08-28-2020, 11:25 AM
(08-28-2020, 11:16 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: As I said, the authority is not supposed to be a perk, but it is treated as a perk by some of the people the job attracts (those who want authority). The obvious stereotype is the bully who graduates from high school and, once they become eligible to serve in the police, want to continue bullying people. I don't think the police department is filled with these types, but I'm sure it makes up some percentage of the force.
And I imagine qualified immunity helps with the civil lawsuits that abuse of authority may cause, as it creates a fair amount of gray area in which a cop may not be held responsible for his abuses or incorrect actions.
As for the complaints, that's a fair point. I guess I assumed that internal affairs would not file obviously false or "retributive" complaints. I'd have to see how many complaints the average police officer gets. In the article, it says another officer there had 6 complaints against him so its not like every officer is walking around with 10+ complaints against them.
Qualified immunity basically went away a long time ago. And, it only covered you in cases where you were acting in good faith, ie, you arrested someone for DUI and they blew under the limit, they cannot sue you for false arrest. If you are not acting in good faith, it never covered you. And, anyone can sue you at any time. While they may not win, it is troublesome to have to fight these cases.
IA does not file complaints usually, they investigate complaints that come in from the public. If someone complains you gave them a ticket for speeding, and they were speeding, it's still a complaint. There is a finding and recommendation from IA, which then will or will not lead to discipline. The problem is the press just puts out so and so had X number of complaints in 2 years, and never says how many, if any, were substantiated...
