Why Bad Cops Aren't Punished: The Case Against Qualified Immunity
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 06. 2020
- Police officers shouldn't be above the law.
----
Subscribe to our CZcams channel: czcams.com/users/ReasonTV?sub_...
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
-----
Following the police killing of George Floyd, the once-obscure legal doctrine known as qualified immunity has been thrust into the national spotlight.
The judge-made doctrine effectively shields police from most civil lawsuits unless their specific conduct has been "clearly established" as unconstitutional in a previous case.
"You know, there's an old adage, ignorance of the law is no excuse," says William Baude, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "The one group of people for whom it is an excuse are the government officials who…should know what they are and aren't supposed to do."
This sweeping protection, wich was never voted on or signed into law, evolved over decades of judicial actions to give government officials room to make judgment calls without fear of lawsuits.
"The court can fix it anytime," says Baude. "But Congress can also fix it. Because it's just an interpretation of a statute that Congress wrote, Congress also has the power to step in…to either change the doctrine or repeal it entirely."
The Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to reformers by declining to hear a set of cases questioning the constitutionality of qualified immunity. Currently, the only hope for quick reform is legislation like the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, co-sponsored by Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.).
"I don't think reforming or even abolishing qualified immunity is going to change all the problems we have with policing in this country," says Baude. "There's a lot of research that police unions are another huge part of the problem because they make it really hard to hold bad apples accountable….But I do hope that by creating the sense that the police are not above the law, that it could sort of lead to some of the bigger cultural changes we probably need."
Produced and edited by Meredith Bragg; protest footage by Mark McDaniel, Zach Weismueller, and Paul Detrick.
Photo credits: Image of Sport/Newscom, Anthony Behar/Sipa USA/Newscom, Graeme Sloan/Sipa USA/NewscomKaren Neoh/Flicker, Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Newscom, Aaron Guy Leroux/Sipa USA/Newscom, Everett Collection/Newscom, Doug Mills/picture alliance / Consolidated/Newscom, Brian Branch Price/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Adolphe Pierre-Louis/ZUMA Press/Newscom, Stefani Reynolds/CNP/AdMedia/Newscom, Joel Marklund/ZUMA Press/Newscom, John Rudoff/Sipa USA/Newscom
End qualified immunity and make the officers pay out of their pockets.
^This. We do something wrong, we pay out of our pockets. The police do something wrong, we also pay out of our pockets because it comes from taxes.
No. Make them pay out of their asses!
No qualified immunity for ANYBODY this is something that should never have existed.
I mean, qualified Immunity doesn’t make sense for people not in an office.
However people in office, such as the president, should have it since without it they could have their term locked up in systems of law. They could just hit them with suit after suit and the person in office would have to spend their entire term in the court.
@@OneLostTexan how soas long as they don't break the law they are safe
Chris Cahill, well they don’t even have to break the law, being taken to court doesn’t automatically mean they are guilty. It still wastes their time and they will never have even been guilty.
To some degree I might agree to something like this existing.
However its routine abuse means that abolition is prob the only way forward.
If officials reject review, improvement, professionalism, responsibility, accountability and the community.
And cannot challenge a toxic culture that is harmful to the community.
It doesn't . No law was ever made for it . It was created by the courts in 1982 to help Reagan's war on drugs . Prison population went from 500k to 1 million in the 1980's .
Let law enforcement carry liability insurance, just like doctors do. End qualified immunity.
Get some real work done. End the Grand Jury.
Yes, those two things would fix many of the problems.
Show me a liability insurance that a police officer can afford. Doctors and police are on totally different ends of the spectrum on this. Qualified immunity is needed in a job that rides the find line that law enforcement does
@@brianfox8117 Pay the officer a nontaxable stipend to reimburse fully for liability insurance premiums, but not any increases if there are claims against his policy. That, along with body cams, will incentivize him to behave.
@@outdoorsguy so there are a few things that won’t work for this and the reason the Supreme Court will not hear the issue out. These cases cost millions and millions of dollars, after one incident that officer would no longer be able to work causing huge hesitation on the job to actually perform their lawful duties. And not allowing law enforcement to make those split second decisions would result in injuries to officers or the public.
When cops can steal 100ks of dollars from a search warrant and don't go to jail because no "clearly established" case says thats illegal under the 4th Amendment, it needs a complete overhaul.
I was a cop a couple decades ago but remember my first day with my FTO and him saying "Forget everything you learned at the academy. I'm going to teach you reality rather than classroom. If it doesn't make sense just do it anyway because you can't be suid for anything you do wrong."
And pray tell which department hired men of your quality to be "PO-lice-men"?
Jesus they tortured and tried to kill me
Judicial immunity needs to go too, the courts are corrupt beyond belief!
You got that right. Operating a legal fiction based off of barratry and fraud.
Limit police unions.
Abolish victimless crime laws.
Retrain police.
The system will never be perfect.
We can make it much better.
It is obvious something is going to change one way or another.
also make police a professional profession
@Lewis C. ,
That would be the ultimate goal.
Privatize the police
I agree with everything here. Listen to the caller in this video --> czcams.com/video/7EclQ2GT-tM/video.html
The answer is no unions for government workers. The unions bargain for benefits and work conditions with the politicians they help to elect.
Yes.
so many people who represent people working for the government are going to be against such a ruling. Everyone who does business with govt workers will need to also not support their partners in overturning it.
Call your congressman and senators now get rid of qualified immunity!
No qualified immunity for cops? Fine.
Then no qualified immunity for governors, mayors, legislators, judges, government employees of any kind.
Qualified immunity = police brutality
I don't know about this comment. Talk to that Dallas cop who has been prosecuted for shooting that guy in his apartment. Doesn't appear qualified immunity worked for her!
@@richardhutchinson651 That is rare. Occasionally they have to hang one out to dry to make it look as if they're being open and fair.
@@richardhutchinson651 this comment reminds me of that presentation to some city council meeting in NY I think where the guy just grabbed snow from outside and said “If global warming is real then how come it’s snowing outside”
Seriously.. this is a major blind spot in your current form of thinking. I hope you’ve grown enough mentally in order to see the irony in this.
QI=obstruction of justice, but can lead to police brutality
When I was in law school, during my second year, I drafted an article explaining why this doctrine should be abolished. I'm happy to see it finally beginning to gain traction.
I would be interested to hear your theory on why qualified immunity should be abolished
We also need to remove all unconstitutional statutes and codes from the books. No victim - No crime
Judges are immune, too...
Same with Nancy Pelosi and the Clinton’s. It’s sickening.
So the DA the asshole who supposed to charge the cops.
ABOLISH QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ALL IMMUNITY and stop them from investigating themselves and being over the video/BODY cam footage and stop them from being able to turn off the body cams 🙏💯 nobody should qualified immunity judge's government officials police officers ECT end it now
"...to give government officials room to make judgement calls without fear of lawsuits."
Great idea!
Better idea: Remove ~99.99999% of existing laws so it's actually possible to KNOW what is legal!
Yup. Judgement calls should not distort the law.
NO ONE SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LAW!
Except me, because I'm really snazzy.
Remove the qualified immunities and have the cops get liability insurances. That way you will be able to Sue the cops directly instead of suing the departments and tax payers won't have to pay settlements and when the cop screws up their insurances will either increase their premiums or cancel their policies
Exactly
But then cops would constantly be getting sued
Abolish qualified immunity now. Holding them all accountable for their unlawful actions against the public.
What is the other side of this? Endless lawsuits against Law Enforcement? What about judges? They have absolute qualified immunity while police have to go through court to see if they qualify. There are a lot of cases where the officer does not get qualified immunity.
Immunity is an imbalance of rights. The cost of the imbalance of rights will come to a head from time to time like it is right now. This goes for police, District Attorneys, anyone.
@@jdhakes1 who cares if there's an imbalance if it is rarely an issue. It's like BLM and the media complaining about cops killing black when that rarely happens, saying we need to get rid of police altogether and all this insanity. Meanwhile way more black people (probably mostly kids) die of accidental drowning and no one even mentions it. No one is out saying we need mandatory swim lessons for children or doing PSAs about watching your kids more closely around pools. There are about a billion issues more important and pressing than a small handful of corrupt cops out of the whole country.
John Hackly There is an imbalance of rights because there is an imbalance of responsibility. The police move toward conflict and volatile situations. Of course they will be more likely to encounter situations that are not only difficult to sort out, legally speaking, but changing rapidly from calm to violent. If citizens were required to do what police are, you better believe they would demand some qualified immunity.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter they don't understand because it's easy to bitch from the safety of your room. Most libertarians are just that, people who have never encountered a real issue.
@@Individual_Lives_Matter no one should be exempt from the law, no politician nor authority. The rise of the police state should be concerning for everyone. I'm not one of the idiots who want to disband the police, but we certainly should limit their authority and immunities. Too many times bad cops are protected, why should they not have to face the consequences of their actions?
As a libertarian coming from Brazil, where cops don't have immunity at all, I can definitely say: taking it from them sounds like a good idea, but it is far worse than they having it
I'd like to get you to expand in that comment if you wouldn't mind.
we should really figure out how to update our gvt. the way we update software, this thing has soooo many bugs that they start becoming features for too many ppl.
I agree with that 100%. You are the first person I've heard this from.Shame it won't happen without blood.
The politicians and the police are the bugs. A cop is a bad bug no matter what.
Nobody should be above the law!
Damn, such good audio I have to admit even through a webcam.
True,didn't notice it which is proof it was good!
Police reform like this could bring lasting change. But no, we have to listen to the mob in the street and nadler in his huge government chair. Share this video everywhere, it's too important to go unnoticed.
I don't want police reforms. I want black people and anarchists to be held accountable for commiting crimes. The police aren't the ones burning down businesses and assaulting people in the streets.
@@user-fb8ee7ec8e police are assaulting people in the streets though dingbat. You are on that ultra partisan media for smooth brains.
@@nickrioz @Fretchen gets it. Dude you're so brainwashed. Police brutality is such a rare issue it's kind of ridiculous people take it seriously. You are just so naive you've been fooled by criminals who want to destroy law enforcement so they can get away with crime and terrorism. If the problem here is actually blacks getting killed why isn't anyone flipping out about the many more blacks who die of accidental drownings every year, calling for pool reform and demanding mandatory swimming lessons. It's because swimming lessons won't help criminals and anarchists escape justice.
Jesus ok guys. Don't get me wrong, I definitely am not trying to ignore the dumb burning, looting, and violence. That's why I said "But no, we have to listen to the mob in the street...". That was me acknowledging the stupidity of some of these rioters. But that's not the point of this video. The point here is to bring lasting police reform that might help us hold the bad cops accountable without hurting the safety or ability to do their job of the good cops.
You know how we have minimum mandatory sentences for certain crimes? Yeah. I think we should have maximum mandatory sentences for police who break laws, seeing as they are supposed to be the ones who uphold them.
Facts
I think that sentences is saying the opposite of what you meant
This is nothing more than insanity
Police should be held to a higher standard, but we don't want frivolous lawsuits either. We need an enhanced legal structure allowing law enforcement to do their jobs while protecting innocent bystanders at the same time.
Maybe we should have some type of insurance for law enforcement to go to innocent people.
You can already sue their department or their city for damages. Look at the multi-million dollar payouts that happen every year in NYC.
>but we don't want frivolous lawsuits either
That's why you USA should adopt English rule aka Loser pays.
Make it the same as doctors with malpractice insurance. We could have police malpractice insurance, that way the bad cops will be priced out of the market by insurance premiums. You could also have a year by year decrease in premiums for the good cops.
@@jamesford2942 but scammers still file fake lawsuits hoping to win big. So even good cops who never broke the rules can be hit.
Maybe we should just treat all people the same. No "special powers" for anyone. Insurance against police harassment sounds good but only if their bosses pay for it.
Really incredible reporting; organized and understandable to the layman. Keep it up, Reason! :)
If policing is the “hardest job in the country”! Then why are there so many fat cops?!!
This video sounds more against the judicial system making law then it does against Qualified Immunity. Just saying.
In this case it is definitely one problem causing another.
Well if a judicial system is "making law", then that's a problem in itself. Only the legislature can do that.
What to expect? Idiot politicians make the decisions.
Yes. This is a good case against judicial activism.
@@NomadJournalistNews The judicial system interprets the law, and did so perversely.
Their time is coming weather it's in court or in their dark driveway.
Now that really sounds like a threat of violence directed at the Judiciary. If you were to try that with a cop, well one less skid-mark to deal with.
On a similar note, diplomatic immunity is ridiculous. Recently, a US diplomat's wife hit and killed someone in Britain because she was driving on the wrong side of the road. Nothing happened to her and, likely, nothing _will_ happen to her.
Diplomatic Immunity is there for a whole host of other reasons..
I really hate the government sometimes. They are way outside the bounds of their authority.
Its the big three: Qualified Immunity, Police Unions and the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights. All three need immediate reform.
So, the dudes charged with enforcing the law, aren't required to actually KNOW the law. Sounds legit.
That is absolutely incorrect.
@@wm.courtney9114 That may not be the intent, but it seems to be the real world effect.
@@wm.courtney9114if they know the law and are trained in the law then why do they need qualified immunity?
I'm very much on the pro-police side of things that had been happening recently, but what you said in this video said more and had more credible facts than every single protest and rant I've seen since the George Floyd killing. This is a perfect example of sharing facts the right way, good on ya.
@Ken MacDonald You are an uneducated fool. But you sound like you're smart enough to understand it though. You're just misinformed and way off the mark(don't feel bad, most folks are). Teach yourself what a Grand Jury is. Then realize WTF is really going on. Bad cops are not punished. There's no way to punish them...CRIMINALLY...LIKE WHEN THEY BREAK THE LAW!!! LIKE WHAT THIS IS REALLY ALL ABOUT!!! BTW everything about that cop shooting that dog was BAD and WRONG. It was not an accident or excusable in any way. Should not have been where he was, or doing what he was doing. No investigation or evidence required(plenty of witnesses). Don't be a dumbfuck. Got fired? That's all? And you're fine with that? Somebody oughta shoot your ass so I can say "that guy needs fired". You can't fucking be serious. Know what happens when you shoot a police dog? MURDER 1. The dog is considered an officer of the law. Sound fair?
Ken MacDonald you are wrong. The politicians wrote a law, and then the Supreme Court erred by making up qualified immunity out of the law that was written. The justices, instead of relying on the text of the law as written, decided to find something within the law that just wasn’t there.
Great comment Marluxia!
@@MetalMasterdom You can't tell if a dog is friendly or not
@@juanmunoz7729 Maybe YOU can't. Most folks can. As a law abiding citizen...you aren't allowed to break into someone's fenced yard and shoot their dog. PERIOD! I'm not sure what makes you think a cop has the right to do it...UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES! I am sure I don't give a fuck what your excuse is. So you can save it.
At 6yr.s old I passed multiple firearm courses to be allowed to go hunting with my Dad.
Same as SWIMMING LESSONS to go swimming without parental supervision at the high school indoor pool or YWCA
BE PREPARED AND PRACTICED AT POSSIBLE EMERGENCIES
BEFORE ALLOWED TO
CARRY
Removeing qulifyed immunity will fix 90% of the problem
How could you possibly prove that any individual “intended” to do anything? Do we now have the ability to read minds????
Oh I agree that you don't need to "reduce immunity" - it clearly need to be completely elliminated, not only for police but also with prosecutorial and judicial immunity. When a cop breaks into someones house under a fraudulent warrant they should loose their status as a police officer in regards to that act and be charged (and convicted) with whatever any other private citizen would be - breaking and entering, armed robery, destruction of property, assault, batery, kidnaping and even murder depending on the circumstances. Any prosecutors or judges who signed off on the dogy warrent (or authorised going in without one) without beng able to honestly claim they were actually defrauded by whomever applied for a warent should be guilty of conspiracy to commit the crimes that occured.
Shouldn't have existed. Why should the cops be exempt from something as simple as:
"You fuck up; you pay up"
Bad cops aren’t punished, neither are bad judges
Why should state thugs be above the law?
For the people arguing that you need a qualified immunity system-
If you commit a crime, you are put on trial in a fair court.
If you have laws protecting you from a fair trial, then you're just bottling up corruption in the department.
The courts will find out what is just and fair based on evidence, and repealing qualified immunity allows for justice, rather than stop it because it's illegal. Not to mention that there is a process in the legal system to see if the case has standing before it's brought forward.
Qualified immunity can only serve to protect the bad eggs just like the police unions.
or maybe, if you're asked by the society to daily enter situations where making mistakes is almost inevitable, you need immunity from all but the most obvious mistakes, or you won't find people to do that job?
Alex N great point. That's why I can't take a hard stance on this. Both sides are compelling.
If you could sue a cop for violating your constitutional rights, why couldn't you sue a lawmaker for writing and passing unconstitutional laws? If you prosecuted the police that killed Eric Garner, you would have to look at why they were arresting him in the first place. It was their job to do that. They were forced by the city's revenue mechanism to stop his activity and get him into the system where he can be made to pay for disregarding the tax scheme. In addition could judges who convict people with laws that are unconstitutional also be held accountable? For this reason, they will never get rid of qualified immunity. They dont care about the cops. Its their own asses they are protecting.
Police unions, civil asset forfeiture, qualified immunity, militarized police, and the drug war. End all of that crap and we'd be much better off.
Qualified immunity needs to be gotten rid of and it’s time for cops to need liability insurance before they’re allowed to work. Why should the city or county be held responsible if they manage to sue a cop.
If the law doesn't matter when a cop violates it, the law doesn't matter AT ALL.
But if we got rid of qualified immunity most police officers would know that they'll be held reliable but as long as they got qualified immunity they don't care because the money don't come out of their pockets when they do get sued it comes out of taxpayers now if qualified immunity was gone and that officer knew that he had to pay for his own mistakes out of his own pocket he would think twice about it
Probably the only thing I ever have agreed with Bernie on
Believe it when you see it, not holding my breath for any meaningful change.
Yes, good old fashioned pessimism. That's a big help.
THANK YOU PROFESSOR.
Qualified immunity is unconstitutional
I think police forces should hire only law professors at universities to do police work, since they already know everything about how a cop should do his job in a hypothetical classroom setting. Then all these problems would be solved!
SykoEsquire I would pay to see that happen 😂
in other countries you need several years of academic level education (mostly law) for the higher career path (that means starting detectives and above) so yeah... not a bad idea.
Why do you think your police should not be better at their jobs? In germany, a country of 80 million fewer than 20 people were shot by police in 2019 (that being a bad year) and that includes suicides and accidents with service arms. Even if we assume higher gun proliferation and violence in the USA the US should not top out around 1000 by comparison
@@mangalores-x_x While normally in CZcams comments, I look do drop tongue-in-cheek quips, it's hard for me to organize stuff that should be on a thesis paper or a stage debate, so forgive me is my context isn't fully fledged, incomplete, or oversimplified.
That out of the way, absolutely cops should be better at their jobs. Everyone, no matter if it's employment related or not, should be looking to improve their situation. Though, I would argue there just are way to many variables to make a unified one-size-fits-all policing. And as an aside, as it stands at this moment, the onus should be more on society not being shitty people, to not have interaction with law enforcement in the first place, not so much how the cops have to address these situations. Though, egregious misconduct and outright incompetence should be punished, and in these cases qualified immunity doesn't even apply.
But cops in their respective communities aren't interchangeable. A cop in places like Chicago or NY are going to have to be more rugged, as the populace tends to be a little more rugged. As opposed to a cop in the middle of bum fuck Idaho. They encounter way different things and likely have vastly different skillsets, yet they serve the same function. But they are not interchangeable. An Idaho cop, isn't equipped in any sense of the word to police places like Chicago or NY, and the Chicago and NY cops would be considered to be a bit over-the-top for Idaho policing purposes. They just aren't interchangeable. It's not like being a teacher or an EMT, where practices generally carry you wherever you can hang your hat.
On that note, and speaking to qualified immunity type measures, doctors and paramedics probably "kill" more people (because they are not perfect) and are generally still allowed to practice, assuming nothing they did was grossly negligent or egregious, and courts throw out lawsuits all the time, because these medical professionals were doing what they were trained to do and operating in good faith. A doctor has arguably more education, well beyong most cops, yet they end up "killing" way more than cops, so why can't a cop get the benefit of the doubt when they were doing things by the book, or acting on split second decisions? Going back to the onus, society has failed police, not the other way around.
Another aside, and this I'll admit is ad hominem but be perfectly honest. Would you feel comfortable with that beta male professor from the video to come save the day if shit hit the fan? Do you think he could perform everything a cop is expected to do flawlessly, and not just writing tickets? Hell, I'd like him to just go through judgement shooting scenarios, where he has to decide when and if it's ok to shoot on split second decision making. And of thise scenarios if he ends up "dead" from poor decisions. And if he makes a bad decision but meant well, if he is still ok with being hung out to dry, with 20/20 hindsight. He may be a good bookworm but I bet you paychecks that his practical application skills of his knowledge, under stress are all fucking useless. I also bet, due to his education level, policing is probably beneath him, so you will hear him leacture all day about something he can't even do himself.
Sorry for the tangents and format (and typos), but that's the gist of it, sure things could be better, but neutering and gutting police ability to do thier job is far more detrimental to society at large, of course in my opinion. If a cop needs to second guess everything and look at situations with 20/20 hindsight, good luck getting them to respond to critical incidents. They just aren't going to take the risk at dying or having their lives ruined. But now I have come full circle again, I am not worried about cops as a law abiding citizen, figure out how to achieve more lawful conduct by citizens than trying to crufiy cops after they address the societal cancers.
The same justice Warren as of the Warren Commission? We all know hes not corrupt😂😂😂😂
Unacceptable!
Like criminals, cops should have a 3 strikes and you are out policy. If it is proven you abused a person, that should count as a strike. Don't change the immunity policy, just get rid of the bad actors.
Who would give them strike? Bad cop + police brotherhood= bad police as whole. Good cop+ files complaint against bad cop= getting kick out of group.
Would people who supporting ending this policy for police support ending it for doctors as well? The statistics seem to suggest that many more people die from human error in hospitals than in police interactions. Interesting topic
Doctors have to have insurance. Maybe the police should carry individual insurance too. If they're uninsurable, they can't work.
nick their practice does but individuals have the same protections.
250,000 per year die from medical mistakes. With policing, maybe a whole dozen are killed due to mistakes?
Is it right to sue a nurse who doesn't sanitize your IV and kills you with a central line infection?
I'm just adding to the conversation, not agreeing or disagreeing.
The hospital the government function in the same capacity here, they assume the risk on behalf of the individual. To the individual actor, there is no functional difference in type and extent of protection.
As for the idea that the police are "to violent", that is statistically absurd and beyond that there is a serious functional problem since there is already a nationwide shortage of police officers in the US.
This is nothing more then ugly ethnopolitics. When Tony Timpa died under even worse circumstances last year, there wasn't even a peep from the same absurd people screaming bloody murder now.
Amazes me that BLM doesn't promote Jorgensen, the only candidate that runs on ending qualified immunity as well as ending the war on drugs (and corporate welfare, and unnecessary wars overseas, etc)
Very late reply, but BLM is made up of Democrat partisans. They believe in their party like a religion. Same for Republican partisans.
Civil lawsuits should not be used for "punishment", but for reasons such as restitution. Criminal law is for punishment. People constantly sue police departments, and cities civilly for perceived wrongs by police officers. Whoever titled this video might want to read the above.
I agree. No MORE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY FOR POLICE OFFICERS. IT BEING ABUSED BY THEM.
End qualified immunity
Also no knock warrant!
If you get rid of qualified immunity there will be a set of negative things that happen:
- People won’t want to be police
- Insurance companies won’t want to insure police
- Taxes will go up due to countless lawsuits
Qualified immunity is a necessary evil. I do agree though public sector unions (such as police) are a cancer that need to be abolished.
"We have to keep cops above the law or taxes will go up."
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Military Police Officers have no such thing, so why do civilian law enforcement have such a lower standard? They make more than enlisted and have so many protections and benefits. Get rid of this golden parachute for thugs and murderers. You use excessive force you should be charged just like a criminal.
I don't understand why the Rs do not support eliminating immunity?
555Trout police unions give them a shit ton of money
Their love of authority figures
I'm with you on that. I usually vote Republican but sometimes they do stuff like this and it drives me crazy. There's no good reason for them to not support eliminating this
@Santiago Bron utter nonsense.
@@trey8770 I could see that on the elected level but Barr's reasoning was just so transparently wrong?
In the United States, the doctrine of qualified immunity grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". Wikipedia
Don't forget the DA's, Police chiefs and police unions. Why do taxpayers have to pay for videos from tax funded equipment.
Well SAID.
How is this not the opposite issue the medical field suffers where doctors can be sued for almost anything and consequently consumes huge amounts of resources to avoid being sued. Is this a trade off we would like for the police. How much of the police budget is worth putting into avoiding being sued.
HR 7085 could end qualified immunity. If drugs were decriminalized at the same time, it would protect both cops and the general public.
Unacceptable.
No officer should discharge firearms at dogs in private yard with all those kids present.
We cannot discharge within city limits
No acceptions!
Anyone who stayed on after qualified immunity went away would do exactly zero proactive policing and would look the other way constantly out of self-preservation. It would really hurt the inner city. Murders, robberies theft, all crime would begin trending upward.
Exactly the opposite would happen. More professional people would be attracted to a more professional organization. As it stands right now too many bad guys are attracted to having a badge and gun who know that they can act out their aggressive behavior without consequences.
By "proactive policing" are you implying you want police to harass citizens to stop crimes from happening, or did you mean something else? Also, do doctors cease operating on people for fear of malpractice lawsuits? Do soldiers stop fighting for fear of war crime charges? No, cops wouldn't stop doing their jobs if they were held more accountable, nor would there be a shortage of police, especially for a government job with as many benefits as it has with no qualifications.
Patrick Rubino, of course there would be absolute chaos and anarchy in the streets if the cops were held to account for the official actions they take ☺️
Laughably big government lies. No other country in the world has qualified immunity, it works much better for them.
Qualified Immunity Has Proven To Be Extremely Dangerous To We The People Needless To Even Have To Mention FULL INDEMNITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The video says "Give government officials [police in this case] room to make judgement calls without fear of lawsuits" which, to me, is actually a selling point for qualified immunity. Police are tasked with making judgement calls under extreme duress on a routine basis. People who are wronged still have legal recourse, as they can sue the police department or city, just not the specific officer involved. With the weight of making the "wrong" decision looming over their heads, police will instead choose to not act.
No, if you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Doctors hold the principle "Do no harm." Why should police not hold the same when dealing with life and death as well?
I totally agree that the police as well as all public officials in whatever position should be held to higher standards. Fixing flawed laws and eliminating bad and overburdensome laws and regulations can go a long way. But unions like the police and teachers unions have a tendency to protect the bad union members who have no business being in those jobs and therefore make it harder to get rid of the bad apples.
There is certainly a place for qualified immunity, the problem is that over the years the courts have set precedents which stretch the original legislation far past its intended purpose. You can clearly thank the courts for this nonsense, if you want to stop the problem both congress and the courts need to step up and do their damn job.
QUALIFIED IMMUNITY is not even the worst PART of this subject!! Anyone at all attempting to file a lawsuit against law enforcement are literally hunted down by law enforcement and brutality subjected to harassment, torture, fines, etc.
The term "QUALIFIED IMMUNITY " gives god like egos to Law enforcement officials who Strongly Believe that
they are ABOVE JUDGEMENT!! Facts.
Not many are able to speak about this type of retaliation vengeance because they have been silenced from speaking.
The problem with getting rid of qualified immunity entirely is that judgement calls do get made often by officers often. What I think should happen is there should be a defined way to determine whether the officer acted in good faith, and it should be determined by the people instead of a judge. I think the officer and his superior should appeal before a jury (the superior does not have to take the side of the defendant officer) and then the jury should have a chance to decide whether the cop was guilty of betraying our good faith. Then this should add years on top of what the officer would already owe for the crime in question. This way officers are held to a higher standard but still granted a chance at grace, but that grace has to come from the people. There should also be an option for door number 3, where the people don't find the officer guilty of betraying good faith, but also do not find him fit to make such judgement calls in the future, where the people can call for the cop to be either fired or sent back to academy, though I'm not sure which of those would be better
Qualified immunity should be eliminated, but don't think that will change cops' unconstitutional behavior... Qualified immunity is only applicable as a defense to lawsuits against bad actors in their personal capacity, which, in theory, would mean that the cop would have to pay out of his own pocket. This might dissuade unconstitutional acts, but cops are typically indemnified by their department or city which pays for them, so they still would not be required to pay a dime out of pocket. Unless and until individual cops are forced to put some of their own skin in the game, they remain free to trample the constitution at will.
I would focus attention away from qualified immunity and focus it toward requiring police to carry their own liability insurance, similar to the way doctors carry malpractice insurance. After a given number of claims are paid out, their insurance is cancelled for life. This would force cops to take personal responsibility for their conduct and would eventually eliminate gypsy cops from traveling from town to town to carry on their bad behavior.
Cops are human and as such are prone to make mistakes, especially in fast-moving situations where they may be forced to kill or be killed, and the extreme level of job stress often results in mental issues. The training cops receive should be increased to a level where such mistakes are extremely rare. In addition, psychological screening must also be increased to a minimum of twice a year, so that any outstanding issues with anger, PTSD, burnout, and etc. can be dealt with before we put another mentally unstable cop on the street.
The power we have entrusted to the police is so great that we must ensure it cannot be wielded recklessly, or maliciously, or by anyone with anything less than very firm grip on reality. We, as a society, must stop comparing how many blacks are killed in relation to how many whites are killed. We must understand that each of those corpses was an American citizen who may not have needed to die at all. We must also understand that running roughshod over ANYONE'S constitutional rights has serious and lasting consequences for our nation as a whole.
The Supreme Court, in Mapp v Ohio back in 1961, said this: "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence...Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy."
This one little quote predicted the current situation with such precision nearly 60 years ago. If we hope to save this country from anarchy, I suggest we start paying attention to a government which seeks to invite it.
Let’s take away qualified immunity from prosecutors too. That’s would be something wouldn’t it? I’m kidding. Dumb idea.
Qualified immunity is repugnant to the entire concept that is rule of law, for whomever is hiding behind it. If those who swore to up hold the rule of law (unelected government agents, cops, DAs) are not bound to follow it by the same means, and can act with impunity when disregarding those laws and often our rights; it is a crystal clear example of tyranny.
Too many prosecutors abuse their authority for political gain at the expense of innocent people.
Abolishing prosecutorial immunity is an idea that has been long ignored and is long overdue.
It’s not simply a matter of providing better training to police so they stay within the bounds of the law. One of the most important reasons qualified immunity exists is to prevent frivolous lawsuits against individual officers over petty grievances. The fact that the doctrine protects officers who do highly questionable things is merely incidental. This presents an intractable problem.
We need this.
Most cops are probably decent but there are many bullies with badges in most police forces I think.
Actually very few.
this needs more views
Hopefully by someone who can communicate clearly in English.
It’s NOT a sacrifice to be a government servant when you don’t sacrifice anything….if you swear an oath to uphold the constitution who comes first in that equation. When the cop car says protect and serve who exactly is being protected and in whom is the service catering too…? Citizens comes first period. The people are the government and give government authority in exchange for inalienable rights. The sacrifice of public servants does not go unnoticed. But the people should always come first or it 100% destroys any claim by police officers that the people should be thanking them for their sacrifice. It no longer is a sacrifice the people can honor in good faith.
The Dred Scott case made it clear Congress needed to change the law. It seemed cruel, but Amendments followed that repaired the law. Cruel laws still attract brutes to the profession, so repealing those also makes sense.
I think we need a hybrid approach. We need to narrowly define what IS covered under qualified immunity and MASSIVELY increase funding for body cameras and making ALL police video available to the public IMMEDIATELY. Without some form of qualified immunity, police would be targeted by bad actors for every perceived infraction, it would make the job of policing impossible to do. For example, in the state of Maryland, we recently passed a law that protects citizens against civil lawsuits that could arise from a self-defense shooting that resulted in death, as long as the shooting was determined to be legally justified. Before this law, if someone broke into your home and you shot and killed them, even though the shooting was found to be justified, the family members of the individual who broke into your home could then sue you civilly.
The current way qualified immunity is handled is too broad, however, we need to be careful that we don't push the pendulum too far the other way. Completely eliminating qualified immunity for police will cause even more problems than it solves.
Immediate release of confusing body cam footage can prevent justice from being achieved.
Some limitations and cavets to qualified immunity are appropriate. Would not scrap it.
John Oliver clips are annoying and takes away from the seriousness of the topic discussed.
I DON'T BELIEVE COP SHOULD HAVR QUALIFIED Immunity for asulting the public!!!!!
Why should anyone want to be an outstanding Cop?
Corruption pays more. !
+ (every cop is tempted too often, impossible to resist)
Incentives with
REAL VALUE
TO ENCOURAGE COPS TO HELP KEEP EACH OTHER FROM GOING OVER THE LINE
AND. POLICE. DETERMINE THE INCENTIVES THEY
WANT
I feel like this guy has never been on a ride-along during a tense situation, nor tested a police simulator in which you have seconds to decide whether the guy trying to break into a car is telling the truth that it is his car and he's reaching for his ID or if he was breaking into someone else's car and the ID was a gun.
It should only be overturned if the cops convicted of some type of crime or gross offense
Same reason that molestor teachers stay had home and still receive a check till retirement. Unions
You are thinking of the church.
@@nickrioz watch John Stossel's Stupid In America if you can find it. Teacher unions protect sexual predators.
We've got to get around qualified immunity and police unions. If I were a cop and I know my partner is corrupt but I also know that the union will protect his or her job. How I possibly turn him or her in? I can't
If the Qualified Immunity was eliminated you might as well get rid of the police. Without it anyone could sue a policeman for just about anything. Cop pulls over someone suspicion of DIU an are not, they could take the cop to court. Cop stops someone the matches a description of someone else, they can sue the cop. No one would be a cop if they can be sued for just about anything.
I guess cops will have to figure out how to do their jobs differently. End the war on drugs and cop's need to interact with the public will be reduced by at least 50%. That should help them out quite a bit.
... But if you watch the video the real Qualified Immunity part was only enacted in 1982, so how did they manage before that? No-knock warrants is also a rather recent thing, that they managed without aswell. To pull someone over when you suspect a DIU (Erratic driving or anything else) is not a crime. If you look at the issue internationally, in nations where cops need to go to school for 3-4 years cops are not allowed to break the law, since... They have literally studied the law to the extent that they would be para-legals here.
No other country in the world has qualified immunity. Just do the police work like the UK or Germany. Works perfectly there.
You'd never find another person to do the job without qualified immunity. You can still win damages against the government entity they work for (and by definition the taxpayer with the big wallet), which is a regular occurrence, usually through a settlement if there is clear negligence or malfeasance. And yes, on rare occasions courts rule the officer does not have qualified immunity due to the egregiousness of the act in question. If you want a world without any law enforcement, this is how you accomplish it, remove qualified immunity. So if you remove reason from the equation, you'll get anarchy instead.
Not true. There is more security provided by the private market than by municipal police. Also, need less laws and no more drug laws that criminalize users.
I know this is why we don't have any doctors....wait a minute.
@@poopoo6186 doctors pay tons of cash for liability insurance
@@falrus you mean to tell me that we have Doctors without qualified immunity?
This didn't exist historically and this didn't happen. Qualified immunity was built up over time.
Qualified immunity is only part of the problem. The other part of the that DAs have to be dragged kicking and screaming to press criminal charges against clearly criminal officers. Elect DAs, or elect officials who appoint DAs who will Indite, aggressively prosecute, and insist on lengthy prison sentences.