Search results

No it doesn't, and it's not. Because you are wrong, and cannot understand the difference between actual qualified immunity and one specific test that's being abused, the clearly established law test. As for no one in the law world calling it that, let's see...

Man, you just can't resist doubling down, can you? You're literally going and repeating my points back to me while pretending I said the opposite. It's dead easy to keep Qualified Immunity while removing the clearly established law test. Let's take your Wikipedia quote: And fix it: And...

Dear freakin' god, you quoted my post saying that Qualified Immunity is an immunity to civil suits unless a "reasonable person" would have known better and claim I don't know what I'm talking about by quoting... that it requires a reasonable person to have known better. I think we have a record...

That's not qualified immunity. That's the "clearly established law" test. Qualified immunity is protection from lawsuits unless a "Reasonable Person" would realize the law is being broken and/or rights are being infringed. Removing said test while leaving qualified immunity in place would...

The US Marshals released a somewhat different appraisal of the situation. https://www.wboy.com/news/harrison/police-investigation-underway-at-nutter-fort-funeral-home/ According to their reports, they were serving a warrant and when they called his name, he pulled out a gun so they shot him...

I don't have a solid idea of what it should be, but being accused should not be devastating and brutal even if you're found innocent of all charges, for police or anybody else. If defending yourself while innocent is only reasonably possible if you're either rich or granted special immunity to...