10-23-2020, 11:44 AM
(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.
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.
