I do not think it would work out the way you want it to.
I do have a serious and a sincere question for you, do you understand exactly what it is and why we have it?
LEO should be subject to the same restrictions as civilians.
- Thread starter RooftopKorean
- Start date
I do not think it would work out the way you want it to.
I do have a serious and a sincere question for you, do you understand exactly what it is and why we have it?
"In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions immunity from lawsuits for damages unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".[1] It is a form of sovereign immunity less strict than absolute immunity that is intended to protect officials who "make reasonable but mistaken judgments about open legal questions",[2] extending to "all [officials] but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".[3] Qualified immunity applies only to government officials in civil litigation, and does not protect the government itself from suits arising from officials' actions.[4]
The U.S. Supreme Court first introduced the qualified immunity doctrine in Pierson v. Ray (1967), a case litigated during the height of the civil rights movement. It is stated to have been originally introduced with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations.[5][6]"
There are too many laws, too many ways to become a criminal and FAR too much scrutiny on the ability for private citizens to defend themselves. A private citizen is liable for all their actions and so should public citizens.
The sole justification for the application of lethal force should be whether or not the recipient of that force was in commission of a felony at the time. If proven so the defender should barred from all prosecution.
As far as I am concerned all I need you to do is collect the evidence and the body. I can take care of myself otherwise.
Under such a system I suspect we would run out of criminals rapidly.
Actions must have consequences.
I will give you an example, one that happens quite often with firemen.,
House is on fire in a neighborhood. Firemen go to the hydrant to hook up the water. There is a car parked, blocking the hydrant, they smash out the windows to feed the hose through the car, or they destroy the car while getting it out of the way. Under Qualified Immunity, they cannot be sued. Without it, they would be sued in court and very well may lose, just for trying to do their job. Wonder how homes would burn down.
It's illegal to block fire hydrants, qualified immunity shouldn't apply. If someone is doing something illegal then they shouldn't have any legal recourse for any damages that arise from their actions. That goes for private citizens and public servants.
Actions must have consequences.
This is where qualified immunity comes into play. QI protects the fire fighter for his actions due to the situation.
You shouldn't need qualified immunity for that.
Qualified is being abused too often to protect incompetent or malevolent public servants.
Without it, the owner of the vehicle could sue the fireman directly. This is the purpose of it.
It was created in 1967 by SCOTUS. People did the job before SCOTUS decided to play legislature.
There shouldn't be so many public jobs to begin with.
We treat people as children and so they act like children. If people are left to suffer the full consequences of their actions the adults that are children will become extinct leaving the true adults to live in peace.
If you park in front of a fire hydrant you know better and you will suffer tge consequences of that action. If you go into a business or home to rob, vandalize or harm in anyway tge occupants then whatever happens to you is a consequence of your actions.
You LEs can hang back and gather evidence afterwards for the upcoming investigation concerning the validity of those consequences.
And to arrange for the cleanup.
Your 1st statement, I promise you, I cannot agree more.
That_FNG
.308 Win
How many citizens are going to exercise their 2nd amendment rights and conceal carry a firearm and be willing to use it knowing they can and will be sued for everything if they dare use it appropriately?
So what stopped it before?
I am sure not as many as there should be.
It was not there, better class of people in the past. The court system was better, more honest. Less lawyers. Less greed. Less Ghetto Lottery wannabes. The list of reasons is endless.
This is what I figured and is my point. Judges could throw this shit out, like the rest of the shit McDonalds cases. It tells me the system is broken.
The accused still needs an attorney. They cost lots of cash
Like I said, I am fine with QI. If we got rid of public unions it would go a long way in removing the bad elements in the public sector.
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
how about just replacing Qualified Immunity with "I fked up" insurance like Doctors have ..
Because, most times the police did not fuck up and should not be on the hook for anything financially
Acer-m14
20×102mm Vulcan
the same could be said on Doctors too ..
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
Unlike doctors , police officers have to deal with people who sue for things like , they served meatloaf at the jail — a real case. People lie against officers everyday and make up stuff . Doctors tend to have physical evidence and the plaintiffs tend to have actual physical damages .
Active cops gat sued more than inactive cops . The Ferguson effect is real and that is with qualified immunity. And cops still get sued with qualified immunity anyway . And they still get money for BS lawsuits.
I will give you a real life example of the insurance effects .
Yeses ago, insurance companies started holding individual police officers and firemen responsible for car accidents that occurred at work by raising the rates of the police officers and firemen personal car insurance. When that happened cops and firemen became much more careful drivers . Too careful . They didn’t go thru red lights to get emergencies even with the turret lights on. Slowed response times and I’m sure people died , bad guys got away etc . They had to pass a law to correct the situation.
Last edited:
Yet, no matter how many times it is shown that a politician violates the Constitution and the Constitutional Rights of Americans, they are allowed to claim QI and walk away to infringe yet again.
For her part in the CCIA, heil hochul should have been sued out of her socialism-lovin' mind. She should have been removed from office and locked up pending trial. So, too, should have every tyrannical hack in the NYS Legislature.
QI should NEVER protect a politician when they are violating their oath-of-office to deliberately crap all over the Constitution.
Keep QI... just make sure the highlighted part above is used as often as QI is.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
How about if you change your frame of thinking. Instead of "they're screwing over cops...", change it to "they SHOULDN'T screw over NON cops...". Its a very different way of thinking.
I don't want restrictions put on LE, I want them REMOVED from the rest of us.
Xae289
.223 Rem
LEOs ARE civilians unless also a member of some Reserve or Guard branch of the Armed Forces. Yes, there should be no firearms law exemption for them in any way.
This civilian not civilian thing is a bit tiring.
Police officers are in fact Civilians.
Definitions have been altered.
There are two types of people, Civilians and Non civilians...
Those in the Military and those that are not in the military.
Police officers are in fact Civilians.
Definitions have been altered.
There are two types of people, Civilians and Non civilians...
Those in the Military and those that are not in the military.
dwa12479
.338 Win Mag
The debate was clearly settled in Die Hard 2.
John McLean: Civilian
No civilians.
Die Hard 2 (1990) clip with quote No civilians. Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, movie, or music video you want to share. Easily move forward or backward to get to the perfect clip.
getyarn.io
Truebeliever
6.5 Creedmoor
And screaming that cops and retired cops get them , so we should take it away from them does not help you reach that goal . Just the opposite. You alienate those of us who are pro -2A and those cops who don’t have strong feelings on the subject .
You would have more an effect if you said “me too” then complaining that cops get this and that .
Why not complain about military members ? They also have more gun rights under the law in NYS. And yes, their chain of command limits them but NY law does grant them more rights. It’s the same for LE. I knew someone who joined a department who had a policy of no off duty carry at all . If they got caught carrying , they were fired. Another department had a no carry for the first year policy . The military isn’t the only one with such restrictions.
But as far as me categorizing this as attempt to take away things from cops , just read the title of this thread . Change the title to we should have the same as cops and you will have a point .
Or, all citizens in the State and the Nation, regardless of their job, should all be treated equally and fair. All citizens should have the exact same Rights, none with more and none with less.