|
Main Paineframe posted:Do you think she should have? Do you think that the court wrongly upheld qualified immunity in these cases...  Main Paineframe posted:and that the cops were indeed guilty of excessive force that they should have known was clearly unconstitutional? What other profession enjoys this legal standard? Do doctors get to say they shouldn't be expected to know whether they're committing malpractice or not?
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
Like I do not see the necessity for QI at all, even getting a court to rule that a cop's actions were unreasonable or excessive is an insanely high bar in the American justice system, what possible benefit to anyone is there from adding another hurdle where even if you manage that it doesn't count if the cop can just go "durrrr I dunno how to do my job" and now you have to go find a case of someone else prevailing on this exact fact pattern which conveniently can almost never exist since even if it did happen before the victim in that situation didn't have any legal recourse either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like I do not see the necessity for QI at all, even getting a court to rule that a cop's actions were unreasonable or excessive is an insanely high bar in the American justice system, what possible benefit to anyone is there from adding another hurdle where even if you manage that it doesn't count if the cop can just go "durrrr I dunno how to do my job" and now you have to go find a case of someone else prevailing on this exact fact pattern which conveniently can almost never exist since even if it did happen before the victim in that situation didn't have any legal recourse either. QI would make far more sense if the finding shifted liability to the city/state. In other words, "this officer did not know this was wrong, therefore his hiring department is fully liable." Instead if lets them hide behind the immunity from lawsuits of the state/government the officer works for. This means that there is no cause of action for redressing most violations of the bill of rights!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 22:59
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:QI would make far more sense if the finding shifted liability to the city/state. In other words, "this officer did not know this was wrong, therefore his hiring department is fully liable." Instead if lets them hide behind the immunity from lawsuits of the state/government the officer works for. This means that there is no cause of action for redressing most violations of the bill of rights! Yeah wasn't this the reason reconstruction legislation created personal liability in the first place? Because local governments would just go "oh we aren't violating anyone's rights, the sheriff just did that on his own, la dee dah" and poof there's no recourse because the city isn't technically doing it officially and the sheriff isn't technically committing a crime. E: lol yes it was and the court case that established QI awarded it to cops who arrested black freedom riders for having lunch in a coffeeshop, hm yeah great precedent real solid basis there, whatever will we do without this very wise doctrine created to protect Jim Crow loving cops as they abused their power to persecute black people even harder than Jim Crow laws actually allowed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierson_v._Ray VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Oct 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2021 23:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah wasn't this the reason reconstruction legislation created personal liability in the first place? Because local governments would just go "oh we aren't violating anyone's rights, the sheriff just did that on his own, la dee dah" and poof there's no recourse because the city isn't technically doing it officially and the sheriff isn't technically committing a crime. Although the Wikipedia page for Qualified Immunity says that Pierson v. Ray established qualified immunity, you should read beyond the summary at the top of the page - you might find that the Warren Court laid out something very different from the qualified immunity we know today. The part of Pierson that later became qualified immunity revolved around the fact that the police had arrested the riders for violation of a law that was, several years later, found unconstitutional, and the officers were thus charged with false arrest for arresting the riders based on that law. quote:The common law has never granted police officers an absolute and unqualified immunity, and the officers in this case do not claim that they are entitled to one. Their claim is, rather, that they should not be liable if they acted in good faith and with probable cause in making an arrest under a statute that they believed to be valid. Under the prevailing view in this country, a peace officer who arrests someone with probable cause is not liable for false arrest simply because the innocence of the suspect is later proved. That's a pretty sensible holding, overall. But the court did not extend full immunity to them based on that: quote:This holding does not, however, mean that the count based thereon should be dismissed. The Court of Appeals ordered dismissal of the common law count on the theory that the police officers were not required to predict our decision in Thomas v. Mississippi, 380 U. S. 524. We agree that a police officer is not charged with predicting the future course of constitutional law. But the petitioners in this case did not simply argue that they were arrested under a statute later held unconstitutional. They claimed and attempted to prove that the police officers arrested them solely for attempting to use the "White Only" waiting room, that no crowd was present, and that no one threatened violence or seemed about to cause a disturbance. After laying out the "good faith and probable cause" bit, the Court pointed out the fact that according to the plaintiffs, the officers had not acted with probable cause or in good faith in enforcing that law. As such, they were not entitled to immunity on those grounds. The ruling in that case was, overall, a pretty good ruling. The rest of it was pretty solid too - the Supreme Court smacked down some pretty blatant red-baiting as prejudicial to the jury, and ruled that going there expecting to be arrested didn't deprive the riders of their right to recover damages in court. (the lower courts were poo poo, as you might expect from Mississippi in those days)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Like I do not see the necessity for QI at all, . The purpose of QI is to make it legal for cops to kill and abuse brown (and/or poor) people without repercussion. It's pretty straightforward once the pretense is stripped away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:49
|
|
|
Qualified immunity was invented by the Court out of whole cloth. There is no defense of any decision that does not say "we hosed up this is a fabrication".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
That ruling also had no small amount of focus on "well the judge can't be punished for his ruling, punishing judges is bad" either, with the lone dissenter pointing out that Congress had debated giving immunity to judges and didn't add it, therefore the idea judges are supposed to have immunity is at odds with the law and Congress's intent. But it'll be a cold day in hell before the judiciary passes on the chance to make itself more powerful and a colder day still when the Legislature and Executive smack them down for it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 01:25
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Qualified immunity was invented by the Court out of whole cloth. There is no defense of any decision that does not say "we hosed up this is a fabrication".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
I guess I'll protect your eyes by not posting true things in the future. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
nevermind
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The part of Pierson that later became qualified immunity revolved around the fact that the police had arrested the riders for violation of a law that was, several years later, found unconstitutional, and the officers were thus charged with false arrest for arresting the riders based on that law. Did the freedom riders actually break the law. The law the police used as justification was: quote:"makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby, and refuses to move on when ordered to do so by a police officer." The cops' argument was that just being Freedom Riders in a coffeeshop was inherently a breach of the peace because other people (like the cops lol) might want to beat them up. Seems to me that the arrest was bullshit whether the law was constitutional or not. Even if I assumed that the law was 100% a-ok constitutional, I still don't get from there to "ok yeah cops can arrest anyone they don't like as long as they ask them to leave on the grounds that cops not liking them is a breach of the peace". E: ah ok I should have finished reading your post. I'm glad you agree that these particular cops should still have been punished, but I still don't think the first part of the ruling was reasonable at all. Why shouldn't cops have to answer for what they do? Since when is "I was just following orders" a defense for violating people's human rights? And in almost every QI case the cops weren't even ordered to violate anyone's rights, they gleefully do it on their own initiative and then argue that it's okay because no authority ever explicitly told them it was wrong. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 04:18 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 03:55
|
|
|
Both the judge and the cops in that case were being blatantly racist and abusing the law to target a group they didn't like for personal reasons, regardless of the validity of the law itself. The SCOTUS decided it would be better to declare sweeping immunity for the state because otherwise they'd have to allow cops (and worse to them, members of the judiciary) to be held accountable for abusing their authority. QI is bullshit and anyone who defends its existence is garbage. Period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 13:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:QI is bullshit and anyone who defends its existence is garbage. Period. What’s your take of the existence of sovereign immunity at all, of which qualified immunity is just a subset?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 14:31
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What’s your take of the existence of sovereign immunity at all, of which qualified immunity is just a subset? I mean, there's a decent argument that it has no place in an equitable democracy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 14:54
|
|
|
Question for more legal-minded people. How does QI make sense? It requires a similar precedent to overturn. But, doesn't that then imply that, at some point, the original ruling had no precedent? So how can you justify requiring precedent, but acknowledge that it had no precedent? It really seems farcical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 14:55
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I mean, there's a decent argument that it has no place in an equitable democracy. There’s another decent argument that governmental funds should only be paid out according to the democratically elected legislature and not allocated by the judicial branch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 15:48
|
|
|
Calumanjaro posted:Question for more legal-minded people. The way it in theory works is that a particular case comes up and in that case, the lack of precedent provides QI but the court says “this is a constitutional violation” and from that point forward cops are on notice. Courts often do not get to that second step, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 15:58
|
|
|
ulmont posted:What’s your take of the existence of sovereign immunity at all, of which qualified immunity is just a subset? Sounds like leftover dross from the era of divine right of kings that our monarchy-obsessed founders kept around for no real reason ulmont posted:There’s another decent argument that governmental funds should only be paid out according to the democratically elected legislature and not allocated by the judicial branch. Like what are you saying here, you're against any legal recourse period for anyone whose rights are violated by the government? Even the rare payouts victims of police brutality sometimes get are too much and instead they should have to go ask the city council that hires and protects those cops from accountability to please be nice and give up some cash? Yeah I don't see that working out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 16:40
|
|
|
ulmont posted:There’s another decent argument that governmental funds should only be paid out according to the democratically elected legislature and not allocated by the judicial branch. I mean, only if your argument is that courts shouldn't be reviewing any civil governmental cases whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 16:44
|
|
|
Kaal posted:I mean, only if your argument is that courts shouldn't be reviewing any civil governmental cases whatsoever. Those civil cases are permitted because the government has created private causes of action. The default would otherwise be Sovereign Immunity. The "democratically elected legislature" creating the cause of action means that it's not purely a judicial action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 16:50
|
|
|
Ok so then the democratically elected legislature should abolish sovereign immunity then it wouldn't be a wholly judicial action, dumb objection solved
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 16:57
|
|
|
Devor posted:Those civil cases are permitted because the government has created private causes of action. The default would otherwise be Sovereign Immunity. That's simply acknowledging that courts only have legitimacy when subject to the legislature, it has nothing to do with financial allocation. A court acting outside the law is unauthorized and illegitimate by definition. There's no special case here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
ulmont posted:There’s another decent argument that governmental funds should only be paid out according to the democratically elected legislature and not allocated by the judicial branch. If that's your objection, let's make cops qnd judges personally liable
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:00
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok so then the democratically elected legislature should abolish sovereign immunity then it wouldn't be a wholly judicial action, dumb objection solved Right, so currently there is a judicial ruling that racist police can use QI to invoke SI. That SI is waived by existing statutes to let you sue the police department, but it's hard to win, because now you're suing the department over their training policies, etc... So you would need to create a law explicitly bypassing QI like Colorado. Or, have SCOTUS change its mind about QI, but that doesn't seem like it's going to happen. But for a lower court to say QI applies, and then have the court create a waiver of Sovereign Immunity not contemplated by the legislature raises separation of powers problems. Edit: Kaal posted:That's simply acknowledging that courts only have legitimacy when subject to the legislature, it has nothing to do with financial allocation. A court acting outside the law is unauthorized and illegitimate by definition. There's no special case here. In the absence of statutes waiving Sovereign Immunity, no, courts should not be conducting civil cases that would simply be dismissed due to Sovereign Immunity. Devor fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:That ruling also had no small amount of focus on "well the judge can't be punished for his ruling, punishing judges is bad" either, with the lone dissenter pointing out that Congress had debated giving immunity to judges and didn't add it, therefore the idea judges are supposed to have immunity is at odds with the law and Congress's intent. While the opinion certainly said a lot about judicial immunity, I don't really think there's much room to dispute the actual specifics of the Supreme Court's ruling on that particular judge, which was that it's not a crime for a judge to convict someone for violating a law that was later struck down by the Supreme Court. That's a pretty fundamental part of the American judicial system. Evil Fluffy posted:Both the judge and the cops in that case were being blatantly racist and abusing the law to target a group they didn't like for personal reasons, regardless of the validity of the law itself. The SCOTUS decided it would be better to declare sweeping immunity for the state because otherwise they'd have to allow cops (and worse to them, members of the judiciary) to be held accountable for abusing their authority. Sorry, but I just got done explaining how the cops did not, in fact, get immunity in that case, and how the immunity discussed in that case has basically nothing in common with qualified immunity as it's used today. Calumanjaro posted:Question for more legal-minded people. QI as it's interpreted today by current courts doesn't make much sense from our perspective. But that requirement for a similar precedent wasn't always there. It's part of a series of legal contortions the doctrine went through as judges sought to reduce subjectivity in its application for various reasons. Initially, QI depended on whether the cop had "good faith" and "probable cause". In other words, whether the cop was attempting to fairly apply the law as they understood it, without malice or intent to abuse. This was basically an okay standard, which makes a lot of sense. However, it was very subjective since it depended on interpreting the cop's motivations, and thus didn't apply in cases where the cop was alleged to be acting maliciously. Which was fine! During the 60s and 70s, though, the Court was frequently faced with state or federal executive officials claiming absolute immunity from various lawsuits due to their executive status. In many of these cases, the Court opted to downgrade their immunity from absolute immunity to qualified immunity. However, the Court also felt that the "good faith and probable cause" doctrine wasn't precise enough for the complexities of being a high-level civil servant, and imposed more complex evaluations on qualified immunity depending on the position the defendant holds and the scope of their work. In 1978's Butz v. Economou, where the Dept of Agriculture was accused of terminating someone's commodity futures registration as retaliation for criticism of the agency. The Dept of Ag claimed absolute immunity, which the Court knocked down to qualified immunity. As part of the opinion there, though, the court wrote that qualified immunity struck a good balance in terms of letting citizens sue officials for real violations while still providing a method to quickly dispose of "insubstantial lawsuits" that were nothing more than bullshit abuses of the legal system. I highlight that because, even though it makes sense on its own, it laid the framework for most of the issues in... ...Harlow v. Fitzgerald in 1982, a case involving Nixon's aides claiming absolute immunity. Here, the Court claimed that the "good faith" portion that depended on subjective evaluation of the officer's motivations tended to undermine the Butz principle of using QI to quickly dispose of insubstantial claims without a trial. As such, the Court replaced it with a new test it thought was more objective: whether the state has violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". And honestly, on paper, that test doesn't sound so bad at all. In practice, though, what does "clearly established" mean? How "clearly" does a law or right have to be "established"? Who does it have to be "clearly established" by? Does it have to be "clearly established" nationwide, or just in the state or region? The Court thought that was quite objective in Harlow, but in practice it led to lots of instances of the Supreme Court interpreting it more narrowly than previous courts and overruling them. To me, the text of Harlow implies pretty clearly that the "clearly established" part was meant to preserve the spirit of Pierson v. Ray by giving a bit of slack on laws or rights that were recently or were about to be invented, overturned, or modified by the courts. In other words, it was originally intended to be a narrow interpretation, where the only things not "clearly established" would be things that were actively being modified by the courts at the time. But since it wasn't stated clearly enough or detailed enough, the increasingly pro-police Roberts Court has redefined it as they please, overruling lower courts left and right (but mostly left). And while they haven't clearly laid out a guiding principle, the effect of their rulings has been to require a Supreme Court precedent on a very similar issue, and nothing less. That's not an inherent issue in qualified immunity as a fundamental principle, though. It's the result of an especially pro-cop Supreme Court deliberately taking an extreme reading of ambiguities in the case law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Devor posted:Right, so currently there is a judicial ruling that racist police can use QI to invoke SI. That SI is waived by existing statutes to let you sue the police department, but it's hard to win, because now you're suing the department over their training policies, etc... The courts decided they didn't like cops and judges being held accountable and rewrote the law passed by the "democratically elected legislature" to restore SI protection that the legislative branch deliberately stripped precisely because of the civil rights abuses cops are largely free to commit now
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it doesn't because congress already provided for that cause of action in 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights I'm talking about the "is" rather than the "ought". The earlier argument appeared to be saying there's One Weird Trick to ignoring SCOTUS' QI interpretation, which I don't think is feasible. I think the legislature could pass a law that eliminated QI at the federal level. It won't, but it could.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:11
|
|
|
Devor posted:In the absence of statutes waiving Sovereign Immunity, no, courts should not be conducting civil cases that would simply be dismissed due to Sovereign Immunity. That is simply a prejudgment. If a court should not be conducting civil cases at all, then it doesn't matter whether they would dismiss or not because they would lack authority. Devor posted:I'm talking about the "is" rather than the "ought". The earlier argument appeared to be saying there's One Weird Trick to ignoring SCOTUS' QI interpretation, which I don't think is feasible. I mean the "is" here is that courts are run by mostly Republican judges, and are only answerable to mostly Republican justices, and they are not going to support action against mostly Republican cops - regardless of any legal argument levied. There is no One Weird Trick because the people involved aren't robots and they are fully capable of simply interpreting things as they please. Kaal fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Sounds like leftover dross from the era of divine right of kings that our monarchy-obsessed founders kept around for no real reason Sovereign immunity does have the useful function of preventing people from suing the government for damages because a new regulation made them lose money. Of course, we keep signing new treaties that allow multinational corporations to do exactly that…
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:15
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'm talking about the "is" rather than the "ought". No you aren't, you said the court ought not get rid of SI even though they obviously could, and that in your opinion the legislature ought to be the ones to do it. I pointed out that the legislature already did, the court would just have to simply actually follow the law instead of make up reasons to ignore it, but obviously that isn't happening not because some galaxybrain logic is forcing them to, but because they simply don't want to and by tradition the court has become essentially unaccountable to anyone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No you aren't, you said the court ought not get rid of SI even though they obviously could, and that in your opinion the legislature ought to be the ones to do it. No court can get rid of SI SCOTUS can get rid of QI Lower courts cannot get rid of QI SCOTUS' creation of QI was a poo poo decision, but it's the current rules and we haven't started ignoring SCOTUS yet
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Devor posted:No court can get rid of SI Sure they could, they just choose not to. There is no reason that a judge cannot look at the law and decide that qualified immunity doesn't apply in a particular case, or that such immunity exists but was waived by local authority. The possibilities are certainly extant. It's absurd to look at the state of modern law and declare that something as nebulous as QI is somehow hard and fast law with no flexibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:25
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Sovereign immunity does have the useful function of preventing people from suing the government for damages because a new regulation made them lose money. The second part of your post correctly identifies the problem with supporting sovereign immunity as a defense against corporations. If corporations have enough power to get chudges who will rule that warnings on cigarette boxes are stealing from Phillip-Morris, then they also have the power to get permission to sue over it injected into laws and treaties somewhere in paragraph 15AA subparagraph 3-C clause b12 and fastback to passage before anyone in congress reads or understands what they're voting for. Getting laws passed is child's play, you just bribe one senator to slip something in. Taking over the courts took decades of sustained action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:26
|
|
|
Devor posted:No court can get rid of SI This is just a circular argument. Yeah SCOTUS created QI from whole cloth because they didn't like what 42 US Code § 1983 said, and congress has wilfully abdicated their power to rein in an unaccountable court that has stopped giving a poo poo about the constitution and the law so we're stuck with it obviously. That was a bad decision though and, like many lovely racist SCOTUS decisions from Dred Scott to Korematsu, they shouldn't have made it and they should reverse it but they won't. E: and the SI issue is a dumb red herring because § 1983 exists, but even so I'm not sure it's correct that the court can't get rid of it. It's not in the constitution (otherwise the legislature wouldn't be able to make exceptions to it either). Isn't it just something imported from English Common Law, in other words explicitly a mere judicial precedent that SCOTUS by definition can overturn at any time? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Oct 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No it doesn't because congress already provided for that cause of action in 42 USC § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights More importantly, the courts did this after members of Congress had explicitly debated whether or not the judiciary should be given an exception and immunity, ultimately not giving them protections that the court decided to give itself. We'll likely never see a legislative response to QI since the GOP is an openly fascist party and tons of Dem moderates love the taste of boot polish. ulmont posted:What’s your take of the existence of sovereign immunity at all, of which qualified immunity is just a subset? It is governments politely stating that they will not give up anything they don't want to and if you don't like it then tough poo poo (unless you have a bigger stick than they do). Sovereign Immunity might be useful in keeping countries from being flooded with endless frivolous lawsuits (such as people suing non stop because of regulations) but you could create laws to address that behavior without also saying "if the state harms you and says they don't feel like being held accountable then tough poo poo." Main Paineframe posted:While the opinion certainly said a lot about judicial immunity, I don't really think there's much room to dispute the actual specifics of the Supreme Court's ruling on that particular judge, which was that it's not a crime for a judge to convict someone for violating a law that was later struck down by the Supreme Court. That's a pretty fundamental part of the American judicial system. Except this allows judges to flagrantly and blatantly abuse their position when they know they are factually wrong (like, say, racist judges going after civil rights protestors or the WV court system being literally owned by coal barons) and if a fundamental part of the legal system is that judges can't be held accountable for severe misconduct on the bench then the US legal system is fundamentally broken.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
Should be reiterated that the constitutionality of that Mississippi law was irrelevant to the arrest because the Freedom Riders didn't break the law anyway and the law didn't authorize cops to arrest people they just don't like based on racism. It's pretty funny that the Warren court admitted the cops went beyond the law and said "ok you can sue them since they acted in bad faith", yet the racist judge who convicted the Freedom Riders in bad faith was given supreme court protection even though a fuckin judge should be reasonably expected to have a better understanding of the law than the cops. Also section 1983 was passed explicitly because of racist judges (among others) abusing their power to convict people under laws they knew drat well violated equal protection (because they hated equal protection), or as in this case, just convict people for no reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 17:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Should be reiterated that the constitutionality of that Mississippi law was irrelevant to the arrest because the Freedom Riders didn't break the law anyway and the law didn't authorize cops to arrest people they just don't like based on racism. No, the Warren Court said that because the cops were accused of acting in bad faith, the case needed to go to trial to determine whether they were or not, and could not be decided one way or another just by looking at the constitutionality of the law the original arrests had been based on. If this sounds very different from how a QI case these days would go, well, that's my entire point. QI has changed so much since Pierson that it doesn't really make sense to point to Pierson as evidence of its badness. The aspects that make QI a rock-solid shield for cops didn't come into it until later. In fact, the Supreme Court clearly rejected the "you need to find a very similar case as precedent" approach as recently as 2002's Hope v. Pelzer. Qualified immunity as "you can't ever sue a cop for excessive force" is largely an invention of the 21st-century SCOTUS, whose interpretation of the 1982 ruling has drifted more and more extreme as the court has drifted rightwards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
If you want to argue there's some ephemeral perfect QI floating out there in logicspace that doesn't let cops get away with criming then okay, but I don't see what the relevance is to QI as actually applied in the real world, where the benefit of the doubt judges give to cops is insane, and even patently unreasonable even-a-child-would-know-is-illegal conduct like stealing money and valuables from someone during a search is protected. Seems like a bad doctrine that was flawed from the beginning to make officials immune to consequences for human rights violations if they were just following orders (a defense I'll note we didn't accept when some other guys did some stuff that was legal under the law of their country), and to go even farther and make them immune even if they weren't following orders as long as a judge which is usually biased in their favor 'feels like' they had good intentions or didn't know or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 19:44 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If you want to argue there's some ephemeral perfect QI floating out there in logicspace that doesn't let cops get away with criming then okay, but I don't see what the relevance is to QI as actually applied in the real world, where the benefit of the doubt judges give to cops is insane, and even patently unreasonable even-a-child-would-know-is-illegal conduct like stealing money and valuables from someone during a search is protected. If you're not going to read my posts, just tell me up-front so I won't bother explaining decades of case law to you as part of an exploration of how a once-fine legal doctrine has changed and warped over fifty years to the form it's reached today. Qualified immunity was a perfectly sensible doctrine which provided comparatively little protection to police officers until Alito got his hands on it
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2021 21:14
|
|