New York City Ends Qualified Immunity For Police Officers, Becoming 1st In Nation To Do So

And this is what is bullshit.... This misconception that cops can shoot people with impunity is just down right wrong! And not saying they are all wonderful people, but the vast majority are great human beings and do their job to the best of their ability. One was just killed in Boulder trying to protect people!

Another Houston Cop Is Indicted for Murder Because of a 2019 Drug Raid That Killed a Middle-Aged Couple

 

Says a regular purveyor of extreme hyperbole...

 

You have any examples? Since you used the word "regular" you should have a few examples but how about one.

 

Then there should be no problem letting go of qualified immunity. Why keep something if you don't need it?

 

Liberals talk about all the police racism in black run cities. I find it hard to believe. I remember a cop being fired for writing a traffic ticket citation for a guy who handed him a Walter Washington courtesy card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Washington

 

We've given examples ad nauseam so no need to regurgitate the reason why eliminating qualified immunity would be disastrous to both the police force, but the communities they protect as well.

 

You mean like examples where the police didn't respond appropriately and as a result got innocent people hurt and unjuried, unable to get damages because of qualified immunity?

 

What a disaster for New York, the crime rate there is already rocketing and now they're making the officers too scared to do their jobs. Time to wall it off and let Isaac Hayes take over.

 

Did qualified immunity stop the family of George Floyd from receiving an exorbitant amount of money? Do you think that an officer that breaks the arm trying to restrain a violent domestic violence suspect that was stabbing his girlfriend should be able to collect damages?

Again, it's been stated that qualified immunity needs to be amended to only provide protections when a persons constitutional rights are not infringed. Eliminating any protection spells is a bad formula for all parties. Unless of course you are one that has multiple encounters with officers and plan on cashing in on the removal of qualified immunity?!

 

When did that ever happen? Now officers will be too scared to have any confrontation and be tied up in court fighting vexatious claims.

 

As if NYC couldn't insult cops even more.

Cops outraged that NYPD cop-killer tapped to help design police reform in New York

Richard Rivera murdered an NYPD cop execution-style in 1981. Now he has been recruited to sit on a panel tasked with coming up with police reform plans in New York.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/cops-...reform?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook

 

I don't think so.

That's the situation that all of us face, every day. The standard we are judge by is the "Reasonable Person" standard. Why shouldn't all public employees, including Police Officers, Judges, Prosecutors, Cabinet Officials, or anyone else be judged by a different standard than the rest of us?

Because if the officer refuses to do their job, we'll can their ass and replace them with someone who will, even if we have to contract out to Properly Insured and Vetted Private Police forces.

You want to immunize police officers so they can follow illegal orders? Our duty, and this goes for all of us, is to refuse illegal orders, and if an unjust penalty results we have the grounds to file a suit. Why should police officers be any different?

This needs to apply to everyone.

It's the right thing, for the wrong reasons, I'll give you that.

 

To date, the only use I've had for the police is to provide a case number with a report of stolen property. While I'm sure thats due in large part to my lifestyle of peace and tolerance, its also due in large part to not living in a jungle of crime and victim disarmament like NY... but the city is as city does I guess.

 

1. From the officer that killed George Floyd? No. From taxpayers? Yes.
2. Yes. Because it's not the job of the officer to decide if someone is guilty or not. It's the job of the officer to help when needed.

Trying to imply that I'm a criminal means nothing when we're talking about cops who fail to protect citizens by hiding behind laws. The simple answer is we have cops who are overzealous in the use of force and we need to stop them because they're causing more harm than good.

You mean like all those officers that existed prior to qualified immunity? How did they do it? Because they were not scared of causing confrontations.

 

Looks like there is going to be alot of job openings for police officers in NYC.

 

Do you even know what qualified immunity is? And what is protected and what isn't?

 

Because then you had a justice system and public opinion which wasn't CRAZY!

 

Who would want them these days?

 

I guess if the female police chief (like during the Spelman/Mohouse riots) orders those under her to stand there and do nothing while the "Democrats" loot in a HATE CRIME, while the ASIAN is on the roof begging the police for help, the police chief can be sued too by the ASIAN victim of "Democrat" HATE CRIMES?

 

It does not appear that the QI protects the officer from criminal action. They can be prosecuted, obviously since it is happening with the Floyd case.
It only protects the police officers from 'civil' suits. However, It's not that you cannot sue civily, you just need to sue the institution instead of the individual cop. Suing the institution is better because it ensures change occurs throughout the institution instead of just changing each individual cop one at a time.

 

I’m in favor of police being held accountable for their abuses of the citizenry so doing away with qualified immunity is absolutely a good thing.

Cops shouldn’t get away with shooting into a group of kids because he wanted to kill their dog, striking one of the kids in the process. That’s bonkers.
https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf

 

You can sue the government and the cop is going to be held accountable via the government by firing or suspension or other means.

If QI is gone...
Firing individual cops isn't going to insure they are removed from their position especially if the government can potentially avoid liability since the officer is the one liable now. Also, the payouts and settlements will be way lower. Cops don't have millions to pay in damages.

 

¿Por que no los dose?

Bad cops who abuse the citizenry should be held criminally liable and the department/city should be held financially liable for fielding abusive officers. If a trucker for Walmart pancakes me on the highway because he was driving drunk he’s put in jail and Walmart is financially liable. I think we can agree that LEOs should be held to at least the same standard as a trucker and that the department/city should be held to at least the same standard as Walmart.

 

That is a true and accurate statement.

I didn't say 'some or mostly', and neither did I say 'all'. Learn to read English Bearack.

 

It's not utter nonsense RodB, it's a fact. Do your own research.

That Earl Warren concocted the sophistry in the case of Pierson v. Ray in 1967 is a matter of record. 15 years later in the case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, SCOTUS cited the Pierson case, and the result was Stare Decisis and a precedent was set.

This is all covered in the October 2020 issue of REASON magazine. That you don't know it reflects poorly on your knowledge of how it evolved.

QI has done great harm to the rule of law in these United States. It and police unions and other factors are responsible for the poor state of law enforcement in this country. Inform yourself sir. It all began under Earl Warren's court.