I think the concern is that removing it would make cops unwilling to do their jobs if they might be sued-say for restraining a suspect or whatever.
I’m by no means in favor of wanton police brutality or thuggery. Much less the rubber stamp it often receives from the government.
The fear is that removing it means-a cop can’t shoot a dangerous suspect charging at them with an axe-because they might be sued by a relative or something.
Obviously sensible police reform is desirable. But to the point it makes enforcing the law a loser’s bet.
You do know that they already can, right? And cops don't have to pay for the defense, the city does. I'd be quite fine with some sort of legal defense for them to avoid stupid lawsuits, but Qualified Immunity is no solution.
No, you need be a little more attentive to what's being said and a little less dismissive. I was saying Judicial immunity is a problem and that qualified immunity isn't the cause of the issues these advocates are babbling about.
And I think Sotomayor is wrong in her criticism of it.
Qualified immunity doesn't encourage cops to murder, it encourages cops to remain ignorant, lazy and unqualified. That's a huge problem but you could address it by neutering their advocates and lobbyists..without putting the lot of them at risk of frivolous litigation.
No, qualified immunity is a fundamental problem with the police. In America, rights are secured through lawsuits. That's what defends me from police. And taking that away means that when the cops do violate rights, there is no way to receive justice. When cops steal $200,000, you sue them to get your money back. With QI, they get to keep the money.
These lawsuits aren't frivolous, and that's not what qualified immunity is about. If you want to write a law getting rid of actually frivolous lawsuits, that would be one thing. But relying on judicial activism (that's what qualified immunity is, btw) to protect bad cops is just stupid.
And courts have made dumb rulings like the reasoning the Judges gave in the case you cite below. I'm not disputing this, I'm arguing most of the wrongful convictions and other issues these idiots bleat about all day have more to do with the unconstitutional protection Judges and DA's enjoy.
Emmet Sullivan needs to spend the rest of his life in prison, preferably after having everything seized an example.
Those rulings a) have nothing to do with prosecutors, as this is a civil suit, and b) have judges making the legally correct decision if you accept qualified immunity. This is what qualified immunity means. Your solution doesn't work.
Sullivan also has nothing to do with this at all, and is totally off topic.
That can be easily remedied by the Judges who issue such rulings ending up homeless for issuing such rulings.
No, the judgement was totally correct according to qualified immunity. Because the cops hadn't blown up someone's house before, so there was no case law, so they couldn't be sued. If you want to stop this, get rid of QI. Otherwise, when your house is blown up slightly differently, don't bother suing for your house.
Meanwhile, judicial immunity is a simple reality of the court system, as it's impossible to prosecute without going through a judge.