D2F Whiners Corner
Forums > D2F Whiners Corner > Qualified immunitySearch | New Thread | Reply to thread
Qualified immunity
 
Reply to threadPage 1 of 1
kyree
Super Regular
Killer Scout

P: 04/05/2021 21:24 EST
E: 04/05/2021 21:27 EST
    Discuss

I would love to hear from PTA, as he would put it in perspective, and I'm willing to bet which side he stands on
  
Reply to message
Prelude to Agony
Super Regular
Sniper Harassment
Duty

P: 04/05/2021 22:50 EST
    Yeah, I'm sure you know where I stand.

Qualified Immunity is just that...qualified. The issue, however, stems from courts splitting hairs on it. I will admit that I believe the courts give cops the benefit of the doubt, which is a problem.

I never really looked into what qualified immunity was until this year. I don't act in a manner to have had to worry about it. I've never been sued (which some would say it's because I don't do the job right).

One of the points about qualified immunity is, cops are tasked with a job that they have to perform. In order to do that job, there's a reasonable expectation of protection from frivolous lawsuits from people who are pissed that they were arrested, ticketed, or even talked to. There is an expectation that use of force may be necessary, and again, there's protections built in for being sued despite doing what was proper under the law.

When cops don't act properly, the 'qualified' comes in to play. This isn't 'absolute' immunity, and there is a 2 part 'test' to determine that. It's subjective though, as anything is. I mean, it seems cut and dry to me....cop violated a right, cop clearly knew it was an established right and did it anyway (as I interpret it). Still....we all know about the courts. Allegedly, if the case brought before the court is basically the same as a previous case, the court is supposed to rule that way, or it's automatically resolved that way.

Of course the prevailing comment is that if qualified immunity was removed, and a cop is sued, the municipality would simply pay on behalf of the officer.

Yeah....right.

Whether you like it or not, I am tasked with assigned duties. With qualified immunity, so long as I'm doing what I am supposed to do under the constitution, I'm good. Without it, I'll still do my job, but the idea of having to fend off BS suits because someone got mad, is ridiculous.

I know that Biden signed something regarding reform, but I haven't read it (I'm still off). Our Prosecutor put out something to break it down, and basically most crimes we don't lodge for now, we just write a ticket. If we do arrest, we need to document all of the reasons why we felt that was necessary. There was bond reform, and some other administrative changes for arraignment.

What the Prosecutor didn't cover, was qualified immunity. When I asked my boss about that, he said the PA would get back to us on that. It would be nice to know, for sure, as it may alleviate some of our concerns too.

What I think is the youngsters on our department are already unmotivated. Now, with the idea they can be sued personally for basically anything they do, they're less likely to get involved. It's sad, honestly, and it's going to make shit worse, not better IMO. Old dogs, like myself, will probably not want to risk their retirement and anything else, and may also be ineffective.

If the intent is to get cops to 'act right', it may do that, but it's going to have some unintended consequences that I don't think they considered. Maybe the reform should have been with the courts, or case law, instead.

Look at how defunding is going....funding is being given back to departments. Knew that would happen. Reform I could get behind to a point...though it was a bit shortsighted to do it without true understanding of what we do. I'd really love reform if it made my job easier...it's become more complicated over the last 15 years.

I know cops aren't loved here...I get it. But there's shit we have to do because the idea is to serve and protect. We shouldn't have to fend off bullshit complaints in court, simply cos someone was mad. Sorry, not sorry.

If they take qualified immunity, it is what it is, hell, I'm one foot out the door anyway. Yet, maybe they should change how law suits work, so that if you file BS suits against anyone, not just the cops, you automatically have to pay their attorney fees, plus the amount you were asking to be awarded. Maybe it would help reduce suits down to those that are more legitimate.

  
Reply to message
bella
P: 04/06/2021 01:02 EST
    I got your 6 ❤️  
Reply to message
Mr. Walnuts
Daycare Manager
Pipey FlagCatcher

P: 04/06/2021 03:14 EST
   
Prelude to Agony wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure you know where I stand.

Qualified Immunity is just that...qualified. The issue, however, stems from courts splitting hairs on it. I will admit that I believe the courts give cops the benefit of the doubt, which is a problem.

I never really looked into what qualified immunity was until this year. I don't act in a manner to have had to worry about it. I've never been sued (which some would say it's because I don't do the job right).

One of the points about qualified immunity is, cops are tasked with a job that they have to perform. In order to do that job, there's a reasonable expectation of protection from frivolous lawsuits from people who are pissed that they were arrested, ticketed, or even talked to. There is an expectation that use of force may be necessary, and again, there's protections built in for being sued despite doing what was proper under the law.

When cops don't act properly, the 'qualified' comes in to play. This isn't 'absolute' immunity, and there is a 2 part 'test' to determine that. It's subjective though, as anything is. I mean, it seems cut and dry to me....cop violated a right, cop clearly knew it was an established right and did it anyway (as I interpret it). Still....we all know about the courts. Allegedly, if the case brought before the court is basically the same as a previous case, the court is supposed to rule that way, or it's automatically resolved that way.

Of course the prevailing comment is that if qualified immunity was removed, and a cop is sued, the municipality would simply pay on behalf of the officer.

Yeah....right.

Whether you like it or not, I am tasked with assigned duties. With qualified immunity, so long as I'm doing what I am supposed to do under the constitution, I'm good. Without it, I'll still do my job, but the idea of having to fend off BS suits because someone got mad, is ridiculous.

I know that Biden signed something regarding reform, but I haven't read it (I'm still off). Our Prosecutor put out something to break it down, and basically most crimes we don't lodge for now, we just write a ticket. If we do arrest, we need to document all of the reasons why we felt that was necessary. There was bond reform, and some other administrative changes for arraignment.

What the Prosecutor didn't cover, was qualified immunity. When I asked my boss about that, he said the PA would get back to us on that. It would be nice to know, for sure, as it may alleviate some of our concerns too.

What I think is the youngsters on our department are already unmotivated. Now, with the idea they can be sued personally for basically anything they do, they're less likely to get involved. It's sad, honestly, and it's going to make shit worse, not better IMO. Old dogs, like myself, will probably not want to risk their retirement and anything else, and may also be ineffective.

If the intent is to get cops to 'act right', it may do that, but it's going to have some unintended consequences that I don't think they considered. Maybe the reform should have been with the courts, or case law, instead.

Look at how defunding is going....funding is being given back to departments. Knew that would happen. Reform I could get behind to a point...though it was a bit shortsighted to do it without true understanding of what we do. I'd really love reform if it made my job easier...it's become more complicated over the last 15 years.

I know cops aren't loved here...I get it. But there's shit we have to do because the idea is to serve and protect. We shouldn't have to fend off bullshit complaints in court, simply cos someone was mad. Sorry, not sorry.

If they take qualified immunity, it is what it is, hell, I'm one foot out the door anyway. Yet, maybe they should change how law suits work, so that if you file BS suits against anyone, not just the cops, you automatically have to pay their attorney fees, plus the amount you were asking to be awarded. Maybe it would help reduce suits down to those that are more legitimate.

Are you SURE you're a cop? I've read hundreds of offense reports. Spelling and sentence structure is not really a thing with them.
  
Reply to message
Prelude to Agony
Super Regular
Sniper Harassment
Duty

P: 04/06/2021 05:45 EST
    Walnuts, yes.

As a supervisor, report review is part of my duties. It's painful to have to read all that shit and then tell them what to fix and why, in hopes that they learn something. I can only imagine the frustration of HS English teachers.

It's as if they never read a book or bothered to learn how to write.

My minor was in English, for all the good it's done me since.
  
Reply to message
Jesus_is_King
P: 04/07/2021 21:07 EST
E: 04/07/2021 21:09 EST
    How to understand the fourth amendment is eventually where qualified immunity debates end up going.  
Reply to message
moose poop
Super Regular
Body Splatter

P: 04/08/2021 09:01 EST
    Can you be a little more specific why you think this is a due process analysis?

I am not trying to troll you. It's just that as I understand QI, it is a relatively new concept, it is not based on any amendment so your statement struck me as odd. Are you saying that the argument is a mirror of due process or that QI exists only as due process is upheld?
  
Reply to message
Jesus_is_King
P: 04/08/2021 13:32 EST
E: 04/08/2021 13:38 EST
    What is called 'constitutional rights' are relevant to qualified immunity as far as I'm understood, so the 4th amendment and the scope and boundaries it expresses for enforcement is where constitutional debates happen. Lawsuits are also the context of the qualified immunity law or enforcement. I don't know where the constitution talks about this, or if it does. I'll just leave it there.  
Reply to message
Reply to threadPage 1 of 1
Forums > D2F Whiners Corner > Qualified immunity