SIGforum
NYC has officially done away with Qualified Immunity for their PD
March 26, 2021, 12:48 PM
pulicordsNYC has officially done away with Qualified Immunity for their PD
quote:
Originally posted by Sig209:
quote:
Originally posted by a1abdj:
I see both sides, and agree with aspects of both.
The government is an employer, and they employ people to do things the public requires. Doesn't matter what it is: Policing, fire fighting, road repairs, etc. As an employer, the government should bear the responsibility of reasonable actions by their employees and any resulting liability just like any other employer.
However, there should be a point where a line is drawn, and the taxpayers should not be liable for egregious actions. Let's say a firefighter cuts a hole in a roof to ventilate a fire and for some reason the homeowner sues the fire department. The government who employs that firefighter should vigorously defend that action. But what if the firefighter torches a property to give him the opportunity to fight a fire. Why should the government be responsible? As a tax payer, why is that now my burden?
As always, I suspect the real solution lies somewhere in between the two extremes.
agree
--------------------------
Qualified Immunity does NOT protect an employee that commits an act (ie: Crime) outside the course and scope of his/her employment. Committing an act such as the crime of Arson isn't part of the employee's duties, so he/she wouldn't be protected from civil or criminal liability. Officers may use REASONABLE force to make an arrest and doing so is certainly within the course and scope of employment, BUT such force must be reasonable. If the actions are so abhorrent that they "shock the conscience", the individual can certainly be held civilly liable both for general damages and punitive damages (as well as criminally liable).
It's a myth that officers can do anything they damn well please to do under qualified immunity. Using reasonable force, even lethal force, can and should be covered. What isn't covered is when employees clearly are acting outside their role as a service provider to the community, in a manner that plainly isn't conducted in good faith.
"I'm not fluent in the language of violence, but I know enough to get around in places where it's spoken."
March 26, 2021, 01:44 PM
cslingerAll this is going to do is get people killed. First it will be PD who second guess a situation that shouldn’t be second guessed and then it will be the communities that are “no longer policed” either through officer attrition or officer apathy.
Look at Baltimore after the communities and the administration pretty much threw beat cops under the bus. The areas most in need of policing lost it and well the math played out so to speak.
What’s horrible about all of this is the two groups most likely to be negatively impacted are the folks trying to help “good cops” and the communities most in need of that help.
Take Care, Shoot Safe,
Chris
March 26, 2021, 01:49 PM
CPD SIGquote:
Originally posted by walkinghorse:
Wonder if they will pass the same for the city managers, councilmen, mayor, and assorted politicians?
Oh, never that!
I have no problem wearing a body camera while working. I just want the politicians to wear one too!
______________________________________________________________________
"When its time to shoot, shoot. Dont talk!"
“What the government is good at is collecting taxes, taking away your freedoms and killing people. It’s not good at much else.” —Author Tom Clancy
March 26, 2021, 02:04 PM
92fstechquote:
Originally posted by CPD SIG:
I have no problem wearing a body camera while working. I just want the politicians to wear one too!
Amen! Exactly what I've been saying all along. I'm perfectly ok wearing mine...it has done nothing but protect me from lies about my actions. But if politicians are going to mandate that I wear one and be recorded all the time, they should have to wear one, too...any time they are involved in official business. Lawyers (prosecution and defense) as well.
March 26, 2021, 02:13 PM
cslingerYou can’t force politicians to wear body cams.
5th Amendment......

.

That would be self incriminating day in and day out.

Take Care, Shoot Safe,
Chris
March 26, 2021, 02:32 PM
46and2Can we make the politicians wear bells around their necks?
March 26, 2021, 05:06 PM
casVirtue signaling, or just stupid? Hmmm...
March 26, 2021, 10:28 PM
enidpd804There are a lot of people who don't understand QI and think it has something to do with immunity. They reap what they sow. NYC will become an 80s movie in the next decade.
March 26, 2021, 11:14 PM
wrightdquote:
Originally posted by Rick Lee:
quote:
Originally posted by cooger:
I'm no legal scholar but how can a city council override a judicial precedent established by the Supreme Court?
Who's gonna stop them? What consequence has there ever been for ignoring a SCOTUS decision (other than Brown vs. Board)?
There are no consequences. They don't care one whit about what SCOTUS does.
Lover of the US Constitution
Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster