Has Anyone Ever Heard of "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY?"

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I have to admit, I just learned of this not long ago, and I'm thoroughly disgusted. No wonder cops are kicking the shit out of people and not worrying about it... and no wonder congress people like Adam ScHITt and SwallowsWell blatantly LIE... they do it because they CAN... there's NOTHING anyone can DO ABOUT IT...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmoPUWGc1WY

[High_Plains_Drifter]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HNZYJskB0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HNZYJskB0)

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I remember a few weeks ago I was watching Tucker Carlson, and he asked the guest he had on, why isn't anything ever done to congressmen that lie like Adam ScHITt, and the guest replied that it was because "he can," that they can lie their ass off and legally get away with it. Well, I didn't know why or how, but "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY" is WHY.

Isn't that nice... when you're the people that MAKE LAWS, so you MAKE LAWS that PROTECT YOU from your own CORRUPTION and LAWLESSNESS... how fucking convenient.

Give a bunch of people some badges and guns and then send them out to "SERVE AND PROTECT," but instead some turn into hardened assholes that like to THUMP PEOPLE UP once and awhile, and they know they CAN, because they've got "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY."

This shit needs to be gone, like right now.

[claudius2019]

I have to admit, I just learned of this not long ago, and I'm thoroughly disgusted. No wonder cops are kicking the shit out of people and not worrying about it... and no wonder congress people like Adam ScHITt and SwallowsWell blatantly LIE... they do it because they CAN... there's NOTHING anyone can DO ABOUT IT...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmoPUWGc1WY

The video quotes the 1983 statute wrong, the modern version reads like this:


42 U.S.C. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_42_of_the_United_States_Code) § 1983 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983) now reads:

Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer's judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.



It's a noble idea, that if a cop looks in your glove compartment when he's not allowed to, that you could take 'em to the People's Court in front of Judge Judy and get $20 grand out of the cop's own pocket. I just don't know who would ever wanna be a cop if that's how it worked. And how much those kind of lawsuits would tie up the courts. Crap. everyone would be filing them.

The 1983 statues i think are mostly used by scammers to sue local governments for alleged police brutality (some of which is legitimate). It's not like it's impossible to sue the cops. If something is eggregious enough, cops will throw millions of dollars to settle a really bad case, just so it stays out of the news. People get settlements as a result of suing police depts all the time, you just don't always hear about it.

Where i have seen it a lot is used by state prison inmates who have nothing else to do all day but sit in the law library, they use the 1983 statue to file ridiculous lawsuits in court (which by law have to be heard in open court) where they try to sue prison guards, staff, cops, prosecutors, anyone they can. They always represent themselves in court, and appear via phone since they're incarcerated.

They have no idea what they are doing, filing with the court, or talking about. They file 500 page documents with the court and try to bury them with meaningless and repetitive paperwork. None of the 1983 lawsuits ever succeed, and the judges and attorneys really hate them because they have a whole courtroom full of people having to sit through often 30-40 minutes of some idiot scammer inmate having the law explained to them by a judge, often multiple times, and then trying to argue.

Qualified immunity, IMO probably stops what would otherwise be an avalanche of suits against cops and other public officials, but who knows, it might be an interesting experiment. Because as it is, cops have no legal duty to protect anyone, if they don't want to. That needs to change, IMO.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The video quotes the 1983 statute wrong, the modern version reads like this:


It's a noble idea, that if a cop looks in your glove compartment when he's not allowed to, that you could take 'em to the People's Court in front of Judge Judy and get $20 grand out of the cop's own pocket. I just don't know who would ever wanna be a cop if that's how it worked. And how much those kind of lawsuits would tie up the courts. Crap. everyone would be filing them.

The 1983 statues i think are mostly used by scammers to sue local governments for alleged police brutality (some of which is legitimate). It's not like it's impossible to sue the cops. If something is eggregious enough, cops will throw millions of dollars to settle a really bad case, just so it stays out of the news. People get settlements as a result of suing police depts all the time, you just don't always hear about it.

Where i have seen it a lot is used by state prison inmates who have nothing else to do all day but sit in the law library, they use the 1983 statue to file ridiculous lawsuits in court (which by law have to be heard in open court) where they try to sue prison guards, staff, cops, prosecutors, anyone they can. They always represent themselves in court, and appear via phone since they're incarcerated.

They have no idea what they are doing, filing with the court, or talking about. They file 500 page documents with the court and try to bury them with meaningless and repetitive paperwork. None of the 1983 lawsuits ever succeed, and the judges and attorneys really hate them because they have a whole courtroom full of people having to sit through often 30-40 minutes of some idiot scammer inmate having the law explained to them by a judge, often multiple times, and then trying to argue.

Qualified immunity, IMO probably stops what would otherwise be an avalanche of suits against cops and other public officials, but who knows, it might be an interesting experiment. Because as it is, cops have no legal duty to protect anyone, if they don't want to. That needs to change, IMO.



I know all about inmates filing law suits. I worked in a prison. Correctional Officers fall under the Qualified Immunity blanket as well.

However, you can parse this issue but the fact remains, it gives cops virtual free reign to violate your constitutional rights, lie to you or kick your ass and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. The initial purpose for Q.I. has been bastardized and abused.

It shouldn't be that way.

[claudius2019]

I know all about inmates filing law suits. I worked in a prison.

However, you can parse this issue but the fact remains, it gives cops virtual free reign to violate your constitutional rights, lie to you or kick your ass and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

It shouldn't be that way.

No, you can use the 1983 statute to sue their asses. People do it every day, and many of them get generous out of court settlements. If the video made it seem like it's impossible to win one of these suits against a state or local PD, that's completely wrong.

It's a very complex boutique area of law, that has rules and precedents that have been established, many of which don't make a whole lot of sense, but them's the rules. And there are built in pitfalls, such as when you are suing a govt agency, you have to give them notice that you're planning to sue them, within some ridiculous time frame (6 months?) which no other defendant is entitled to anywhere else in the law, and if you blow that one statute of limitation, your whole case gets dismissed and that's that.

So you can successfully sue cops despite qualified immunity, it just depends on the particular details of your case, speak to someone who specializes in these 1983 suits.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

No, you can use the 1983 statute to sue their asses. People do it every day, and many of them get generous out of court settlements. If the video made it seem like it's impossible to win one of these suits against a state or local PD, that's completely wrong.

It's a very complex boutique area of law, that has rules and precedents that have been established, many of which don't make a whole lot of sense, but them's the rules. And there are built in pitfalls, such as when you are suing a govt agency, you have to give them notice that you're planning to sue them, within some ridiculous time frame (6 months?) which no other defendant is entitled to anywhere else in the law, and if you blow that one statute of limitation, your whole case gets dismissed and that's that.

So you can successfully sue cops despite qualified immunity, it just depends on the particular details of your case, speak to someone who specializes in these 1983 suits.
It's not exactly as rosy a picture as you'd like to portray...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/how-the-law-shields-cops-from-suit-qualified-immunity-explained

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

Cops shouldn't have ANY sort of immunity, period. If they don't follow the constitution in the execution of them supposedly serving and protecting the public, then they should be open to prosecution. They shouldn't be allowed to lie straight to your face but then it's illegal for you to lie to them. If they can thump your ass up and not suffer any consequences, then you ought to be able to thump their ass up and not suffer any consequences. Same with politicians. If they willfully, blatantly lie, then they should be open to consequences.

Point being, there shouldn't be ANY *IMMUNITY* for these people. I don't have any, you don't have any, and THEY shouldn't have any.

[claudius2019]

It's not exactly as rosy a picture as you'd like to portray...

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/how-the-law-shields-cops-from-suit-qualified-immunity-explained

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

Cops shouldn't have ANY sort of immunity, period. If they don't follow in the execution of them supposedly serving and protecting the public, then they should be open to prosecution. They shouldn't be allowed to lie straight to your face but then it's illegal for you to lie to them. Same with politicians. If they willfully, blatantly lie, then they should be open to consequences.

Point being, there shouldn't be ANY *IMMUNITY* for these people. I don't have any, you don't have any, and THEY shouldn't have any.

This poor woman's son has already gotten an out of court seven figure settlement, and earned every penny too. Horrific incident, and nothing can bring her friend back. She hired a sharp attorney, and he did the rest:

https://abc30.com/exclusive-video-shows-tulare-co-deputy-shooting-unarmed-woman-in-suspect-hotel-room/5745319/

[revelarts]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HujPlUyTXRY

Officers Nearly Beat Innocent College Student to Death—Then Claim Immunity from All Accountability

"
You probably don’t know it, but federal agents are working closely with police where you live. Over the past few decades, joint task forces staffed by both state and federal police have become common. They now number more than one thousand. As a result of these federal/state partnerships, the government often plays what amounts to a shell game that makes it impossible to hold individual officers to account if they violate someone’s constitutional rights by, for example, engaging in police brutality or other misdeeds. https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/ (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=https%3A%2F%2Fij.org%2Fcase%2Fbrownback-v-king%2F&event=video_description&v=HujPlUyTXRY&redir_token=dtnI1tvNYeLMBg2YmYYiH1vNACR8MTU5MTc0OD UyNUAxNTkxNjYyMTI1)

Here’s how it works: The tools an individual can use to hold a government officer to account for violating the Constitution depend on whether the officer was acting under state or federal law. But if an officer acts under both state and federal law—as it does when a joint task force is involved—the question becomes murkier. An officer accused of abusing his federal authority can claim he was actually acting using his state-law authority, and an officer accused of abusing his state-law authority can say he was really acting as a federal officer. Plaintiffs are left guessing and sometimes end up thrown out of court altogether. James King, a law-abiding college student in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was forced to play this game after he was brutally beaten in an unjustifiable case of mistaken identity. Task force members misidentified James as a fugitive; stopped, searched, beat and choked him into unconsciousness; and then—even after it was clear they had the wrong man—arrested James and charged his with a series of felonies to cover their tracks. After fighting a criminal prosecution aimed at preventing James from vindicating his constitutional rights and sending him to prison, James was acquitted. But that was just the beginning. When James filed a lawsuit against the officers to hold them to account for their actions, the officers argued they were entitled to several forms of immunity and persuaded the court to throw out James’ case. An appeals court reversed the worst parts of that decision, but the government has now taken James’ case to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to shield the officers from any accountability for violating the Constitution. James has partnered with the Institute for Justice to protect the rights of all Americans who encounter federal and state task forces. As part of IJ’s Project on Immunity and Accountability, James and IJ are asking the Supreme Court to end the shell game and hold officers to account when they violate individuals’ Constitution rights.
https://ij.org/case/brownback-v-king/ (https://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=https%3A%2F%2Fij.org%2Fcase%2Fbrownback-v-king%2F&event=video_description&v=HujPlUyTXRY&redir_token=dtnI1tvNYeLMBg2YmYYiH1vNACR8MTU5MTc0OD UyNUAxNTkxNjYyMTI1)

"

[claudius2019]

So what's your point? The guy's case is headed for the US Supreme Court. That the guy is getting no justice? He's getting plenty, more than i ever got.

Hard to say how SCOTUS might rule, sometimes "liberal" justices wind up loving the govts right to do whatever the hell it wants, much more than individual liberty, which leftists never seem to support unless it's for them and only them.

This could wind up being a landmark case, who knows?

[icansayit]

How many of you reading this now would want to be a police officer if you knew, any mistake you make while wearing the uniform, or even off duty...will Instantly End your career, and whoever choses to SUE you...can ruin your life, take everything you own, and make sure you NEVER work again????

Bottom line. The Dems want to get rid of the Police...better yet. Prevent ANYONE from applying for the job. That's how you get PURE ANARCHY.

[Black Diamond]

How many of you reading this now would want to be a police officer if you knew, any mistake you make while wearing the uniform, or even off duty...will Instantly End your career, and whoever choses to SUE you...can ruin your life, take everything you own, and make sure you NEVER work again????

Bottom line. The Dems want to get rid of the Police...better yet. Prevent ANYONE from applying for the job. That's how you get PURE ANARCHY.

Dems assume they wouldn't be treated this way if they win. That people would no longer want anarchy once they are in charge. I think they figure wrong.

[icansayit]

Dems assume they wouldn't be treated this way if they win. That people would no longer want anarchy once they are in charge. I think they figure wrong.


Take away all of the CAPITAL POLICE that guard the House, and Senate members 24/7.

See if Nancy would KNEEL long enough to BEG THEM TO COME BACK????

[Black Diamond]

Take away all of the CAPITAL POLICE that guard the House, and Senate members 24/7.

See if Nancy would KNEEL long enough to BEG THEM TO COME BACK????

That is a good point. It's different when it's THEIR asses

[Hot Dogger]

So called "Qualified Immunity" is a product of wayward jurisprudence not statutory law. Legally speaking, armed corporate municipal police officers are "more equal" than they citizens they claim to serve and protect.

[Gunny]

Dems assume they wouldn't be treated this way if they win. That people would no longer want anarchy once they are in charge. I think they figure wrong.Let me add, I don't think the Dems have ANY idea whatsoever just what they are making a deal with. Those anarchists aren't planning on sharing power with any Dems ...

[claudius2019]

LOL, right. When Pol Pot took over, the doctors, teachers, and lawyers were the first to face the firing squads. At some point it was "anyone who wore glasses", IIRC.

I'm telling you, these soy boys are gonna be the first to go ... and they have no friggin idea. Can you believe such stupidity???

[revelarts]

How many of you reading this now would want to be a police officer if you knew, any mistake you make while wearing the uniform, or even off duty...will Instantly End your career, and whoever chooses to SUE you...can ruin your life, take everything you own, and make sure you NEVER work again????

Bottom line. The Dems want to get rid of the Police...better yet. Prevent ANYONE from applying for the job. That's how you get PURE ANARCHY.

who would want to be a doctor if you knew your mistake or negligence or (intentional hostile/illegal action/procedure) against a patient might end your career? OH wait.

Seems to me Most cops never have to remove their guns from their holsters.
Most encounters in the country never get to blows.
Many calls to "dangerous" incidents are domestic or AFTER the crime calls. Cases where it won't make difference if they WAIT until they can get backup to more easily subdue any violent players on the loose.
Daily dealing with Drunks, mental patients, prostitutes, speeders etc...
There's NO need to for "swat teams" to serve arrest warrants in the middle of the night.
Most cops aren't breaking violent Drug cartels, gangs or motorcycle clubs, MUCH less arresting white collar criminals stealing millions or billions.
Most could live a life without cracking people's heads open or shooting unarmed people dead... by accident.

[claudius2019]

I treat them like every other bureaucrat, and avoid having any dealings with them whatsoever. A bureaucrat with a gun? Definitely avoid, and never assume they are on your side.

I think the court system is set up adequately to deal with police misconduct, but don't assume they will be on your side either. Many police depts are corrupt, but the nature of the trust placed in a police officer can make weeding out bad ones difficult, since a judge or jury will take the word of a LE officer over a civilian, 99.9% of the time.

The white collar / blue collar crime thing has always bothered me. If someone breaks into my house and steals $1000 off my nightstand, they could go to prison. But if that same person hires me to do $1000 of work, and I do the work but never get paid, that same person is considered a white collar criminal, and the police won't touch them, you would have to sue them in civil court, at your own expense. That's BS and needs to change.

[jimnyc]

It's a lot more than just the police. So many people and jobs, within the government, local or federal, are generally protected via qualified immunity. Very hard to sue and gotta overcome lots of conditions just to meet the ability to apply a lawsuit. I always thought it was shitty and that no one is above the law. There are many times where it helps and applies, as we are a "lawsuit happy" country and lots of people file frivolous suits against the police and government workers out of anger alone. So I get the idea behind wasting time and resources, but it's not the entire answer. I have witnessed FAR too many times where the government has simply screwed up and should be held accountable. But your recourse is already spelled out and it's not much at all and protects others whether right or wrong.

Like I said, it's a LOT more than just against the police. I see folks on a daily basis showing up at legal forums asking how to sue for this or that, related to shitty things that happened to them - and quite often the response from respected attorneys is that they literally cannot sue for this or that, or that their options are extremely limited and on a timed basis and you need "permission" to sue. Insanity. If someone clearly broke a law, they should be held accountable, simple as that.

[claudius2019]

Even going 57 mph in a 55? I don't know if i would like that. There are plenty of stupid laws (like wearing a mask) that SHOULD be violated openly.

But yeah, if someone commits a serious felony, like looting or beating up a store owner to steal his stuff, I wholeheartedly agree. But many lesser offenses, I dunno. Especially federal law, most regular people probably violate dozens of federal laws every day, without even realizing it, because the federal code is so huge and extensive, the volumes would fill your living room.

I think actually, the system we have now is not so terrible. It's not complete anarchy, on one hand, nor is it complete totalitarianism where every violation of the law is instantly punished. Cops have a ton of discretion, and if they see someone violate a law that even the cop thinks is dumb, there's a good chance they will look the other way. I don't think that's so bad, assuming the cop is a decent guy, and is reasonable in his selective prosecution of the crimes he sees.

[icansayit]

who would want to be a doctor if you knew your mistake or negligence or (intentional hostile/illegal action/procedure) against a patient might end your career? OH wait.

Seems to me Most cops never have to remove their guns from their holsters.
Most encounters in the country never get to blows.
Many calls to "dangerous" incidents are domestic or AFTER the crime calls. Cases where it won't make difference if they WAIT until they can get backup to more easily subdue any violent players on the loose.
Daily dealing with Drunks, mental patients, prostitutes, speeders etc...
There's NO need to for "swat teams" to serve arrest warrants in the middle of the night.
Most cops aren't breaking violent Drug cartels, gangs or motorcycle clubs, MUCH less arresting white collar criminals stealing millions or billions.
Most could live a life without cracking people's heads open or shooting unarmed people dead... by accident.

Won't admit, no matter how nicely they talk about cops. They actually HATE THEM. Right Rev?

[claudius2019]

who would want to be a doctor if you knew your mistake or negligence or (intentional hostile/illegal action/procedure) against a patient might end your career? OH wait.

That's what "tort reform" is all about, making it difficult, or impossible, to sue a doctor for malpractice.

Don't forget, 400,000 Americans die every year, from what? Medical Malpractice.

How many doctors have you ever heard of that got sued and lost their licenses? Probably not too many. It's because they have lots of laws that make it more difficult to sue them, but it's hard to ignore the numbers. Why people trust these killers to the degree they do, with their very lives ... i win never, ever understand.