(10-22-2020, 06:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Qualified immunity is very simple.  Unless you stray far from department policy you cannot be sued personally for any action you take while on the job.  Without this it would absolutely impossible to be an LEO, you'd be sued every day by every person you arrest.  You'd drown in nuisance lawsuits.  So there doesn't need to be an example of it, it is all encompassing with the exception I already noted.

(10-22-2020, 07:55 PM)GMDino Wrote: It's deeper than that.  I've read and heard of too many examples to say it is "very simple".

Quote:But even if a "nuisance" lawsuit gets through the taxpayers pay for it so there's always that.

(10-22-2020, 08:13 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: OK, please explain further.


Yeah, the taxpayers will always pay (btw LEO's pay taxes too, so they're one of those taxpayers) if a lawsuit succeeds.  In fact the city/county/state will often settle out of court for even very weak lawsuits to avoid the possibility of a sympathetic jury handing the plaintiff a win (and in civil court unanimity is not required).  So imagine LEO's having to deal with lawsuits against them personally on that scale simply because they're doing their job.  I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but most people aren't happy about being arrested.  Additionally, most criminals take zero accountability for their actions.  If you want to effectively end policing in this country and give criminals free reign then seek to end qualified immunity.  You'll be living in The Purge within twelve months.

(10-22-2020, 08:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: I don't have to explain it you are well aware I'm sure.  Just as I'm sure you like the way it works because of your job more than because you just like qualified immunity.


https://www.cato.org/blog/most-common-defenses-qualified-immunity-why-theyre-wrong
https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/pros-vs-cons-of-qualified-immunity--both-sides-of-debate.html
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-qualified-immunity-fails

Quote:The rest is hyperbole as I never said "end qualified immunity".  You're just arguing to argue.

(10-23-2020, 12:01 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said, I like it because it allows me, and others to actually do our job.

(10-23-2020, 07:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The concept of qualified immunity, as it is currently implemented in our judicial system, allows LEOs to violate the constitutional rights of an individual and not be held personally liable for those actions. I understand that there is concern over whether removing it would make officers second guess many decisions, but even without qualified immunity our current statutory and constitutional law already gives a lot of deference to officers when carrying out their duties. So I'm having a hard time fully understanding what role qualified immunity plays in the process beyond preventing citizens from attempting to seek redress for infringements, perceived or real, on their rights.

(10-23-2020, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is absolutely false.  Qualified immunity only prevents the officer in question from being sued personally.  It absolutely, 100%, does not prevent anyone from seeking redress if their rights are violated or they are otherwise treated improperly.  That person can, and pretty much always does, sue the city, county or state employing said officer.

Your statement about second guessing is a monumental understatement.  If an officer knows that any decision they make could cost them their house, life savings, children's college fund then you're effectively ending law enforcement.  A person can be in handcuffs while you're escorting them to the patrol car. They struggle against you, slip from your grasp, fall to the ground and break their arm, break a tooth or otherwise injure themselves.  Without qualified immunity that person will not only sue the employer as stated above they will sue you, claiming that you threw them to the ground, or were negligent in letting them fall as they were under your control.  The city, county or state has lawyers on payroll to deal with this exact thing, they get paid regardless of whether they are fighting a lawsuit (of course they are never idle, but you get my point).  The officer has no such luxury.  They must hire a personal lawyer to defend themselves and their personal assets from this lawsuit.  Even if they win the odds of collecting attorney's fees are slight.  Just one such case, successfully fought, can severely drain a person's savings or even put them in debt.

This discussion around qualified immunity is rife with severe misconceptions, and that someone as into policy and intelligent as you isn't fully up to speed on what it actually means and what ending it would cause honestly frightens me.  I suppose I should be happy that I'm on the downhill side of the retirement hill, because I shudder to think what policing would be like if the far left lunatics get their way on this issue.

(10-23-2020, 11:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That’s every patient, but it didn’t end the field of medicine.

(10-23-2020, 11:59 AM)PhilHos Wrote: No, it didn't. But people want it to not be that way, no? People are advocating for LOWER health care costs, yes?

(10-23-2020, 11:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is absolutely false.  Qualified immunity only prevents the officer in question from being sued personally.  It absolutely, 100%, does not prevent anyone from seeking redress if their rights are violated or they are otherwise treated improperly.  That person can, and pretty much always does, sue the city, county or state employing said officer.

Your statement about second guessing is a monumental understatement.  If an officer knows that any decision they make could cost them their house, life savings, children's college fund then you're effectively ending law enforcement.  A person can be in handcuffs while you're escorting them to the patrol car. They struggle against you, slip from your grasp, fall to the ground and break their arm, break a tooth or otherwise injure themselves.  Without qualified immunity that person will not only sue the employer as stated above they will sue you, claiming that you threw them to the ground, or were negligent in letting them fall as they were under your control.  The city, county or state has lawyers on payroll to deal with this exact thing, they get paid regardless of whether they are fighting a lawsuit (of course they are never idle, but you get my point).  The officer has no such luxury.  They must hire a personal lawyer to defend themselves and their personal assets from this lawsuit.  Even if they win the odds of collecting attorney's fees are slight.  Just one such case, successfully fought, can severely drain a person's savings or even put them in debt.

This discussion around qualified immunity is rife with severe misconceptions, and that someone as into policy and intelligent as you isn't fully up to speed on what it actually means and what ending it would cause honestly frightens me.  I suppose I should be happy that I'm on the downhill side of the retirement hill, because I shudder to think what policing would be like if the far left lunatics get their way on this issue.

(10-23-2020, 11:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That’s every patient, but it didn’t end the field of medicine.

(10-23-2020, 11:56 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: That’s every patient, but it didn’t end the field of medicine.

(10-23-2020, 12:08 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, I did specify the personal liability in the beginning of my post. Perhaps I should have added "from the individual responsible rather than the institution" to the end instead of assuming it was understood based on the opening. I understand how the policy works, and I understand what it would mean to end the practice. I hold a position for my city in which the city can side with me if my decisions are challenged, which results in the City Attorney's office representing me, or they can actually take me (and the four others on the board) to court and we would be faced with hiring attorneys individually to defend ourselves. While my role is not one of life and death, or even violence, I do understand how the decisions you make can result in something like that.

I guess my issue is that I would like to see some other potential policy solutions to potentially replace qualified immunity. Things that could prevent situations such as those that you detail from reaching full litigation, but still allows for holding officers personally responsible in situations where they were in the wrong. I'm not in favor of the responsibility resting entirely on the department.

I do want to also point out that much of what I have read on the topic doesn't come from left-wing sources; it actually comes from libertarian writing. This is less about left v. right than you perceive.

(10-23-2020, 12:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's a substantial difference.

Quote:First off, a doctor's patients are not inherently hostile to them.

Quote:Secondly, every doctor has mandatory malpractice insurance that covers this.

Quote:Now, I can see the wheels turning already, why not make officer's get similar insurance?  The answer is because officers will be sued personally at a far greater rate than a medical doctor.

Quote:Allow me to clue you into something, most of the people law enforcement deals with are criminals (I'm off course talking outside of things like traffic stops and the like).  Criminals will lie, about anything, at the drop of a hat.  They will lie under oath, they will lie to any investigator, in fact lying is so engrained in them they will continue to lie when actually telling the truth is in their best interests.  I've told many of them the following before I start speaking to them; we're going to talk and you're going to lie to me.  I'm going to point out that you're lying and then you're going to lie in a different way.  This process repeats itself for two hours plus (depending on the severity of what's being discussed) until we finally start getting to some truth.  When I'm asked why I don't believe someone I tell them I'd check out a window if they told me the sky was blue.

Quote:Also, in a medical malpractice suit there isn't much "he said, she said".  There are definite facts to point to, decisions made and when they were made, that separate medical professionals can then judge.  Almost every lawsuit against an LEO is going to be a "he said, she said".  Even with another officer backing up the story you'll get the "blue wall of silence" assumption that they are lying to protect their fellow officer and remember that a civil suit does not require a unanimous jury.

Quote:In short, if you haven't done this job or interacted with criminals as part of your job (e.g probation, parole, correctional officer) you really don't understand just how dangerous this idea of ending qualified immunity really is.  It will destroy law enforcement and create a criminal's paradise.  

(10-23-2020, 01:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I never claimed there wasn't.


Usually, not.  I've never had to put anyone in physical or chemical restraints.  I've only be subjected to yelling and threats to the point other patients asked if they should leave because they feared for their safety.


The hospital has malpractice insurance for me that protects the hospital.  It does not protect me personally. If I want to protect my "house, life savings, and college fund" I need to purchase additional malpractice insurance individually on my own.

Quote:Maybe.  Maybe not.  I was under the impression the lawyers sue whomever they can sue including both the individual and the institution.  Since doctors in general earn more than police officers I don't see a financial incentive to sue police officers individually, but not doctors. But, as you know, that's just speculation on both our parts.

Quote:There is an idiom among medical providers which goes something like this, "Patients lie."  Don't take my word for it.  Ask around.  I'm sure they don't lie as prodigiously as criminals.

Quote:I chuckle at the idea there is no "he said, she said" at a malpractice suit.  Lawyers are gonna do their lawyer thing.

Quote:I can only imagine your reaction if I had actually suggested ending qualified immunity rather than pointing out just one other profession that could lose their "house, life savings, and college fund" due to an on the job decision or action.  But, I'm kinda sick of seeing cops shoot suspects in the back running away from a traffic stop, or punching a reporter in the face with a riot shield for no reason, or body slamming the wrong suspect into the ground breaking their arm over a case of mistaken identity because the officer didn't take 30 seconds to ask what was going on, or destroy a half a million dollar house to arrest an armed shoplifter and then offer $5000 in damages.  So I'd like to see police officers show a little more responsibility.

(10-23-2020, 02:53 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes, I was aware of this, but I suppose I didn't make the distinction clear.




There isn't one right now because you can't.  If you could then you'd see organized crime, e.g. gangs, Mexican mafia, cartels, etc. paying large sums of money to people to set up effective LEO's for personal law suits.  That kind of organized opposition is not something you're going to see in medical malpractice



I have no doubt.  Especially during a lawsuit.



Also, to be sure.  There are some key differences though.  One, you have a record of what was done and when.  You have lots of witnesses to such records.  While I know it's not as cut and dry as this, there's a far difference between actions taken within a hospital or clinic and what occurs in an alleyway at three in the morning when the only witnesses are the officer and the plaintiff.


I can understand your point of view, but for reasons I've hoped I've come close to adequately explaining, I don't see the risk to medical practitioners as being as extreme.  I could add that medical malpractice kills over 100,000 people per year, which is more than ten times the number of people killed by law enforcement in any fashion (traffic accidents, shootings, etc.).  Of course a large percentage of those killed by law enforcement were justifiably killed.

No one, especially a good LEO, wants to see LEO's abusing their position.  It's not as widespread as is currently claimed and it didn't occur every time it is alleged.  That doesn't mean there isn't work to do in this regard, but ending qualified immunity is not one of the steps that should be involved in that process.

(10-23-2020, 03:52 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Are officers who act negligently covered by qualified immunity?

(10-23-2020, 04:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes.  However, in a perfect world they would then be censured or fired and thus no longer to continue to function as LEO's.  Unfortunately we must protect some bad people, hopefully temporarily, to ensure that the job can function at all.  Also, it is very possible for an excellent officer to make a terrible error in judgment.  Additionally, and again this is where the analogy with the medical professions doesn't really apply, LEO's often have to make split second decisions based on limited information.  Not allowing for the potential for well intentioned error in these situations would, again, completely stagnate and paralyze the job performance of every LEO.  Where I can understand the frustration with qualified immunity is when the same bad actor is covered by it multiple times and that is certainly an area in need of significant improvement.