Supreme Court Strikes Down Qualified Immunity Claim

[gun_slinger_boy]

IMO qualified immunity is insane. So my question is. If qualified immunity became a thing of the past would people seeking to become police lessen, police be less motivated to enforce laws, a mixture of both or something else?

 

[Acer-m14]

from the video above what Steve is reading from ...

Chemerinsky: SCOTUS hands down a rare civil rights victory on qualified immunity

Per curiam decisions handed down without briefing and oral argument generally do not get much attention, so it is understandable that the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling about qualified immunity in Taylor v. Riojas might have been overlooked, even by civil rights lawyers.

www.abajournal.com

"
The high court’s decision
In a 7-1 decision, with only Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting (and Justice Amy Coney Barrett not participating), the court reversed the 5th Circuit in a per curiam opinion. The court held that the officers were not protected by qualified immunity because “no reasonable correctional officer could have concluded that, under the extreme circumstances of this case, it was constitutionally permissible to house Taylor in such deplorably unsanitary conditions for such an extended period of time.”

The court said: “Confronted with the particularly egregious facts of this case, any reasonable officer should have realized that Taylor’s conditions of confinement offended the Constitution.”

Thomas did not write a dissenting opinion. It simply says, “Justice Thomas dissents.”

"

so .. does this now mean or could ; that LEO should know the 2A ... shall not infringe and know the BOR ... they did take a oath .

what about the politicians that wrote the gun control laws and them that passed them ?

could this put a big sting on gun control laws now ???



remember Qualified immunity was from SCOTUS to begin with .... not a law ...

 

[Acer-m14]

@gun_slinger_boy .. you beat me to the video LOL ..

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Thinking about this again it sounds like what the ATF does. They just made up a non-law law out of nowhere that carries the weight of law. Yet another example of an arm of the govt doing whatever it pleases.

 

[BerettaGuy]

Now if we could only include elected officials - judges and prosecutors and our own Governor Cuomo. It was Cuomo that gave immunity to hospitals for following his directions with COVID. How many died because of his decisions. The more deaths, the more dramatic his so-called briefing show was. It was all self-serving with the intent of keeping the media keeping the population frightened.

 

[meketrefe]

LE and military are already social experiments that put those in the front line in a predicament and at risk.

 

[Rocpo]

I'll only do what my liability insurance will cover.
"Sorry, I'm not insured for your domestic. Good luck!"

 

[Toecutter]

There were plenty of police before qualified immunity. They need to be responsible for their actions just like any one else.

 

[spat]

I'll only do what my liability insurance will cover.
"Sorry, I'm not insured for your domestic. Good luck!"

Sounds like a good way to do things.

 

[Catskillkid]

One of the things I've learned about qualified immunity (and members of the law enforcement community please correct me if I'm wrong) is its the same as other indemnification policies for government officials. Essentially, you are unable to be sued as long as you are discharging your duties as policy proscribes. In other words, as long as you're doing things "by the book" so-to-speak you should not have to worry about facing lawsuits. I don't think that's such a bad thing to have.

 

[Toecutter]

One of the things I've learned about qualified immunity (and members of the law enforcement community please correct me if I'm wrong) is its the same as other indemnification policies for government officials. Essentially, you are unable to be sued as long as you are discharging your duties as policy proscribes. In other words, as long as you're doing things "by the book" so-to-speak you should not have to worry about facing lawsuits. I don't think that's such a bad thing to have.

Torturing people in prison cells is "by the book " unfortunately we tried it and like every power we allow government to have they will abuse the crap out of it .
Police have a huge responsibility having authority over a so called free people. If they can't handle it they should be empowered with it.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Essentially, you are unable to be sued as long as you are discharging your duties as policy proscribes. In other words, as long as you're doing things "by the book" so-to-speak you should not have to worry about facing lawsuits.

And that may be the crux of this all. What does by the book mean? Simply following procedure even if flying in the face of constitutional law or, following procedure WHILE obeying constitutional law?

 

[GOPerfect]

More that this happens, the less Police will do their jobs.

I'm okay with this ruling. Take it all away.

 

[Rocpo]

And that may be the crux of this all. What does by the book mean? Simply following procedure even if flying in the face of constitutional law or, following procedure WHILE obeying constitutional law?

Law, case law and agency policy.

 

[GOPerfect]

Funny, so many pick up terms on the internet and all of a sudden, experts on these words and phrases.

 

[Chevusa]

It gets worse...

BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court, under pressure from the Biden Administration, cancels scheduled hearings on both the border wall and asylum cases, which were originally appealed to SCOTUS by the Trump Administration after being ruled against in lower courts. -USA Today

 

[Catskillkid]

And that may be the crux of this all. What does by the book mean? Simply following procedure even if flying in the face of constitutional law or, following procedure WHILE obeying constitutional law?

And that's just it (at least in my view). Every police department has a different set of operating procedures. Lots of similarities but some differences too. My thing is police officers should be protected if they're following procedures that allow them to enforce the law and public safety while ensuring constitutional rights are not violated...at least in a perfect world.

There have been some examples out there cops going well above their authority and they should be prosecuted. Cops doing their job and following regulations should be protected. Instead what we have now is marches, firebombings, and riots over every little perceived injustice.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Law, case law and agency policy.

So the second choice then.

Funny, so many pick up terms on the internet and all of a sudden, experts on these words and phrases.

Agreed!

 

[spat]

And that's just it (at least in my view). Every police department has a different set of operating procedures. Lots of similarities but some differences too. My thing is police officers should be protected if they're following procedures that allow them to enforce the law and public safety while ensuring constitutional rights are not violated...at least in a perfect world.

There have been some examples out there cops going well above their authority and they should be prosecuted. Cops doing their job and following regulations should be protected. Instead what we have now is marches, firebombings, and riots over every little perceived injustice.

If they followed policy the department should be responsible for the damages, and if they didn't they should be.

But that's not how this works. They use this to just make the claim go away so nobody has to pay it.

Once you've proven damages, *someone* should have to pay, and the only question should be if it's the officer or the department.

Also, if they *were* following policy, then the damages the department has to pay should be trebled. A policy that violates your rights is fsr worse than an officer who does it on their own.

 

[RDN]

@gun_slinger_boy .. you beat me to the video LOL ..

Same here. I wanted to also post this video.

 

[Phauxtoe]

It gets worse...

BREAKING: The U.S. Supreme Court, under pressure from the Biden Administration, cancels scheduled hearings on both the border wall and asylum cases, which were originally appealed to SCOTUS by the Trump Administration after being ruled against in lower courts. -USA Today

Well I believe the justice department IE government, can drop a case whenever they want. There’s a new sheriff in town...

 

[Chevusa]

Well I believe the justice department IE government, can drop a case whenever they want. There’s a new sheriff in town...

The court shouldn’t drop a case because the White House said so. Ever hear of separate branches of government?

 

[spat]

Well I believe the justice department IE government, can drop a case whenever they want. There’s a new sheriff in town...

It wasn't that easy with the Micheal Flynn case...

 

[Shadow2]

Their is a problem when they are the ones writing the book. Police procedure is not law.

One of the things I've learned about qualified immunity (and members of the law enforcement community please correct me if I'm wrong) is its the same as other indemnification policies for government officials. Essentially, you are unable to be sued as long as you are discharging your duties as policy proscribes. In other words, as long as you're doing things "by the book" so-to-speak you should not have to worry about facing lawsuits. I don't think that's such a bad thing to have.

 

[Acer-m14]

Following a Bad Order and Following a Bad Policy ( procedure ) seams to be the same to me ..

 

[spat]

Following a Bad Order and Following a Bad Policy ( procedure ) seams to be the same to me ..

Bad officers violating rights are inevitable (just like any profession).

The best we can do is strive to indentify and prosecute them (which we don't do very well now).

But bad policy is far worse. That means 'the system" is violating your rights.

Right now our answer is to say "well, if it was policy then nobody's at fault". BS, someone wrote that policy, and a dozen others approved it, and yet more enforce it.

There should be a 2 step process in court when a violation of rights is alleged.

1st. Were the plaintiff's rights violated ? If not, then things end here.

Once the court determines that thr rights *were* violated, then it needs to decide if this was by policy, or by the actions of a rogue officer.

If it's by policy, then the department should be on thr hook for *massive* damages.

If it's not, then the officer has no immunity.