Often the civil lawsuits are about alleging that an officer committed a crime and a judge has to determine whether that’s the case. The officer is usually represented by a police union who usually invoke Qualified Immunity to absolve the officer i.e. there was probable cause for their actions.
That is incorrect. Civil and criminal are separate sections of the law. They had different rules and procedures.
Also incorrect. The union does not represent the officer in court. The union is not a lawyer. Probable cause is not relevant to qualified immunity and is only relevant in civil court. Immunity is not just for police officers. It is for every government employee. Police have more protection than most other government employees but less than judges, prosecutors, etc.
Personally, I think they should all lose it but in return, it means fewer cases will be prosecuted. The courts will just reject most of the cases since they won’t have the staffing to deal with every case.
Admittedly, my legalese isn’t great. However, I wasn’t implying that the union itself represents the officer, just that they provide support in that aspect. I know it’s for all government officials, the focus here was on the police so I stuck with that.
I agree on the last part. Often it feels like government officials are above the law.
They provide moral support. They also provide support for policy violations. (Not a civil or criminal court but internal disputes)
For some reason, many people think it is a get-out-of-jail card. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with criminal liability. It is only civil liability.
I get why the judges put it in place. You can’t have a cop sued whenever he makes a minor mistake. The issue, though, is it has turned into a blanket immunity even when they did something so egregious they should be sued.
I was in law enforcement for years. I want to see a reform of the system as we deserve better.
You ABSOLUTELY can have a cop sued for making a minor mistake. They can carry malpractice insurance, just like I do. Don’t give me that shit. There is no reason cops should be immune from lawsuits
What are you going on about? That is what qualified immunity is all about. Civil liability. You can sue, but most likely, the case will be rejected unless there is prior precedent.
That is the only thing qualified immunity covers is civil liability.
The responses and downvotes are making me chuckle. How dare you understand and explain what ‘qualified immunity’ is and how it works, to people who don’t.
Cops are rarely convicted of crimes (in my opinion) because cop crimes rarely come to court. Even when there’s prosecution, everyone — judge, jury, prosecutors, defense, witnesses, certainly any reporters — walks in with a background of respect and admiration for police. They watched Hawaii Five-O and all the iterations of Law & Order, and listened to hysterical Republicans screaming about crime, and watched channel 7’s coverage of cops heroically hunting for some axe murderer on the subway. Everyone comes to the courtroom eager to give cops the benefit of every doubt.
It takes a truly egregious cop-crime and some sharp lawyering to get past the lifelong-ingrained “Cops are always the good guys” belief.
And of course, ‘qualified immunity’ has nothing to do with anything in criminal court.
The laws are written to give cops the ability to do their job. This is a good thing if you had good cops. The downside is when you have a bad cop since the same law will protect the cop.
What is reasonable force? The force another officer would use in the same situation. How much force can you use? Enough to make an arrest, as such a refusal to comply, the next step can be a cop using a taser and taking you into custody. On paper, that sounds good until you see it used in the real world, where a 90 year old woman is tased over something trivial. It is an excuse to use force when a few minutes of conversation could have settled the matter or an ego check could have solved the issue.
Basically, you can’t charge a cop when they are complying with the law and the law gives broad rights to make an arrest and the amount of force used to make an arrest is broad as well.
It’s why I support reform. I see too much punching over stupid shit. I would rather see less physical striking and more joint manipulation. Punching to the face should be considered deadly force. Distraction strikes are supposed to be hits to distract the person and not beat the shit out of them. We needs cop who can think and say, he littered, should I beat him into submission over that?
Your comment makes no sense.
Qualified immunity has nothing to do with charging someone with a crime.
What do you think they are qualified to be immune from?
Qualified immunity deals with civil lawsuits and not criminal charges.
Often the civil lawsuits are about alleging that an officer committed a crime and a judge has to determine whether that’s the case. The officer is usually represented by a police union who usually invoke Qualified Immunity to absolve the officer i.e. there was probable cause for their actions.
That is incorrect. Civil and criminal are separate sections of the law. They had different rules and procedures.
Also incorrect. The union does not represent the officer in court. The union is not a lawyer. Probable cause is not relevant to qualified immunity and is only relevant in civil court. Immunity is not just for police officers. It is for every government employee. Police have more protection than most other government employees but less than judges, prosecutors, etc.
Personally, I think they should all lose it but in return, it means fewer cases will be prosecuted. The courts will just reject most of the cases since they won’t have the staffing to deal with every case.
Admittedly, my legalese isn’t great. However, I wasn’t implying that the union itself represents the officer, just that they provide support in that aspect. I know it’s for all government officials, the focus here was on the police so I stuck with that.
I agree on the last part. Often it feels like government officials are above the law.
They provide moral support. They also provide support for policy violations. (Not a civil or criminal court but internal disputes)
For some reason, many people think it is a get-out-of-jail card. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with criminal liability. It is only civil liability.
I get why the judges put it in place. You can’t have a cop sued whenever he makes a minor mistake. The issue, though, is it has turned into a blanket immunity even when they did something so egregious they should be sued.
I was in law enforcement for years. I want to see a reform of the system as we deserve better.
You ABSOLUTELY can have a cop sued for making a minor mistake. They can carry malpractice insurance, just like I do. Don’t give me that shit. There is no reason cops should be immune from lawsuits
What are you going on about? That is what qualified immunity is all about. Civil liability. You can sue, but most likely, the case will be rejected unless there is prior precedent.
That is the only thing qualified immunity covers is civil liability.
The responses and downvotes are making me chuckle. How dare you understand and explain what ‘qualified immunity’ is and how it works, to people who don’t.
It is a pet peeve of mine when people don’t understand what they want to change.
Qualified immunity isn’t as big a deal as people think. While it needs to be changed, it isn’t why cops are not convicted of crimes.
Cops are rarely convicted of crimes (in my opinion) because cop crimes rarely come to court. Even when there’s prosecution, everyone — judge, jury, prosecutors, defense, witnesses, certainly any reporters — walks in with a background of respect and admiration for police. They watched Hawaii Five-O and all the iterations of Law & Order, and listened to hysterical Republicans screaming about crime, and watched channel 7’s coverage of cops heroically hunting for some axe murderer on the subway. Everyone comes to the courtroom eager to give cops the benefit of every doubt.
It takes a truly egregious cop-crime and some sharp lawyering to get past the lifelong-ingrained “Cops are always the good guys” belief.
And of course, ‘qualified immunity’ has nothing to do with anything in criminal court.
The laws are written to give cops the ability to do their job. This is a good thing if you had good cops. The downside is when you have a bad cop since the same law will protect the cop. What is reasonable force? The force another officer would use in the same situation. How much force can you use? Enough to make an arrest, as such a refusal to comply, the next step can be a cop using a taser and taking you into custody. On paper, that sounds good until you see it used in the real world, where a 90 year old woman is tased over something trivial. It is an excuse to use force when a few minutes of conversation could have settled the matter or an ego check could have solved the issue.
Basically, you can’t charge a cop when they are complying with the law and the law gives broad rights to make an arrest and the amount of force used to make an arrest is broad as well.
It’s why I support reform. I see too much punching over stupid shit. I would rather see less physical striking and more joint manipulation. Punching to the face should be considered deadly force. Distraction strikes are supposed to be hits to distract the person and not beat the shit out of them. We needs cop who can think and say, he littered, should I beat him into submission over that?