Supreme Court Makes It Even Harder To Hold Bad Cops Accountable

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
And on the other, other hand we will need to hire an army of libertarians to protect us I guess.

No qualified immunity = no cops.

But it does also mean you can sue your school administration, or the governor, or maybe even Joey himself.

So basically, everyone will be suing, and your new social worker cop can give you a hug when you call them in your distress.
Tell me you didn't read the article without telling me you didn't read the article. Are y'all just illiterate or what?
 

Furion

Well-known member
A libertarian would certainly shout that I should have all these rights and freedom, but I'm not too confident they'd put their body on the line to protect us...

And, I think a social worker cop would be just as liable - hugging could be an assault charge these days...
True, I don't think many would put their life on the line.

Social workers may just walk right in and get shot. I mean, doesn't every criminal respect social workers more than cops?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
The idjits of SCOTUS have come down further in favor of the insane policy of qualified immunity, making it even harder for citizens to get justice when police violate their rights and cause them harm.
There is obviously a tension between the needs of police who have to do a difficult, dangerous job, sometimes (rarely, actually, but those are the ones we hear about) making split-second life-or-death decisions, and the needs of society which should not have to tolerate blatant mis-use of police power.

One current requirement for allowing lawsuits against the police under qualified immunity is that the circumstances of the police's action has to be just about exactly similar to some other case that has been adjudicated against the police. That seems like an absurd standard that protects the police for no rational reason.

Police still need extra protection from lawsuits given the nature of their jobs, but that exactly-similar-previous-case standard has to go.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
There is obviously a tension between the needs of police who have to do a difficult, dangerous job, sometimes (rarely, actually, but those are the ones we hear about) making split-second life-or-death decisions, and the needs of society which should not have to tolerate blatant mis-use of police power.

One current requirement for allowing lawsuits against the police under qualified immunity is that the circumstances of the police's action has to be just about exactly similar to some other case that has been adjudicated against the police. That seems like an absurd standard that protects the police for no rational reason.

Police still need extra protection from lawsuits given the nature of their jobs, but that exactly-similar-previous-case standard has to go.
Agreed wholeheartedly. The requirement is absurd, but there certainly should be something in place for frivolous suits. Perhaps a civilian review board (or a mix of civilian and formervlaw enforcement) of some sort to decide what has merit and what is frivolous before it goes forward, or some sort of insurance
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Agreed wholeheartedly. The requirement is absurd, but there certainly should be something in place for frivolous suits. Perhaps a civilian review board (or a mix of civilian and formervlaw enforcement) of some sort to decide what has merit and what is frivolous before it goes forward, or some sort of insurance
But the principle behind qualified immunity - separate from that absurd standard of exact-same circumstance - is that government officials should be not sued for official actions, apart from actions otherwise illegal, like corruption, etc. - and that would include police, politicians, etc. Allowing suits unless they are frivolous flips that burden of proof, so to speak. Lawsuits should not be allowed unless one can meet certain criteria. Government officials have to feel secure that using their best judgment is not going to open themselves up to all but frivolous lawsuits.

It's just that the exact-same standard is absurd. Remove that and some significant part of the problem will be taken care of.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
And on the other, other hand we will need to hire an army of libertarians to protect us I guess.

No qualified immunity = no cops.

But it does also mean you can sue your school administration, or the governor, or maybe even Joey himself.

So basically, everyone will be suing, and your new social worker cop can give you a hug when you call them in your distress.
Interesting that you assert that ending a system that keeps cops from being held accountable when the justice system refuses to, will lead to "no cops". Almost sounds like you tacitly admitting that most cops are dirty and bad.
 

Furion

Well-known member
Interesting that you assert that ending a system that keeps cops from being held accountable when the justice system refuses to, will lead to "no cops". Almost sounds like you tacitly admitting that most cops are dirty and bad.
That would be more a jaded view of someone you don't know, and that's ok. No, it's more like an opinion from discussions with actual cops, and common sense. A cops job is highly dangerous and violent, and it wouldn't pay enough to get sued.

Which is why I ask about any brave, brave Sir Robins out there who will stand up and do it, and get sued repeatedly. I don't see any takers yet.
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
That would be more a jaded view of someone you don't know, and that's ok. No, it's more like an opinion from discussions with actual cops, and common sense. A cops job is highly dangerous and violent, and it wouldn't pay enough to get sued.

Which is why I ask about any brave, brave Sir Robins out there who will stand up and do it, and get sued repeatedly. I don't see any takers yet.
They'll just need to get insurance like doctors do for malpractice. *shrug*
 

Gondwanaland

Well-known member
You'll just need to be your own vigilante cop. *shrugs*
Sounds good to me. If you're relying on the cops to get to you in time when someone's doing something to you, you're a moron anyway. Someone comes to my place, I've got over 200 guns, a bazooka,and a working civil war cannon to choose from. No need to call 911, that just means more paperwork (they aren't even obliged to respond anyway- they can straight up ignore your call)
 

vibise

Well-known member
I am on record as saying lockdowns were useless. I am no friend of trump's, I was an enemy of the talking pig in a pant suit you wanted. If you insist on denying that fauci had influence and therefore responsibility for the consequences of the lockdown then you're either a complete moron or a liar. I'll let you choose which
It is not clear to me that Fauci was the chief proponent of the lockdowns or one of many who proposed that to Trump. You have not shown that Fauci had the main advisory role on that issue, and frankly, that is not believable, as Trump made it clear from the beginning that he did not like Fauci. So claiming that Fauci somehow convinced Trump to shutdown the country is just not believable.

The fact is that the person who makes the decision bears the main responsibility for the outcome. That is Trump. Maybe Fauci recommended this action, and if so, he was likely one of many. If you don't like the lockdowns, you should be blaming Trump, and your failure to do that indicates that your interest is strictly partisan.
 

Yakuda

Well-known member
It is not clear to me that Fauci was the chief proponent of the lockdowns or one of many who proposed that to Trump. You have not shown that Fauci had the main advisory role on that issue, and frankly, that is not believable, as Trump made it clear from the beginning that he did not like Fauci. So claiming that Fauci somehow convinced Trump to shutdown the country is just not believable.

The fact is that the person who makes the decision bears the main responsibility for the outcome. That is Trump. Maybe Fauci recommended this action, and if so, he was likely one of many. If you don't like the lockdowns, you should be blaming Trump, and your failure to do that indicates that your interest is strictly partisan.
So now you're saying this supposedly highly respected doctor, director of the NIAID and chief medical advisor to the president has no influence whatsoever and is completely free of any responsibility for the consequences of the lockdowns!!!! ????You just keep doubling down on the foolishness don't you?
 
Top