Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » Qualified Immunity: Time to go?

View Poll Results: Should we keep qualified immunity for police officers?

Voters: 25.
Dump It
10 40%
Keep It
14 56%
Not my problem. Never going to happen to me.
1 4%
  1. Results 1 to 30 of 30
  2. Page 1 of 1

Thread: Qualified Immunity: Time to go?

post 1617801541 09-28-2020, 06:28 AM
-
#1
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543

Qualified Immunity: Time to go?

From CBS Sunday Morning:



Cliffs:

- police damage a citizen (their person or property) in the line of duty
- most citizens lose their case
- citizens that win their case (charges dismissed) generally still receive no compensation
- in court citizens are denied recompense because "qualified immunity", but even if there is a payment made it is made by the city/PD, not by individual officers
- PDs can claim qualified immunity for any messed up situation where they screw someone over, but there is no legal precedent for the claimant's case

If you prefer reading to video:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-con...fied-immunity/
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1617803021 09-28-2020, 06:53 AM
-
#2
  1. jackamo2887
  2. BEATINGU
  1. jackamo2887
  2. BEATINGU
  3. Join Date: Oct 2007
  4. Posts: 29,617
  5. Rep Power: 146835
So basically everyone can claim they were injured while being arrested, sue, and win a bunch of money. Because without qualified immunity nothing is preventing that.
Survival. When the jungle tears itself down and builds itself into something new. Guys like you and me, we end up dead. Doesn’t really mean anything. Or, if we happen to live through it, well that doesn’t mean anything either.
post 1617803191 09-28-2020, 06:56 AM
-
#3
  1. topperstyle
  2. 720 Crew
  1. topperstyle
  2. 720 Crew
  3. Join Date: Jun 2010
  4. Posts: 13,303
  5. Rep Power: 137905
What could go wrong?
post 1617803401 09-28-2020, 06:58 AM
-
#4
  1. EnderG60
  2. Registered User
  1. EnderG60
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2011
  4. Posts: 13,787
  5. Rep Power: 30868
Originally Posted By jackamo2887⏩
So basically everyone can claim they were injured while being arrested, sue, and win a bunch of money. Because without qualified immunity nothing is preventing that.
Thats what body cams are for.
post 1617803571 09-28-2020, 07:01 AM
-
#5
  1. jackamo2887
  2. BEATINGU
  1. jackamo2887
  2. BEATINGU
  3. Join Date: Oct 2007
  4. Posts: 29,617
  5. Rep Power: 146835
Originally Posted By EnderG60⏩
Thats what body cams are for.
no it's not it's what qualified immunity is for
Survival. When the jungle tears itself down and builds itself into something new. Guys like you and me, we end up dead. Doesn’t really mean anything. Or, if we happen to live through it, well that doesn’t mean anything either.
post 1617804811 09-28-2020, 07:17 AM
-
#6
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By EnderG60⏩
Thats what body cams are for.
I'm good with that.

And people can sue now AFAIK.

What is the difference exactly between an employee of a private business damaging someone and an employee of a PD? Why is the PD immune exactly?

How about this:

- Lineman for the electric company enters your yard, gets freaked out about your big dog barking at him and shoot/kills the dog.

- Policeman following up on a report that a suspect is on your property enters your yard, gets freaked out about your big dog barking at him and shoots/kills the dog.

So if the lineman kills your dog you can pursue damages to cover the cost of replacing your dog, but if the policeman kills your dog then too bad...qualified immunity?

ETA: Did you watch? Did you see the story about the lady who was threatened that she would be liable for "harboring a criminal" if she didn't let the PD into her home?

Then when she gave the key they destroyed her house and later claim that she gave them permission to destroy her house when she gave them the key?

She wasn't a criminal, not even a suspect.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1617804911 09-28-2020, 07:18 AM
-
#7
  1. 2011change
  2. MISC_LEGEND
  1. 2011change
  2. MISC_LEGEND
  3. Join Date: Nov 2011
  4. Posts: 8,068
  5. Rep Power: 9876
mom wo-man pls go
***Disclaimer: All posts made by [2011change] are works of satire and made for entertainment use only.***
post 1617805131 09-28-2020, 07:21 AM
-
#8
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
If you're a conservative, you oppose judicial activism. Section 1983's intent was clear and if it doesn't work, it's a matter for Congress to fix. There is only one correct answer: yes.
Originally Posted By jackamo2887⏩
So basically everyone can claim they were injured while being arrested, sue, and win a bunch of money. Because without qualified immunity nothing is preventing that.
Bad take. Frivolous suits that can't articulate facts to support an actual Constitutional violation would be tossed in summary judgment, just as they are now. Shifting liability onto group insurance plans for departments would also incentivize them to fire actual bad cops and encourage good ones, instead of simping to unions.

Incidentally, all public employee unions should be abolished. The old-school Republicans had it right: public employee unionists are agents of Communism who should be stripped of their citizenship and deported as traitors.

(Not srs.)

(Semi-srs.)

(Completely serious about abolishing them entirely.)
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1617832771 09-28-2020, 01:05 PM
-
#9
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Bump for more votes.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1617833041 09-28-2020, 01:07 PM
-
#10
  1. knightofday
  2. Registered User
  1. knightofday
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Oct 2013
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Age: 39
  6. Posts: 14,588
  7. Rep Power: 126002
Originally Posted By 2011change⏩
mom wo-man pls go
Seconded. This thread, and frankly many of your opinions, are pie in the sky trash. You’re a liberal dreamer who drinks the koolaid by the gallon and refuses to face reality.
post 1617833351 09-28-2020, 01:11 PM
-
#11
  1. ByAssociation
  2. Registered User
  1. ByAssociation
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 1,984
  6. Rep Power: 5113
It's sortof hard to invent the ideal solution because you need to apply it to real life and real society and all the struggles that go along with that

I think there should be a separation for extreme cases where people who really basically commit crimes, just like at my job if I commit a reckless act or were to be under the influence of substances, perhaps that nullifies their QI, but if they are acting 'in good faith' they will retain it.... but just one problem would be implementing this system and getting it efficient


It's sortof bull**** that when individuals **** up even if they have a long history of being POS the taxpayer is the one who pays

But theres so much tax coming in and wasted it hardly matters
post 1617833381 09-28-2020, 01:12 PM
-
#12
  1. elterrible987
  2. Banned
  1. elterrible987
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 51,859
  5. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By katya422⏩
From CBS Sunday Morning:


Cliffs:

- police damage a citizen (their person or property) in the line of duty
- most citizens lose their case
- citizens that win their case (charges dismissed) generally still receive no compensation
- in court citizens are denied recompense because "qualified immunity", but even if there is a payment made it is made by the city/PD, not by individual officers
- PDs can claim qualified immunity for any messed up situation where they screw someone over, but there is no legal precedent for the claimant's case

If you prefer reading to video:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-con...fied-immunity/
Yeah lets cut the salary, cut the department budget and remove legal protections but expect the quality of police officers to go up. Who the hell would even apply to be a police officer as of TODAY much less in the future if this passes. You will only have people with no other choice or ability to do anything else take those jobs

Most of these idiots at the protests are unemployed, there are mass police retirements, vacancies are inevitable even with downsizing, will any of those retards be willing to go become cops to "fix the system"?
post 1617833651 09-28-2020, 01:15 PM
-
#13
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Posts: 28,898
  5. Rep Power: 342064
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
If you're a conservative, you oppose judicial activism. Section 1983's intent was clear and if it doesn't work, it's a matter for Congress to fix. There is only one correct answer: yes.



Bad take. Frivolous suits that can't articulate facts to support an actual Constitutional violation would be tossed in summary judgment, just as they are now.Shifting liability onto group insurance plans for departmentswould also incentivize them to fire actual bad cops and encourage good ones, instead of simping to unions.

Incidentally, all public employee unions should be abolished. The old-school Republicans had it right: public employee unionists are agents of Communism who should be stripped of their citizenship and deported as traitors.

(Not srs.)

(Semi-srs.)

(Completely serious about abolishing them entirely.)
This already exists and I work for one. AMA
6'2"

OMAD results: 2/15/19-235, 10/13/19-190

OHP-205 Bench- 245 Squat - 405 C&J - 245

2021 Spring cut: 195lbs starting weight
post 1617834551 09-28-2020, 01:24 PM
-
#14
  1. ByAssociation
  2. Registered User
  1. ByAssociation
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 1,984
  6. Rep Power: 5113
Originally Posted By ANumber1⏩
If you're a conservative, you oppose judicial activism.
It's always good to know that if you align with some political party you are basically told what your opinions are sounds legit srs
post 1617834971 09-28-2020, 01:28 PM
-
#15
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By knightofday⏩
Seconded. This thread, and frankly many of your opinions, are pie in the sky trash. You’re a liberal dreamer who drinks the koolaid by the gallon and refuses to face reality.
Question the rights of citizens vs. the rights of police officers = liberal?

I thought conservatives were the side that supported the right to bear arms as a protection against government tyranny?
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1617835221 09-28-2020, 01:31 PM
-
#16
  1. veggie530
  2. Not Aware
  1. veggie530
  2. Not Aware
  3. Join Date: Jan 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 12,078
  6. Rep Power: 155340
Originally Posted By katya422⏩
I'm good with that.

And people can sue now AFAIK.

What is the difference exactly between an employee of a private business damaging someone and an employee of a PD? Why is the PD immune exactly?

How about this:

- Lineman for the electric company enters your yard, gets freaked out about your big dog barking at him and shoot/kills the dog.

- Policeman following up on a report that a suspect is on your property enters your yard, gets freaked out about your big dog barking at him and shoots/kills the dog.

So if the lineman kills your dog you can pursue damages to cover the cost of replacing your dog, but if the policeman kills your dog then too bad...qualified immunity?

ETA: Did you watch? Did you see the story about the lady who was threatened that she would be liable for "harboring a criminal" if she didn't let the PD into her home?

Then when she gave the key they destroyed her house and later claim that she gave them permission to destroy her house when she gave them the key?

She wasn't a criminal, not even a suspect.
The lineman and police officer comparison is not even remotely the same, but I'll bite.

If both have legal reasons to be on your property, and your dog attacks them or gives them reasonable and prudent reason to fear for their safety/life, they can both kill your dog and would not should not be liable for damages to you. And neither one would be.

If I illegally travel onto your property and have the same fear, and kill your dog, I am liable for both civil and criminal culpability. So is a lineman. So is a LEO. Even with qualified immunity.

The company is liable for their employee. At best, LEO's would get insurance a la RN's do for malpractice, which evidence has shown leads to an increase in suits against RN's, culpability or not.

You people are literally making **** up as you go along.
Originally Posted By katya422⏩
Question the rights of citizens vs. the rights of police officers = liberal?

I thought conservatives were the side that supported the right to bear arms as a protection against government tyranny?
The citizen getting civil reparations from departments instead of active LEO's is irrelevant and inconsequential to the rights of said citizen. Also, LEO's are citizens.

You're knee deep in rhetoric.
August 2023:
BW: 194
B: 315 x 3, 225 x 14 (PR: 335)
S: 315 x 2, 225 x 18 (PR's)
DL: 405 x 1 (PR); Trap Bar DL: 405 x 1
OHP: 185 x 3 (PR), 135 x 16
Chins: 22(PR) Pushups: 83 (PR: 101)
1 Mile: 6:45 (PR: 5:52)
post 1617835231 09-28-2020, 01:31 PM
-
#17
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By elterrible987⏩
Yeah lets cut the salary, cut the department budget and remove legal protections but expect the quality of police officers to go up. Who the hell would even apply to be a police officer as of TODAY much less in the future if this passes. You will only have people with no other choice or ability to do anything else take those jobs

Most of these idiots at the protests are unemployed, there are mass police retirements, vacancies are inevitable even with downsizing, will any of those retards be willing to go become cops to "fix the system"?
My post didn't contain a single word about defunding the police and personally I don't support defunding the police.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1617835481 09-28-2020, 01:34 PM
-
#18
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By veggie530⏩
The lineman and police officer comparison is not even remotely the same, but I'll bite.

If both have legal reasons to be on your property, and your dog attacks them or gives them reasonable and prudent reason to fear for their safety/life, they can both kill your dog and would not should not be liable for damages to you. And neither one would be.

If I illegally travel onto your property and have the same fear, and kill your dog, I am liable for both civil and criminal culpability. So is a lineman. So is a LEO. Even with qualified immunity.

The company is liable for their employee. At best, LEO's would get insurance a la RN's do for malpractice, which evidence has shown leads to an increase in suits against RN's, culpability or not.

You people are literally making **** up as you go along.
The only thing I made up was the example.

I am curious what other people think about this issue as reported.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
post 1617835621 09-28-2020, 01:35 PM
-
#19
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Posts: 28,898
  5. Rep Power: 342064
Originally Posted By katya422⏩
Question the rights of citizens vs. the rights of police officers = liberal?

I thought conservatives were the side that supported the right to bear arms as a protection against government tyranny?
Conservatives aren't a monolith. There are a number of different types of us. You have nationalists, paleocons, libertarians and neocons all sharing the same space

I see stuff about qualified immunity on the news but at least in my state it isn't a very good defense. Sure you can pull the sovereign/qualified immunity card but if the officer legit did something fukd and it goes to a jury you get a proper butthole reaming. Thevastmajority of these claims are settled so its not like if they file a claim you just write "Qualified Immunity LOL" with a big red denied stamp on letter and send it back to them. Maybe its different in other states but we can't just do that here
6'2"

OMAD results: 2/15/19-235, 10/13/19-190

OHP-205 Bench- 245 Squat - 405 C&J - 245

2021 Spring cut: 195lbs starting weight
post 1617835931 09-28-2020, 01:38 PM
-
#20
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  3. Join Date: Aug 2010
  4. Posts: 41,881
  5. Rep Power: 2018771
Your proposition makes no sense.

What are the ramifications should you have your way? I know what they are and its not to your benefit.

Qualified immunity isn't cart blanche to do whatever the officer feels like doing. It is only qualified if reasonable and within the scope and performance of his or her duty.

Unreasonable actions do not qualify for protection. Also claims are paid by the agency and not the individual. You just cant take the officers possessions for showing up to do the job he/she is there to do.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about qualified immunity and has it's purpose.
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
post 1617835991 09-28-2020, 01:39 PM
-
#21
  1. ByAssociation
  2. Registered User
  1. ByAssociation
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Aug 2016
  4. Age: 46
  5. Posts: 1,984
  6. Rep Power: 5113
well i think lots of people think things are getting a bit out of hand especially conservatives ive spoken to in real life but the question is how can they improve accountability, i guess this talk about Qualified immunity is one way, but its perhaps not the best way, i also think its sortof another thing where the squeaky wheel is getting a lot of grease, even if there are bad cops everywhere i think most are good. i think mistakes that cross the line should perhaps be punished more harshly.
post 1617836141 09-28-2020, 01:40 PM
-
#22
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  3. Join Date: Aug 2010
  4. Posts: 41,881
  5. Rep Power: 2018771
Originally Posted By TBO1313⏩
Conservatives aren't a monolith. There are a number of different types of us. You have nationalists, paleocons, libertarians and neocons all sharing the same space

I see stuff about qualified immunity on the news but at least in my state it isn't a very good defense. Sure you can pull the sovereign/qualified immunity card but if the officer legit did something fukd and it goes to a jury you get a proper butthole reaming. Thevastmajority of these claims are settled so its not like if they file a claim you just write "Qualified Immunity LOL" with a big red denied stamp on letter and send it back to them. Maybe its different in other states but we can't just do that here
You're right. OP has a concept of blanket immunity. It's not true. If it goes to a jury, it didn't qualify as a defense in the case. The judge makes the determination to let the case advance based on the QI claim being relevant or not.

Just more cop hate
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
post 1617836361 09-28-2020, 01:42 PM
-
#23
  1. ImpressiveGainz
  2. Registered Troll, PhD
  1. ImpressiveGainz
  2. Registered Troll, PhD
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: New Braunfels, TX
  5. Posts: 16,745
  6. Rep Power: 183851
Is this like when Riggs accidentally blows up an entire building because he cuts the wrong wire and the LAPD has to pay to fix it? Or is it the opposite of that and Riggs has to pay for it? Or is it like neither one pays because he was just trying to do his job and mistakes were made?
Best thread: http://forum.obnoxiousbrutes.com/showthread.php?t=168274783
***Black Crew*** (emeritus)
post 1617836491 09-28-2020, 01:43 PM
-
#24
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  3. Join Date: Aug 2010
  4. Posts: 41,881
  5. Rep Power: 2018771
Originally Posted By ImpressiveGainz⏩
Is this like when Riggs accidentally blows up an entire building because he cuts the wrong wire and the LAPD has to pay to fix it? Or is it the opposite of that and Riggs has to pay for it? Or is it like neither one pays because he was just trying to do his job and mistakes were made?
OP thinks Riggs should pay for it. Currently the PD pays for it.

Go spit Riggs, go spit.
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
post 1617837141 09-28-2020, 01:51 PM
-
#25
  1. Kaliconic
  2. Registered User
  1. Kaliconic
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2019
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 5,211
  6. Rep Power: 26799
Originally Posted By memcop⏩
OP thinks Riggs should pay for it. Currently the PD pays for it.

Go spit Riggs, go spit.
Why is it better if the whole PD pays for it then the individual? If a single person screws up then it seems like they should suffer the consequences.

I don't know enough to know whether I suppose qualified immunity or not. I do know some conservatives I trust support getting rid of it, so it's at least a reasonable idea. That sets it apart from most of the crazy ideas supported by the left. Of course, removing qualified immunity wouldn't satisfy any of the defund the police crowd even a bit. Those people are idiots and probably couldn't understand what qualified immunity even is no matter how long you took to explain it to them. One of the reasons the debate about police is so depressing is that while there are likely good reforms that could be made, none of them are going to make any difference to the passionate but stupid and ignorant folks who are most angry about the police.
post 1617837151 09-28-2020, 01:51 PM
-
#26
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  1. TBO1313
  2. Never Registered
  3. Join Date: Dec 2013
  4. Posts: 28,898
  5. Rep Power: 342064
Originally Posted By memcop⏩
You're right. OP has a concept of blanket immunity. It's not true. If it goes to a jury, it didn't qualify as a defense in the case. The judge makes the determination to let the case advance based on the QI claim being relevant or not.

Just more cop hate
It's such garbage. The media specifically words it in such a way to confuse people and make them think that there is no recourse when there is and people are reimbursed all the time for stuff like this. I know because I send the checks lol.

The biggest problems I see personally are from young officers. I hardly ever get something across my desk from a 40 y/o officer that just makes me roll my eyes and say "WTF was this guy thinking?". I'm not sure if its just the type of young people that the police dept is attracting these days or just that the bad officers get weeded early. I will say that there are a couple of depts I deal with that are rotten to the core but by and large its good depts with a few bad officers and you see those same bad officers names come up over and over
6'2"

OMAD results: 2/15/19-235, 10/13/19-190

OHP-205 Bench- 245 Squat - 405 C&J - 245

2021 Spring cut: 195lbs starting weight
post 1617838711 09-28-2020, 02:06 PM
-
#27
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  3. Join Date: Aug 2010
  4. Posts: 41,881
  5. Rep Power: 2018771
Originally Posted By Kaliconic⏩
Why is it better if the whole PD pays for it then the individual? If a single person screws up then it seems like they should suffer the consequences.

I don't know enough to know whether I suppose qualified immunity or not. I do know some conservatives I trust support getting rid of it, so it's at least a reasonable idea. That sets it apart from most of the crazy ideas supported by the left. Of course, removing qualified immunity wouldn't satisfy any of the defund the police crowd even a bit. Those people are idiots and probably couldn't understand what qualified immunity even is no matter how long you took to explain it to them. One of the reasons the debate about police is so depressing is that while there are likely good reforms that could be made, none of them are going to make any difference to the passionate but stupid and ignorant folks who are most angry about the police.
It's not even close to reasonable.

Officer climbs a fence and breaks it. Officer pays?
Rushing to your home to catch a home invader and has a wreck? Officer pays?
Bad guy resists arrest and gets his arm broken? Officer pays?
Somebody lies in order to have someone arrested? Officer pays?
Countless other instances of where they are just working..Officer pays?

What would that cause? Me? I wouldn't work under those conditions

Under the current system, so long as the officer is working and acting within reason then the agency pays for the damage. Not the individual making 50k on average.
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
post 1617838961 09-28-2020, 02:08 PM
-
#28
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  1. memcop
  2. Crassiest Modulator Alive
  3. Join Date: Aug 2010
  4. Posts: 41,881
  5. Rep Power: 2018771
Originally Posted By TBO1313⏩
It's such garbage. The media specifically words it in such a way to confuse people and make them think that there is no recourse when there is and people are reimbursed all the time for stuff like this. I know because I send the checks lol.

The biggest problems I see personally are from young officers. I hardly ever get something across my desk from a 40 y/o officer that just makes me roll my eyes and say "WTF was this guy thinking?". I'm not sure if its just the type of young people that the police dept is attracting these days or just that the bad officers get weeded early. I will say that there are a couple of depts I deal with that are rotten to the core but by and large its good depts with a few bad officers and you see those same bad officers names come up over and over
I agree. I absolutely cannot stand rookies. At all. Wont even make eye contact unless they have 5 years on.
Homerotic Modulator, Envious of Idiocy
post 1617840141 09-28-2020, 02:25 PM
-
#29
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  1. ANumber1
  2. Duke of New York
  3. Join Date: Jul 2013
  4. Location: New York, United States
  5. Posts: 18,570
  6. Rep Power: 128694
Originally Posted By ByAssociation⏩
It's always good to know that if you align with some political party you are basically told what your opinions are sounds legit srs
I was talking about conservative norms, not party affiliation. You can be a liberal Republican if you want, bro. Trump did run as the most liberal Republican nominee in a generation and it worked:https://news.gallup.com/poll/196064/...andidates.aspx
Originally Posted By memcop⏩
Officer climbs a fence and breaks it. Officer pays?
Rushing to your home to catch a home invader and has a wreck? Officer pays?
Bad guy resists arrest and gets his arm broken? Officer pays?
Somebody lies in order to have someone arrested? Officer pays?
Countless other instances of where they are just working..Officer pays?
In all seriousness, literally none of this would be at issue unless there was a supported cause of action which requires a specific, articulated Constitutional violation on the part of the officer. Otherwise, it'd go out the window with summary judgment just like other baseless civil claims. The QI debate is specifically in relation to Section 1983 claims in federal court, not every mundane civil dispute over property damage and personal injury in state court.

With that said, I'd be more than fine with overturning QI but ensuring that 1983 claims are intent-based, or even just legislation that throws out the "clearly established" standard. Most of the worst abuses of QI are coming solely from that.
Nah, fukk that. I’m not doing that.
post 1617865961 09-28-2020, 07:20 PM
-
#30
  1. katya422
  1. katya422
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 34,673
  6. Rep Power: 372543
Originally Posted By memcop⏩
Your proposition makes no sense.

What are the ramifications should you have your way?I know what they are and its not to your benefit.

Qualified immunity isn't cart blanche to do whatever the officer feels like doing. It is only qualified if reasonable and within the scope and performance of his or her duty.

Unreasonable actions do not qualify for protection.Also claims are paid by the agency and not the individual.You just cant take the officers possessions for showing up to do the job he/she is there to do.

There is absolutely nothing unreasonable about qualified immunity and has it's purpose.
Originally Posted By memcop⏩
OP thinks Riggs should pay for it. Currently the PD pays for it.

Go spit Riggs, go spit.
Strong assumptions ITT.

I went back and re-read my posts to see if I said something to support the positions that are being attributed to me and...nope.

I gave cliffs of what was presented in the news broadcast.

The general idea I got from it was that qualified immunity is being used by PDs to deny paying damages and that IF damages are awarded that the PD (or employee union?) pays the damages.

It sounds like QI is being used as a blocking tactic to avoid accepting liability and it can leave victims with no legal recourse to recover damages. I even re-watched the video to be sure I remembered it correctly.

I didn't take a position for it or against it. I didn't even vote in the poll.

If you want to hear what seems sensible to me that would be that the PD is responsible for compensating people for damages incurred in the course of law enforcement operations. Financial liability (and any civil suit) would be on the PD. The PD could give themselves the power via employment contract to garnish wages or pensions, or void contracts.

I think it is reasonable to question the necessity of things like high speed chases and SWAT raids that damage buildings and potentially innocent bystanders. There should be some kind of evaluation about the threat level and the potential cost.

Did they really need to tear up that woman's house? Why couldn't they just watch the house? How much of a violent threat did this suspect pose to the general public and was it worth the cost of repairing a wrecked house topotentiallyapprehend him?

If the city decided that it was urgent and must be done then the city should pay to fix her house.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
Quick Navigation Top Misc
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts