hope for Latinos and Asians and I champion their work, but TO HELL WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, I GUESS!
Guy in bottom right had a disclaimer halfway through each sentence and still couldnt get to a point
During the 3 week Chavin trial 64 people were killed by police.
ok now tell me how many were unjustified. im sure it is 0
They ended on in Colorado , I don't see where its made any signifgant change.
So what was Josh point ?
Excellent debate. Very helpful citations. The only improvement would have been an exploration of successful tort remedies in state (or English) courts for like offenses before or even after the War of Northern Aggression.
More cops do not mean less crime
Good stuff. QI is bunk, must be removed.
police will suffer negative public sentiment until they learn to uphold the constitution and respect civil rights.
Cant the officers employer respond to negligent behavior of their officers so the citizen can at least get their out of pocket expenses paid by the employer??
Great discussion.
Texas State Constitution Article I “Bill of Rights” Section 29:
Provisions of Bill of Rights Excepted from Powers of Government; to Forever Remain Inviolate:
“To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.”
Kentucky State Constitution Bill of Rights Section 26:
“To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void.”
Tennessee State Constitution Article XI Section 16:
“The declaration of rights hereto prefixed is declared to be a part of the Constitution of the state, and shall never be violated on any pretense whatever. And to guard against transgression of the high powers we have delegated, we declare that everything in the bill of rights contained, is excepted out of the general powers of the government, and shall forever remain inviolate.”
What about when there is clearly "self interest" and the public official is essentially committing fraud? ((Directly themselves or through 3rd parties?)
It’s time to end c e now. And hold these people that violate rights judges cops public officials.
When I see an 80 year old woman handcuffed over suspected dui
She was unable to do ridiculous requests
Outrageous
No alcohol zero
Not a systemic issue what is he talking about there are plenty of videos out there
I suggest he watches some.
and of course....not able to sue federally under 1983 does not make the case not actionable in the state. and state QI laws differ significantly. These cases should be in the state and not federally anyway. 1983 violation for accidental ricochet injury to bystander? How will that deter misconduct???
This is one area where open mined conservatives and classic liberals can agree, we should revisit qualified immunity and reign in law enforcement when it comes to violations of the constitution. I just wish our current representatives would seize upon these common topics.
@19:04 so, a lawyer states that his views don't represent that of those he is commercially affiliated defends qualified immunity. If you don't find that funny, you might be missing the point.
Woe, unto lawyers. You make the contracts that the public must abide.
Ignorance of immutable principles is no excuse.
To wit: An officers misunderstanding of the Constitution is a character flaw.
20:25I can see where this is going we’re gonna give excuse why it’s OK for cops adult murdering people because the air is so bad that means you get to do whatever they want to see what else is going to say after this
Slowly but surely things are changing for the better, So far only Connecticut has passed a new law As of July 2021, police officers there will have to pay own lawsuits, and related damages, if a court decides that the officer engaged in the malicious or willful act. For all other folks living in other states, you need to flood call your lawmakers and demand the same and possibly these changes might only happen due to the exposure of corrupt cops by individual auditors.
@@robertbutler8004 colorado did the same
@@huallacanes100 Even though I'm an Aussie I was aware of that but some states will only water down qualified immunity eg like putting a very low cap on how much you can claim against a corrupt cop and the city will pick up the tab. Not good enough.
POLICE ARE NOT GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
What are they?
just to make his case seem stronger, this "attorney" misstates the evidence in the dog shooting were a boy was injured. first, the dog was aggressive toward the cop so he shot it (he just didnt say...gee there is a little doggie, I think I'll shoot it for the infamous "no reason" claim) No! and the boy wasnt hit by direct fire from the bullet. The bullet fragmented, ricocheted and a piece of fragment hit the boys Knee. This is VERY diffrent than the "fact pattern" stated by the attorney. PLUS, the court did not rule that the police dept could not be sued and the boy compensated for the injury. Just the opposite. The cop acted within his scope and duties and authority so had qualified immunity, but the city did not have immunityl
They Should
You can still have "qualified immunity" but the way it is written is so open ended and open for abuse ("prier precedence" that you could never have)
here is a starter "is it reasonable for ANY officer to understand what they are doing is illegal" (JUST as would any citizen know taking money from a body on the side of the road is illegal)
CONGRESS MAKES LAW NOT SUPREME COURTS
Court orders are a form of law.
QUALIIFIED IMMUNITY IS FOR FOLKS HOLDING OFFICE IN GOVERNMENT
The moment you Say. THIS IS FALSE IMPRISONMENT Qualified Immunity does not exist The moment you state this you'll get tackled armbarred Cause they know you know
No thats not how you invoke qualified immunity. As if you even can.
Its almost never plasable to win in a court that is their only for the officers.
Judges usually have absolute immunity so good luck.
Wow, I came here hoping to understand the best argument for keeping qualified immunity. On the face of it, QI seems patently immoral and illogical, but I thought "there has to be some good reason for why it was created in the first place." What I found is that the reason it exists in the first place is lawyers were geeking out over how to interpret laws and accidentally created the doctrine, and now the best reason for keeping it is that removing it will make it harder to hire new police officers. smh
I'm imagining a candidate for law enforcement who will only do the job if they get qualified immunity, and I'm saying to myself "wow, that is the single most disqualifying attribute I can imagine."
And qualified immunity
This guy is annoying he just keeps talking
If you just pause this video then look at the 4 faces to me they look like police mug shots.
No they dont. Weird whats your point?
@@krotchlickmeugh627 to me they do is that ok with you?
But when police officers raise their hand to uphold the Constitution that automatically tells you right there that they know what they're doing because they held their hand up and swore to uphold the Constitution if they didn't know then they need to start reading it and I say in qualified immunity all the way across the board judges DA's all of you