Qualified immunity ends in NY.

[westwall]

So long as they are protected by qualified immunity those bad officers continue to destroy lives

No one is protected by qualified immunity for legitimate civil rights violations. They are protected from frivolous lawsuits.

It the legal principle of qualified immunity is abolished, police officers association and police departments will have to find another method of protection.

One method will be seeking harsh, punitive judgements against frivolous plaintiff's.

A method that will surely bankrupt many civil rights organisations.

Yes, they actually are. Thousands of people have had their life savings stolen by corrupt cops. Lives have been taken.

In LA county several years ago a rich guy owned some property and a corrupt deputy decided he wanted to confiscate the property so he lied about the guy being a drug dealer, they raided his home, and killed him.

The warrant was proven to be baseless but the corrupt deputy never went to prison.

County, date, and name of deputy, please.

1992, the victims name was Donald Peatling Scott. I don't remember the deputies name. The warrant was from Ventura County, the deputy was LA county.

 

[martybegan]

Don't get me wrong. I realize that qualified immunity has been a problem in many ways, but it's also a result of how the job ensures a large amount of confrontations with the public.

This is the aim of Defund the Police, aka Police Reform. When there are mental health emergencies let the mental health people take point. Spread some of their interactions out to other departments in government, lessening their burden of having to dal with situations they are not really trained for and worse, they don't want to do. And making a cop do shit they don't want to do makes for pissy cops.

LOL, "Police Reform". Sure, you guys propose to send unarmed people into these situations, they get shot, then you scream for more gun control.

Current "reform" is letting people get away with petty theft, because screw the people getting fucked over by it.

 

[Shelzin]

Now time to reform police unions back into their original intent.

??? Explain...

If you're actually interested, this article explains it well.

Police unions, explained - Vox

That... Doesn't really answer the question. I guess we should start with... What is the original intent of police unions? What are they doing now, that wasn't intended?

 

[fncceo]

So long as they are protected by qualified immunity those bad officers continue to destroy lives

No one is protected by qualified immunity for legitimate civil rights violations. They are protected from frivolous lawsuits.

It the legal principle of qualified immunity is abolished, police officers association and police departments will have to find another method of protection.

One method will be seeking harsh, punitive judgements against frivolous plaintiff's.

A method that will surely bankrupt many civil rights organisations.

Yes, they actually are. Thousands of people have had their life savings stolen by corrupt cops. Lives have been taken.

In LA county several years ago a rich guy owned some property and a corrupt deputy decided he wanted to confiscate the property so he lied about the guy being a drug dealer, they raided his home, and killed him.

The warrant was proven to be baseless but the corrupt deputy never went to prison.

County, date, and name of deputy, please.

1992, the victims name was Donald Peatling Scott. I don't remember the deputies name. The warrant was from Ventura County, the deputy was LA county.

There is an LA Times story behind a paywall (to which I'm not going to subscribe) but the first paragraph of that story leads with the fact that Donald Scott had "idiosyncracies" that led to a history of police involvements. There is also a Wikipedia entry on The Shooting of Donald Scott. In that article it clearly states that Scott confronted Deputies for LA Country, as well as DEA, Border Patrol, California National Guard, and Parks Department (he lived on a remote property in Ventura County).

Ultimately, despite a comprehensive search, involving the services of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, no marijuana was found.

The reports say that he initially held the weapon, a .38 cal revolver, over his head but lowered it and pointed it at police when he was shot.

There was a wrongful lawsuit filed -- so officers were not protected in this case by qualified immunity -- after 8 years, The County settled with Scott's heirs for $5 million. The Ventura DA stated he believed asset forfeiture was the motivation for the raid but this was never determined at court. Sheriff's investigation found no wrong-doing in the shooting.

No one was criminally charged in this case so no one was ever eligible for jail time.

Obviously, there is more to this story. I don't believe that a single officer, coveting the property of Scott, was able to get a County Judge is issue a warrant, involve five agencies in massive raid, simply to get his hands on Scott's property -- particularly when Scott had a wife and grown children who ultimately inherited all his property and assets.

There is no information in either story I read to suggest on what evidence a judge issued a search warrant for the remote 200 acre property.

Ultimately, qualified immunity has no bearing on this case and since Scott leveled a weapon on officers or five different agencies acting on court orders, it would be difficult to argue this is a clear violation of existing Civil Rights legislation.

 

[Synthaholic]

Now time to reform police unions back into their original intent.

??? Explain...

If you're actually interested, this article explains it well.

Police unions, explained - Vox

That... Doesn't really answer the question. I guess we should start with... What is the original intent of police unions? What are they doing now, that wasn't intended?

To protect officers.

 

[westwall]

So long as they are protected by qualified immunity those bad officers continue to destroy lives

No one is protected by qualified immunity for legitimate civil rights violations. They are protected from frivolous lawsuits.

It the legal principle of qualified immunity is abolished, police officers association and police departments will have to find another method of protection.

One method will be seeking harsh, punitive judgements against frivolous plaintiff's.

A method that will surely bankrupt many civil rights organisations.

Yes, they actually are. Thousands of people have had their life savings stolen by corrupt cops. Lives have been taken.

In LA county several years ago a rich guy owned some property and a corrupt deputy decided he wanted to confiscate the property so he lied about the guy being a drug dealer, they raided his home, and killed him.

The warrant was proven to be baseless but the corrupt deputy never went to prison.

County, date, and name of deputy, please.

1992, the victims name was Donald Peatling Scott. I don't remember the deputies name. The warrant was from Ventura County, the deputy was LA county.

There is an LA Times story behind a paywall (to which I'm not going to subscribe) but the first paragraph of that story leads with the fact that Donald Scott had "idiosyncracies" that led to a history of police involvements. There is also a Wikipedia entry on The Shooting of Donald Scott. In that article it clearly states that Scott confronted Deputies for LA Country, as well as DEA, Border Patrol, California National Guard, and Parks Department (he lived on a remote property in Ventura County).

Ultimately, despite a comprehensive search, involving the services of NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab, no marijuana was found.

The reports say that he initially held the weapon, a .38 cal revolver, over his head but lowered it and pointed it at police when he was shot.

There was a wrongful lawsuit filed -- so officers were not protected in this case by qualified immunity -- after 8 years, The County settled with Scott's heirs for $5 million. The Ventura DA stated he believed asset forfeiture was the motivation for the raid but this was never determined at court. Sheriff's investigation found no wrong-doing in the shooting.

No one was criminally charged in this case so no one was ever eligible for jail time.

Obviously, there is more to this story. I don't believe that a single officer, coveting the property of Scott, was able to get a County Judge is issue a warrant, involve five agencies in massive raid, simply to get his hands on Scott's property -- particularly when Scott had a wife and grown children who ultimately inherited all his property and assets.

There is no information in either story I read to suggest on what evidence a judge issued a search warrant for the remote 200 acre property.

Ultimately, qualified immunity has no bearing on this case and since Scott leveled a weapon on officers or five different agencies acting on court orders, it would be difficult to argue this is a clear violation of existing Civil Rights legislation.

I suggest you do more research than just the wiki page. The deputies didn't identify themselves so he had no idea who was banging on his door. He had lowered his weapon when he was killed.

There is tons of material on just this one shooting. I suggest you avail yourself of it.

 

[Shelzin]

To protect officers.

??? Was that answer to the original intent or what wasn't intended that they are doing?

 

[playtime]

cops are not above the law.

So you would rather do everything to hamstring them from doing their frigging job?

wow - you got THAT outa what i said? silly comprehension deficient *you*.

believe it or not - some cops **** up & knowingly go beyond what is standard procedure & they shouldn't have the cloak of that 'immunity' to give them permission to do it.

You know what else happens a lot? Liberal DA's go after cops who DIDNT **** up. Good policemen will avoid any place that lets them gets sued by you left wingers that are hell bent on destroying cops.

well - perhaps if them thar po po actually turn their little body or dash cams on it might cut down on that, 'eh?

If the city doesnt want cops to turn them off, then they can make body cams that cant be turned off.

excuses, excuses.

 

[struth]

I understand the reasoning and concept behind this, but it will make it that much harder to draw people to want a career in LE.

JMO

Can you explain to me the reasoning and concept behind this?

This article provides a decent explanation:

Accountability is an absolute necessity for meaningful criminal justice reform, and any attempt to provide greater accountability must confront the doctrine of qualified immunity. This judicial doctrine, invented by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, protects state and local officials from liability, even when they act unlawfully, so long as their actions do not violate “clearly established law.” In practice, this legal standard is a huge hurdle for civil rights plaintiffs because it generally requires them to identify not just a clear legal rule but a prior case with functionally identical facts.

Qualified immunity is one of the most obviously unjustified legal doctrines in our nation’s history. Although it is nominally an interpretation of our primary federal civil rights statute, that statute says nothing about any immunities, qualified or otherwise. And the common‐law background against which it was passed also contained nothing like the across‐the‐board immunity for public officials that characterizes the doctrine today. Qualified immunity has also been disastrous as a matter of policy. Victims of egregious misconduct are often left without any legal remedy simply because there does not happen to be a prior case on the books involving the exact same sort of misconduct. By undermining public accountability at a structural level, the doctrine also hurts the law enforcement community by denying police the degree of public trust and confidence they need to do their jobs safely and effectively.

Qualified Immunity: A Legal, Practical, and Moral Failure

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that protects public officials from liability, even when they break the law. The doctrine has no valid legal basis, it regularly denies justice to victims whose rights have been violated, and it severely undermines official accountability, especially for...

www.cato.org

It does a complete and total distortion of what it is. Qualified immunity allowed, in some cases, for people to sue...prior to it, and in most cases it still exist, is Soviegn Immunity. Qualifed Immunity allowed people to get around that doctrine.

The piece confuses the two doctrines....

 

[Godboy]

cops are not above the law.

So you would rather do everything to hamstring them from doing their frigging job?

wow - you got THAT outa what i said? silly comprehension deficient *you*.

believe it or not - some cops **** up & knowingly go beyond what is standard procedure & they shouldn't have the cloak of that 'immunity' to give them permission to do it.

You know what else happens a lot? Liberal DA's go after cops who DIDNT **** up. Good policemen will avoid any place that lets them gets sued by you left wingers that are hell bent on destroying cops.

well - perhaps if them thar po po actually turn their little body or dash cams on it might cut down on that, 'eh?

If the city doesnt want cops to turn them off, then they can make body cams that cant be turned off.

excuses, excuses.

Yes, you are full of those.

 

[Mac-7]

Ending qualified immunity is perfectly appropriate, warranted, and welcomed.

I suspect that recruiting and retention will decline after this

 

[GMCGeneral]

Ending qualified immunity is perfectly appropriate, warranted, and welcomed.

I suspect that recruiting and retention will decline after this

Big time! Liberals hate law and order and love criminals.

 

[Mac-7]

Liberals hate law and order and love criminals.

Libs seldom think about the consequences of their actions

I dont know how many NYDP cops working the streets are qualified for retirement but I bet they are all considering it today

The detectives and desk jockies may not leave but any rookie coming in will start working the streets where the ACLU and every biden voter are itching to sue them

why should anyone sign up for that?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Is Deblasio personally liable for anything he does?

 

[SC Patriot]

So now, if someone is arrested for an alleged crime, they will have the right to sue the officer if they feel the officer did not handle the situation correctly.

In other words...if a suspected perp feels violated, that suspected perp can sue the officer personally.

Now.....lets be …reasonable.....when one is arrested it is one of the worst days of their lives....guilty or not guilty...it is a bad day.

So perhaps the guilty will have a tough road to prove they were violated.......but what about the not guilty? Are they not going to see an advantage here to make some extra cash? Will there be no ambulance chasers to talk them into making some cash on their misfortune?

Now....before all of you progressives jump on the "the innocent should never be arrested" mantra......most that are arrested and found not guilty in court, or found not prosecutable by the DA, are those that associate with criminals with no evidence of illegal action....but they know dam well they were arrested because of who they associate with.

So now they can sue for improper arrest?

Lets see how that pans out.

 

[JoeMoma]

For being found guilty of a crime, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. For simply being arrested there simply needs to be reasonable evidence to suspect the person of the crime.

 

[SC Patriot]

For being found guilty of a crime, the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. For simply being arrested there simply needs to be reasonable evidence to suspect the person of the crime.

So when someone is driving a stolen car and they swear they borrowed it from their friend, they should not be arrested? And what if they actually did borrow it from a friend? Do they now have the right to sue the officer who arrested them?

 

[JoeMoma]

Do they now have the right to sue the officer who arrested them?

Maybe. Need more details. Was the car reported stolen?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

So now, if someone is arrested for an alleged crime, they will have the right to sue the officer if they feel the officer did not handle the situation correctly.

In other words...if a suspected perp feels violated, that suspected perp can sue the officer personally.

Now.....lets be …reasonable.....when one is arrested it is one of the worst days of their lives....guilty or not guilty...it is a bad day.

So perhaps the guilty will have a tough road to prove they were violated.......but what about the not guilty? Are they not going to see an advantage here to make some extra cash? Will there be no ambulance chasers to talk them into making some cash on their misfortune?

Now....before all of you progressives jump on the "the innocent should never be arrested" mantra......most that are arrested and found not guilty in court, or found not prosecutable by the DA, are those that associate with criminals with no evidence of illegal action....but they know dam well they were arrested because of who they associate with.

So now they can sue for improper arrest?

Lets see how that pans out.

Yep. Bad idea.

 

[SC Patriot]

Do they now have the right to sue the officer who arrested them?

Maybe. Need more details. Was the car reported stolen?

. Why would an officer pull over a potentially stolen car if the tag number did not match that of a reported stolen car?

Is that a diversion from the point at hand because you really don't know how to respond?