Social Qualified Immunity and Excessive Force

[spamking]

This is a pretty interesting read . . .




U.S. Supreme Court has increasingly protected police accused of excessive force -even when their actions have been deemed illegal- through 'Qualified Immunity'

 

[phoenixikki]

"I thought my life was in danger"

 

[HockeyBjj]

Supreme Court rules cops have 0 duty to protect a citizen

The only reason they carry guns is to protect themselves

Don’t rely on police to save you. They’re there to arrest bad guys only when it is safe to do so, no matter how many bodies they have to step over to do that very basic job.

 

[method115]

Supreme Court rules cops have 0 duty to protect a citizen

The only reason they carry guns is to protect themselves

Don’t rely on police to save you. They’re there to arrest bad guys only when it is safe to do so, no matter how many bodies they have to step over to do that very basic job.

I think the job is far from basic but agreed with the rest.

 

[all caps]

Weve conducted an internal investigation and found weve done no wrong

 

[Belaya Smert]

A Missouri police sniper killed a 2-year-old girl. Why did he take the shot?

A KCUR and Midwest Newsroom investigation reveals the chain of events that ended in the death of Clesslynn Crawford in March 2022.

www.kcur.org

Here is a story from NPR yesterday.
Sniper 1 killed this girl while shooting at a silhouette of a person in a window. He couldn’t differentiate what he was shooting at and still took the shot.

Sent out with an order to shoot
By the way Sniper 1 is still an active Joplin Police Officer for anyone that bothers to care.

 

[Joshuaace]

If you took an oath to uphold the constitution, then you should be held to a higher standard of accountability when you break that oath. QI stinks.

 

[Sinister]

A Missouri police sniper killed a 2-year-old girl. Why did he take the shot?

A KCUR and Midwest Newsroom investigation reveals the chain of events that ended in the death of Clesslynn Crawford in March 2022.

www.kcur.org

Here is a story from NPR yesterday.
Sniper 1 killed this girl while shooting at a silhouette of a person in a window. He couldn’t differentiate what he was shooting at and still took the shot.

Sent out with an order to shoot
By the way Sniper 1 is still an active Joplin Police Officer for anyone that bothers to care.

This is the same circumstance as that Cop that shot that case worker with the mentally ill guy holding the truck. Guy was on his back with his hands up and the sniper shot him anyway. He asked the guy why he shot him and the sniper said "I dont know." Cop faced no punishment because he "was just following orders."

 

[The XL]

The practice of immunity is a threat to freedom and justice.

 

[NoSmilez]

These cops should be under more scrutiny. You should be able to sue them directly too.

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

 

[nhbbear]

Wow, what a fun anti-police circle jerk we got in here.

Qualified immunity needs restructured a bit, but I understand the design and intent of it. The fact that an officer can do something truly fucked up and if it hasn’t been ruled on before that you can’t stick a hedgehog up someone’s ass, then the officer may get QI.

But most of the time, QI protects the individual officers from lawsuits and not the department. This is to protect the officers doing their jobs without fear of being sued all the time. This is because police work requires split second life or death decisions. And an officer getting QI doesn’t stop the family from suing the department and getting millions, it stops the people from suing the officer for his ford f150.

All use of force is judged by the 4th amendment and Supreme Court cases that govern use of force like graham v Connor and tn vs garner. If a judge rules that the use of force violates the 4th amendment and those cases, the lawsuit moves forward.

I don’t know how some of these cases mentioned in the article when others that were clearly justified uses of force (alton sterling, for one) get millions when a shitbag pedo trying to get a gun out of his pocket is shot.

 

[Ornife]

Today I learned if you question a police sniper's decision to shoot a toddler you are anti-cop and participating in a circle jerk.

 

[dirtypablo]

Wow, what a fun anti-police circle jerk we got in here.

Qualified immunity needs restructured a bit, but I understand the design and intent of it. The fact that an officer can do something truly fucked up and if it hasn’t been ruled on before that you can’t stick a hedgehog up someone’s ass, then the officer may get QI.

But most of the time, QI protects the individual officers from lawsuits and not the department. This is to protect the officers doing their jobs without fear of being sued all the time. This is because police work requires split second life or death decisions. And an officer getting QI doesn’t stop the family from suing the department and getting millions, it stops the people from suing the officer for his ford f150.

All use of force is judged by the 4th amendment and Supreme Court cases that govern use of force like graham v Connor and tn vs garner. If a judge rules that the use of force violates the 4th amendment and those cases, the lawsuit moves forward.

I don’t know how some of these cases mentioned in the article when others that were clearly justified uses of force (alton sterling, for one) get millions when a shitbag pedo trying to get a gun out of his pocket is shot.

Imagine the horror if police officers had to stop and think about the consequences of their actions. People are well aware of the fact that qualified immunity protects the individual - that's the problem. An individual does something horrible, suffers no consequences, and the taxpayer pays for it.

 

[gatchaman]

Wow, what a fun anti-police circle jerk we got in here.

Qualified immunity needs restructured a bit, but I understand the design and intent of it. The fact that an officer can do something truly fucked up and if it hasn’t been ruled on before that you can’t stick a hedgehog up someone’s ass, then the officer may get QI.

But most of the time, QI protects the individual officers from lawsuits and not the department. This is to protect the officers doing their jobs without fear of being sued all the time. This is because police work requires split second life or death decisions. And an officer getting QI doesn’t stop the family from suing the department and getting millions, it stops the people from suing the officer for his ford f150.

All use of force is judged by the 4th amendment and Supreme Court cases that govern use of force like graham v Connor and tn vs garner. If a judge rules that the use of force violates the 4th amendment and those cases, the lawsuit moves forward.

I don’t know how some of these cases mentioned in the article when others that were clearly justified uses of force (alton sterling, for one) get millions when a shitbag pedo trying to get a gun out of his pocket is shot.

If a surgeon amputates the wrong limb then he is not individually protected from lawsuits, yet he is capable of doing his job in spite of the fear that he might be sued at any moment.

Why can't police officers be responsible for acquiring their own liability insurance as surgeons are?

Police officers could be reimbursed for the standard amount of liability insurance, as surgeons are, and bad police would be priced out of business by increasing premiums above the standard amount if there are too many successful lawsuits.

Police officers would be motivated to stand up for themselves in lawsuits and would have the backing of insurance company lawyers looking to minimize insurance pay outs.

 

[nhbbear]

Today I learned if you question a police sniper's decision to shoot a toddler you are anti-cop and participating in a circle jerk.

Is that all you learned or got from that? I wasn’t even looking at the “what about this one” so I didn’t even know what the sniper thing was about. I was looking at the comments about investigating themselves and violating rights without actually discussing qualified immunity.

 

[nhbbear]

If a surgeon amputates the wrong limb then he is not individually protected from lawsuits, yet he is capable of doing his job in spite of the fear that he might be sued at any moment.

Why can't police officers be responsible for acquiring their own liability insurance as surgeons are?

Police officers could be reimbursed for the standard amount of liability insurance, as surgeons are, and bad police would be priced out of business by increasing premiums above the standard amount if there are too many successful lawsuits.

Police officers would be motivated to stand up for themselves in lawsuits and would have the backing of insurance company lawyers looking to minimize insurance pay outs.

Well, if you want to compare it to a surgeon, has a surgeon ever had to amputate a leg while the patient was running at them in the dark?

I will never be one to say that there are bad cops or those that fuck up, but I have seen way too many cops get thrown under the bus for perfectly good shoots. QI is there for the ones that are on the line

 

[nhbbear]

Imagine the horror if police officers had to stop and think about the consequences of their actions. People are well aware of the fact that qualified immunity protects the individual - that's the problem. An individual does something horrible, suffers no consequences, and the taxpayer pays for it.

You guys keep missing the part where I think QI needs some tweaks. I don’t want to protect bad cops. I want them out of the profession. I just see more good cops getting railroaded than bad cops being driven from policing

 

[gatchaman]

Well, if you want to compare it to a surgeon, has a surgeon ever had to amputate a leg while the patient was running at them in the dark?

I will never be one to say that there are bad cops or those that fuck up, but I have seen way too many cops get thrown under the bus for perfectly good shoots. QI is there for the ones that are on the line

This argument makes no sense. Taxi drivers are at greater risk of homicide than police officers. Should taxi drivers get QI?

The comparison of police officers to surgeons makes sense because both surgical errors and policing errors can result in permanent injury and death.

Your original argument was that QI is "to protect the officers doing their jobs without fear of being sued all the time". But somehow this fear doesn't prevent surgeons from making life and death decisions even though each decision could result in a lawsuit.

 

[Sinister]

If a surgeon amputates the wrong limb then he is not individually protected from lawsuits, yet he is capable of doing his job in spite of the fear that he might be sued at any moment.

Why can't police officers be responsible for acquiring their own liability insurance as surgeons are?

Police officers could be reimbursed for the standard amount of liability insurance, as surgeons are, and bad police would be priced out of business by increasing premiums above the standard amount if there are too many successful lawsuits.

Police officers would be motivated to stand up for themselves in lawsuits and would have the backing of insurance company lawyers looking to minimize insurance pay outs.

Not so fast. Look into State Medical boards, who sits on them, and how hard it is to get a sh*tty Doctor's license revoked. This isnt exclusive to policing.