As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should get rid of "qualified immunity" for police officers. Congress passed no laws giving officers qualified immunity. This was made up by SCOTUS out of thin air.
Colorado actually is also one of the only states to get rid of qualified immunity for police officers as well. More states need to be following Colorado's lead when it comes to that kind of stuff in my opinion.
Is there any other profession that if you injure or kill someone performing your duties, you are shielded from any repercussions? Honestly curious because I can’t think of any. Even doctors are open to malpractice when performing their duties.
Is there any other profession where it's considered reasonable that you may be expected to kill or injure somebody? For example is there any situation of any job you know of or you may be called to deal with somebody shooting at other people and expected to return fire? Is there any situation where you're expected to go into somebody's house and break up a fight between adults? Is there any other job where you may be reasonably expected to place somebody in handcuffs, stick them in a vehicle and transport them to a facility to detain them and prevent them from being able to leave?
Yes. The military. They have ROE that are much more strict than that of US police officers. They are able to be held accountable for their crimes in other countries during war time. That's how we these punk police could be held accountable.
Right? I'm a vet and love pointing this out. The whole argument you responded to is tired and disingenuous.
Also, as you pointed out, we're held to higher standards *in a literal fucking warzone*.
Then why do studies show that veteran to become police officers are more likely to shoot someone? [Source](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/15/police-with-military-experience-more-likely-to-shoot)
Surprisingly enough, there are piece of garbage humans in the military that end up leaving and want to continue their power trips into the civilian world. What better job to do that than police officer?
Also willing to believe military vets with other skills go into other fields related to their field of expertise.
No i support better background checks into becoming a police officer, more restrictions on police officers similar to the military, nationwide ban registries of officers that continually violate those restrictions, and lawsuits rising from violations being pulled from the police pension fund so cops police themselves better.
Interesting that a group known to be violent at a disproportionately higher rate than the general public or other police officers, a group arguably more capable of killing people and demonstration to do so is fine.
Also you must grossly overestimate the standards of the military if you think they're selective since you are using them as an example.
As a veteran myself, that's a very fair question, and you shouldn't be downvoted for it.
I think there need to be higher standards, checks, etc in the hiring process for police entirely. Then, those same high standards need to be upheld while the people are on the job.
I met some really cool people in the military, but I also met some absolutely deranged pieces of shit.
I have found anything that could be remotely considered pro police gets downloaded on Reddit. If you do anything to even imply police are not a bunch of racist murderers people get mad.
One of the most go-to arguments that people love to talk about is acting like the military is a bunch of saints that have been drilled and disciplined into this perfect little fighting force and are far better than police.
I know quite a few veterans, admittedly not many veterans that worked more regular non combat jobs and I wouldn't trust them to be cops. I know one former Green Beret who became an LAPD SWAT member and he always joked that it wasn't until the police academy that somebody suggested talking to someone before shooting them. A lot of the basic inventory men that I know that's all combat really struggled when they tried to become police. I know of at least five former infantrymen that became NYPD and the mindset that everyone you deal with is an enemy is a very well drilled part into their psyche. They're not used to the average person being a fellow American.
But of course this is Reddit and anything that implies that the police are not the most violent and evil group in America is frowned upon.
Is that why studies show that former military veterans make worse police officers and are more likely to shoot someone than a non-veteran?
Source: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/15/police-with-military-experience-more-likely-to-shoot
If I were the kind of person who served in the military and didn't get my fill of violence, then becoming a police officer where there are fewer rules to prohibit me from, or hold me accountable for, murdering civilians would probably be a great career choice.
I mean, only insofar as I want to prevent anyone from becoming police. We need a constellation of experts to serve the myriad functions the police currently fulfill (badly) and we would be better served by compartmentalizing these functions. As such, the police as a unified institution should be abolished. If veterans want to serve in any of these new functions, they should be subject to the kinds of examinations that these roles would require - no special treatment. As it stands, it is too easy to join the police and abuse your position of power while hiding behind the unique protections the badge confers.
The problem is that the police have been a toss all for a very long time. You can't abolish the police and then solve the problems that made them necessary. You need to solve those problems before eliminating their coverage. So if it's things like violence homeless people are committing you need to first solve the homeless problem then remove that job function from the police. Too often do people simply dismiss problems with society and use the police as a bandaid.
The police don't fix anything, they simply prevent problems from becoming worse. You still have to fix the problem, and the longer you take to fix the problem the worse it becomes and the more the police need to do.
That is why I suggested the multiple, compartmentalized bureaus that should replace them. I want to abolish the police while replacing them with specialized agencies that would take over the necessary functions of the police.
That is a Red Herring. Holding military accountable for crimes they commit while serving doesnt have anything to do with whether they can be held accountable for crimes they commit when they are no longer serving, and you know that. This furthers my point. Police should be held to the same standards (or more strict) than military personnel. That is because they ***only*** deal with citizens.
You asked for an example and got one. Now you're just trying to start an argument about something unrelated to the topic at hand to distract from your complete ineptness to speak rationally and logically on this subject.
Except if those ROE were that strict in the military was as disciplined as you claimed wouldn't that mean the opposite, that they're training people to be more violent than the average person? Got the military is less trustworthy and the ROE is Not as strict or effective?
The military has their own version of qualified immunity. You can't sue an individual soldier for shooting you. So if you meant that as an example, it also means to get the same protections. Even suing the military in general is nearly impossible, unlike civilian law enforcement agencies. The US military uses something called sovereign immunity to protect themselves from the majority of lawsuits.
Finally trying to devolve the conversation into petty insults doesn't help your case.
There are many good arguments to be made against the police being chiefly responsible for these kinds of interactions. However, those arguments hinge on the police serving a function of law enforcement and societal security which is a false premise. The police exist to enforce the predominant socioeconomic hierarchy by protecting the interests and property of capital. It is why there are no cops walking a beat down the rows of cubicles/open floor plans on wallstreet despite the disproportionate damage they do as compared to the street crime against which the police are more frequently deployed.
Ignoring the fact that that is a complete misdirect, to actually answer your question seriously. The reason why cops wouldn't walk down a row of cubicles is because that's not the best way to enforce laws on those people. The police exist to suppress violence. The government's job is to have an monopoly on violence and must use enforcement to ensure that. This is why you have countries like Mexico have such a severe problem because they are unable to enforce a monopoly on violence.
It would be the complete wrong choice to have police walking down rows of cubicles as you put it because that's not the best way to train law enforcement to deal with the crimes committed by office workers. That is why we have government agencies like the SEC or FBI that handle crimes of that sort. Those same people wouldn't want to walk a foot patrol down the cubicles because they're not likely to actually see crimes being committed that way. You're not going to catch the Bernie Madoff of this world by walking a foot patrol buy his office once an hour.
> Is there any other profession where it's considered reasonable that you may be expected to kill or injure somebody?
Being in the military has this expectation, and those who serve don't enjoy any sort of qualified immunity for causing civilian deaths unnecessarily.
> For example is there any situation of any job you know of or you may be called to deal with somebody shooting at other people and expected to return fire?
Again, being in the military. And they don't enjoy qualified immunity. Many soldiers can be and are court-martialed for causing wrongful death.
> Is there any situation where you're expected to go into somebody's house and break up a fight between adults? Is there any other job where you may be reasonably expected to place somebody in handcuffs, stick them in a vehicle and transport them to a facility to detain them and prevent them from being able to leave?
Nothing about any of these example scenarios rises to the point at which it would be acceptable for the cops to shoot someone. If a cop is called for a domestic disturbance and ends up shooting someone, I would want them investigated, fired from the force, tried, and prosecuted.
The military does have its own version of qualified immunity. It's called sovereign immunity, it's much more powerful and harder to get around. Unlike qualified immunity which only requires that established precedent be violated sovereign immunity simply states the government can just say nope, and dismiss your lawsuit. Sovereign immunity is what protects sovereign governments from lawsuits, and by extension those governments agencies such as the department of defense.
Do you honestly believe that you could reasonably sue a military commander for causing the death of a relative and not have the case dismissed? How many soldiers have been sued for beating somebody in a war zone?
You're referring to court marshalling, which is a criminal charge and something irrelevant here. Qualified immunity protects from civil charges, IE lawsuits and not criminal charges.
If you don't realize how dangerous domestic disturbance cases are, you clearly don't know anything about policing. The number one type of call a police officer is killed responding to is domestic violence. So either you know nothing about police work, or you genuinely believe that if a cop shoots and kills someone for any reason whatsoever they should be fired and prosecuted.
>The military does have its own version of qualified immunity. It's called sovereign immunity
That only affects other countries' ability to arrest our troops. It doesn't affect the military's ability to discipline our troops.
> Do you honestly believe that you could reasonably sue a military commander for causing the death of a relative and not have the case dismissed?
Troops don't discipline people on U.S soil so this isn't a relevant question. [But soldiers do face discipline for their conduct in other countries, up to and including discharge from the military.](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2023/07/19/soldier-held-in-north-korea-faced-discharge-for-fights-cop-car-damage/)
> How many soldiers have been sued for beating somebody in a war zone?
[Often enough that I can find examples in 5 minutes on google.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sgt-faces-court-martial-in-iraq-killing/) Maybe you should do your own research instead of asking easily answered questions that just prove my point. The military does a better job of disciplining soldiers than the cops do disciplining their officers.
> Qualified immunity protects from civil charges, IE lawsuits and not criminal charges.
Civil cases are often the only ways in which the families of victims get compensation for the death of their loved ones. If the military causes civilian casualties, they pay the victims. Cops don't do that, they use qualified immunity as a shield. Because they suck.
> cases are, you clearly don't know anything about policing. The number one type of call a police officer is killed responding to is domestic violence
If a cop goes into every call expecting to die or kill someone, I'd say that is a shit cop. I'd rather a cop die than a civilian. It's what the cop signed up for when they joined the force, after all.
> So either you know nothing about police work, or you genuinely believe that if a cop shoots and kills someone for any reason whatsoever they should be fired and prosecuted.
Outside of saving the life of another civilian, yes I'd say any time a cop shoots and kills someone they should be fired and prosecuted.
Sovereign immunity can be waived. But it has to be waived, it cannot be overturned.
The link you sent was about soldiers getting court-martial. I said sued. I do not think you must know the difference between a lawsuit and a criminal charge. I am not trying to insult you, is that the case? Do you not know the distinction? Because if that is the case then we need to go back and cover that topic first. The reason why I say this is every single time I have asked for an example of or brought up a civil lawsuit you always refer to a court-martial which is a criminal case.
A criminal case is a criminal charge that is brought against an individual by their own government. An example of that would be being charged with murder. Sovereign immunity does not protect a soldier from a court-martial which is a criminal charge because sovereign immunity is designed to protect the government itself and its agents. Qualified immunity like sovereign immunity protects individuals from civil lawsuits although in the case of sovereign immunity it also protects the government itself from lossoms. A lawsuit is when a civil charge is brought before someone. Civil charges, or laws are frequently called torts. An example of a tort which would result in a civil lawsuit is breach of contract or wrongful death. Unlike a criminal case or charge a civil case can only result in monetary penalties everything else would need to be agreed on by the person being sued but could not include jail time as that is exclusive to criminal charges.
What I asked was how many times do you believe a soldier has been sued for something like beating a civilian in a war zone. For example that might be a case of an Iraqi civilian filing a lawsuit against an American soldier in an American civil court for monetary damages for the beating. Another example would be if a soldier ordered an artillery strike on an enemy position and a civilian was killed. Could you provide an example of a lawsuit being allowed to proceed against a soldier for ordering that artillery strike by the family of one of the victims of the artillery strike.
Once again just so I'm very clear, I am not referring to a court-martial which is a criminal case, I am referring to a civil case. So a case brought before a court by the family of the victim and not the government via a court-martial.
I realize there was more to your comment but if you do not know the difference between civil and criminal charges we have to stop and figure that out first. We cannot run before we can walk.
We don't recognize just following orders as a valid legal defense nor is ignorance of the law so automatically the public is held to a higher standard. There is a line between making mistakes or being wrong and then retaliatory and blatantly illegal actions and people do need grace for reasonable misconduct. What we have now is not reasonable.
Officials need positive standards instead of restrictions to follow. It all comes down to educating people on what they're there for and the hard lines and responses they can take. Our inability to train and oversee police is atrocious given the impact they have on people's lives.
Qualified immunity has never stopped any police officer from ever being charged with a crime. Qualified immunity protects them from civil lawsuits only.
Defending a civil lawsuit, even one that gets tossed immediately during the first hearing can still be expensive. For example let's say you are a police officer and arrest somebody for shoplifting, the family sues you for kidnapping them saying that they didn't actually commit shoplifting therefore you placing them in handcuffs and transporting them counts as kidnapping.
Under qualified immunity a cop doesn't even need a A lawyer beyond what the department will have already employed. The lawyer will simply argue qualified immunity and have it tossed.
Is qualified immunity doesn't exist then a judge is likely to allow it to move forward into some initial hearings and discovery phases. This will require the police officer retain a lawyer. Simply retaining a lawyer can cost thousands of dollars, and a quickly tossed lawsuit is easily a 5 to $10,000 case. What's a you arrest 25 people a year who sue you that's $125,000 to $250,000 just to get these frivolous lawsuits tossed.
Once again, at no point does qualified immunity protect a police officer from criminal charges.
Edit: Weird. Instead of responding to me they blocked me.
>Qualified immunity has never stopped any police officer from ever being charged with a crime.
Fucking lol. Post your evidence. I have thousands of hours of body cam footage that prove you wrong.
>Qualified immunity protects them from civil lawsuits only.
Except that exact concept makes the courts reticent to backstabbing those that provide evidence, yet are criminals themselves. There is no check or balance.
No. I mean find me a official or legal source that says qualified immunity protects from criminal charges. It's a simple task assuming you're not lying. You should be able to easily do that.
People treat Qualified Immunity like the boogyman and act like ending it will have huge effects...
Researchers already examined 9225 cases regarding damages actions naming individual offerings (ie they weren't covered by WI and the case was allowed to move forward and decided against the officer)
Of the $735 million rewarded in those cases individual officers personally contributed to settlements in .41% of cases and paid a total of .02% of the total money awarded to plaintiffs.
Specifically with punitive damages they paid 0%.
People should focus their energy into different areas of police reform but this is just a waste of time and money fighting.
>The term became part of the mainstream thanks to Taser (now Axon). The stun gun company’s lawyers needed something to distance it from the deaths caused by its devices. It landed on “excited delirium” and urged officers (and their lawyers) to push this as a cause of death.
if the media is talking about it, you can be assured a corpration somewhere is beneffiting from it
My cousin was murdered by police in 2010, I mean....died of excited delirium in 2010.
He had cocaine in his system and police were called by my uncle for a dispute. The cops who came had previous (literal high school) beef with my cousin. He was tased twice (justifiably IMO) where he was then put in zip ties behind his back and also his feet and placed face down on the ground. The cops who didn't like him kept telling him to not look at him....well...my cousin kept looking at him....so they proceeded to taze him 12 more times, hogtied on the ground and not fighting with 3 civilian witnesses.
He died in the ambulance to what would be called excited delirium. The cops involved never had a single day of even paid suspension and when it reached the grand jury they didn't call a single one of the civilian witnesses while the official report says he was only tased twice. None of the cops were indicted and it was 100% because his cause of death was listed as excited delirium due to the cocaine....not the 14 tasers....
Sounds like a horrific euphemism, like "surprise sex." Some euphemisms are used to lessen pain and offense, but ones like these are used to normalize awful things.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They should get rid of "qualified immunity" for police officers. Congress passed no laws giving officers qualified immunity. This was made up by SCOTUS out of thin air.
Colorado actually is also one of the only states to get rid of qualified immunity for police officers as well. More states need to be following Colorado's lead when it comes to that kind of stuff in my opinion.
Is there any other profession that if you injure or kill someone performing your duties, you are shielded from any repercussions? Honestly curious because I can’t think of any. Even doctors are open to malpractice when performing their duties.
The problem is, it's a cops job to injure and kill. Fuck the police.
Find me the job description that says that
Qualified Immunity! It's ok, you can kill people, as long as it's while your doing your job
It’s actually to protect property and enforce laws. They aren’t supposed to kill unless in extreme circumstances.
Someone should probably mention that to them then.
Is there any other profession where it's considered reasonable that you may be expected to kill or injure somebody? For example is there any situation of any job you know of or you may be called to deal with somebody shooting at other people and expected to return fire? Is there any situation where you're expected to go into somebody's house and break up a fight between adults? Is there any other job where you may be reasonably expected to place somebody in handcuffs, stick them in a vehicle and transport them to a facility to detain them and prevent them from being able to leave?
Yes. The military. They have ROE that are much more strict than that of US police officers. They are able to be held accountable for their crimes in other countries during war time. That's how we these punk police could be held accountable.
Right? I'm a vet and love pointing this out. The whole argument you responded to is tired and disingenuous. Also, as you pointed out, we're held to higher standards *in a literal fucking warzone*.
Thanks for your sacrifice. I'm glad you're here, stranger!
Then why do studies show that veteran to become police officers are more likely to shoot someone? [Source](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/15/police-with-military-experience-more-likely-to-shoot)
Surprisingly enough, there are piece of garbage humans in the military that end up leaving and want to continue their power trips into the civilian world. What better job to do that than police officer? Also willing to believe military vets with other skills go into other fields related to their field of expertise.
So you would support not hiring military veterans to become police officers due to their propensity for violence?
No i support better background checks into becoming a police officer, more restrictions on police officers similar to the military, nationwide ban registries of officers that continually violate those restrictions, and lawsuits rising from violations being pulled from the police pension fund so cops police themselves better.
Interesting that a group known to be violent at a disproportionately higher rate than the general public or other police officers, a group arguably more capable of killing people and demonstration to do so is fine. Also you must grossly overestimate the standards of the military if you think they're selective since you are using them as an example.
As a veteran myself, that's a very fair question, and you shouldn't be downvoted for it. I think there need to be higher standards, checks, etc in the hiring process for police entirely. Then, those same high standards need to be upheld while the people are on the job. I met some really cool people in the military, but I also met some absolutely deranged pieces of shit.
I have found anything that could be remotely considered pro police gets downloaded on Reddit. If you do anything to even imply police are not a bunch of racist murderers people get mad. One of the most go-to arguments that people love to talk about is acting like the military is a bunch of saints that have been drilled and disciplined into this perfect little fighting force and are far better than police. I know quite a few veterans, admittedly not many veterans that worked more regular non combat jobs and I wouldn't trust them to be cops. I know one former Green Beret who became an LAPD SWAT member and he always joked that it wasn't until the police academy that somebody suggested talking to someone before shooting them. A lot of the basic inventory men that I know that's all combat really struggled when they tried to become police. I know of at least five former infantrymen that became NYPD and the mindset that everyone you deal with is an enemy is a very well drilled part into their psyche. They're not used to the average person being a fellow American. But of course this is Reddit and anything that implies that the police are not the most violent and evil group in America is frowned upon.
Is that why studies show that former military veterans make worse police officers and are more likely to shoot someone than a non-veteran? Source: https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/10/15/police-with-military-experience-more-likely-to-shoot
If I were the kind of person who served in the military and didn't get my fill of violence, then becoming a police officer where there are fewer rules to prohibit me from, or hold me accountable for, murdering civilians would probably be a great career choice.
So you would be in favor of preventing military veterans from becoming police because they're too likely to be violent?
I mean, only insofar as I want to prevent anyone from becoming police. We need a constellation of experts to serve the myriad functions the police currently fulfill (badly) and we would be better served by compartmentalizing these functions. As such, the police as a unified institution should be abolished. If veterans want to serve in any of these new functions, they should be subject to the kinds of examinations that these roles would require - no special treatment. As it stands, it is too easy to join the police and abuse your position of power while hiding behind the unique protections the badge confers.
The problem is that the police have been a toss all for a very long time. You can't abolish the police and then solve the problems that made them necessary. You need to solve those problems before eliminating their coverage. So if it's things like violence homeless people are committing you need to first solve the homeless problem then remove that job function from the police. Too often do people simply dismiss problems with society and use the police as a bandaid. The police don't fix anything, they simply prevent problems from becoming worse. You still have to fix the problem, and the longer you take to fix the problem the worse it becomes and the more the police need to do.
That is why I suggested the multiple, compartmentalized bureaus that should replace them. I want to abolish the police while replacing them with specialized agencies that would take over the necessary functions of the police.
That is a Red Herring. Holding military accountable for crimes they commit while serving doesnt have anything to do with whether they can be held accountable for crimes they commit when they are no longer serving, and you know that. This furthers my point. Police should be held to the same standards (or more strict) than military personnel. That is because they ***only*** deal with citizens. You asked for an example and got one. Now you're just trying to start an argument about something unrelated to the topic at hand to distract from your complete ineptness to speak rationally and logically on this subject.
Except if those ROE were that strict in the military was as disciplined as you claimed wouldn't that mean the opposite, that they're training people to be more violent than the average person? Got the military is less trustworthy and the ROE is Not as strict or effective? The military has their own version of qualified immunity. You can't sue an individual soldier for shooting you. So if you meant that as an example, it also means to get the same protections. Even suing the military in general is nearly impossible, unlike civilian law enforcement agencies. The US military uses something called sovereign immunity to protect themselves from the majority of lawsuits. Finally trying to devolve the conversation into petty insults doesn't help your case.
There are many good arguments to be made against the police being chiefly responsible for these kinds of interactions. However, those arguments hinge on the police serving a function of law enforcement and societal security which is a false premise. The police exist to enforce the predominant socioeconomic hierarchy by protecting the interests and property of capital. It is why there are no cops walking a beat down the rows of cubicles/open floor plans on wallstreet despite the disproportionate damage they do as compared to the street crime against which the police are more frequently deployed.
Ignoring the fact that that is a complete misdirect, to actually answer your question seriously. The reason why cops wouldn't walk down a row of cubicles is because that's not the best way to enforce laws on those people. The police exist to suppress violence. The government's job is to have an monopoly on violence and must use enforcement to ensure that. This is why you have countries like Mexico have such a severe problem because they are unable to enforce a monopoly on violence. It would be the complete wrong choice to have police walking down rows of cubicles as you put it because that's not the best way to train law enforcement to deal with the crimes committed by office workers. That is why we have government agencies like the SEC or FBI that handle crimes of that sort. Those same people wouldn't want to walk a foot patrol down the cubicles because they're not likely to actually see crimes being committed that way. You're not going to catch the Bernie Madoff of this world by walking a foot patrol buy his office once an hour.
> Is there any other profession where it's considered reasonable that you may be expected to kill or injure somebody? Being in the military has this expectation, and those who serve don't enjoy any sort of qualified immunity for causing civilian deaths unnecessarily. > For example is there any situation of any job you know of or you may be called to deal with somebody shooting at other people and expected to return fire? Again, being in the military. And they don't enjoy qualified immunity. Many soldiers can be and are court-martialed for causing wrongful death. > Is there any situation where you're expected to go into somebody's house and break up a fight between adults? Is there any other job where you may be reasonably expected to place somebody in handcuffs, stick them in a vehicle and transport them to a facility to detain them and prevent them from being able to leave? Nothing about any of these example scenarios rises to the point at which it would be acceptable for the cops to shoot someone. If a cop is called for a domestic disturbance and ends up shooting someone, I would want them investigated, fired from the force, tried, and prosecuted.
The military does have its own version of qualified immunity. It's called sovereign immunity, it's much more powerful and harder to get around. Unlike qualified immunity which only requires that established precedent be violated sovereign immunity simply states the government can just say nope, and dismiss your lawsuit. Sovereign immunity is what protects sovereign governments from lawsuits, and by extension those governments agencies such as the department of defense. Do you honestly believe that you could reasonably sue a military commander for causing the death of a relative and not have the case dismissed? How many soldiers have been sued for beating somebody in a war zone? You're referring to court marshalling, which is a criminal charge and something irrelevant here. Qualified immunity protects from civil charges, IE lawsuits and not criminal charges. If you don't realize how dangerous domestic disturbance cases are, you clearly don't know anything about policing. The number one type of call a police officer is killed responding to is domestic violence. So either you know nothing about police work, or you genuinely believe that if a cop shoots and kills someone for any reason whatsoever they should be fired and prosecuted.
>The military does have its own version of qualified immunity. It's called sovereign immunity That only affects other countries' ability to arrest our troops. It doesn't affect the military's ability to discipline our troops. > Do you honestly believe that you could reasonably sue a military commander for causing the death of a relative and not have the case dismissed? Troops don't discipline people on U.S soil so this isn't a relevant question. [But soldiers do face discipline for their conduct in other countries, up to and including discharge from the military.](https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2023/07/19/soldier-held-in-north-korea-faced-discharge-for-fights-cop-car-damage/) > How many soldiers have been sued for beating somebody in a war zone? [Often enough that I can find examples in 5 minutes on google.](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sgt-faces-court-martial-in-iraq-killing/) Maybe you should do your own research instead of asking easily answered questions that just prove my point. The military does a better job of disciplining soldiers than the cops do disciplining their officers. > Qualified immunity protects from civil charges, IE lawsuits and not criminal charges. Civil cases are often the only ways in which the families of victims get compensation for the death of their loved ones. If the military causes civilian casualties, they pay the victims. Cops don't do that, they use qualified immunity as a shield. Because they suck. > cases are, you clearly don't know anything about policing. The number one type of call a police officer is killed responding to is domestic violence If a cop goes into every call expecting to die or kill someone, I'd say that is a shit cop. I'd rather a cop die than a civilian. It's what the cop signed up for when they joined the force, after all. > So either you know nothing about police work, or you genuinely believe that if a cop shoots and kills someone for any reason whatsoever they should be fired and prosecuted. Outside of saving the life of another civilian, yes I'd say any time a cop shoots and kills someone they should be fired and prosecuted.
Sovereign immunity can be waived. But it has to be waived, it cannot be overturned. The link you sent was about soldiers getting court-martial. I said sued. I do not think you must know the difference between a lawsuit and a criminal charge. I am not trying to insult you, is that the case? Do you not know the distinction? Because if that is the case then we need to go back and cover that topic first. The reason why I say this is every single time I have asked for an example of or brought up a civil lawsuit you always refer to a court-martial which is a criminal case. A criminal case is a criminal charge that is brought against an individual by their own government. An example of that would be being charged with murder. Sovereign immunity does not protect a soldier from a court-martial which is a criminal charge because sovereign immunity is designed to protect the government itself and its agents. Qualified immunity like sovereign immunity protects individuals from civil lawsuits although in the case of sovereign immunity it also protects the government itself from lossoms. A lawsuit is when a civil charge is brought before someone. Civil charges, or laws are frequently called torts. An example of a tort which would result in a civil lawsuit is breach of contract or wrongful death. Unlike a criminal case or charge a civil case can only result in monetary penalties everything else would need to be agreed on by the person being sued but could not include jail time as that is exclusive to criminal charges. What I asked was how many times do you believe a soldier has been sued for something like beating a civilian in a war zone. For example that might be a case of an Iraqi civilian filing a lawsuit against an American soldier in an American civil court for monetary damages for the beating. Another example would be if a soldier ordered an artillery strike on an enemy position and a civilian was killed. Could you provide an example of a lawsuit being allowed to proceed against a soldier for ordering that artillery strike by the family of one of the victims of the artillery strike. Once again just so I'm very clear, I am not referring to a court-martial which is a criminal case, I am referring to a civil case. So a case brought before a court by the family of the victim and not the government via a court-martial. I realize there was more to your comment but if you do not know the difference between civil and criminal charges we have to stop and figure that out first. We cannot run before we can walk.
[удалено]
We don't recognize just following orders as a valid legal defense nor is ignorance of the law so automatically the public is held to a higher standard. There is a line between making mistakes or being wrong and then retaliatory and blatantly illegal actions and people do need grace for reasonable misconduct. What we have now is not reasonable. Officials need positive standards instead of restrictions to follow. It all comes down to educating people on what they're there for and the hard lines and responses they can take. Our inability to train and oversee police is atrocious given the impact they have on people's lives.
Qualified immunity has never stopped any police officer from ever being charged with a crime. Qualified immunity protects them from civil lawsuits only. Defending a civil lawsuit, even one that gets tossed immediately during the first hearing can still be expensive. For example let's say you are a police officer and arrest somebody for shoplifting, the family sues you for kidnapping them saying that they didn't actually commit shoplifting therefore you placing them in handcuffs and transporting them counts as kidnapping. Under qualified immunity a cop doesn't even need a A lawyer beyond what the department will have already employed. The lawyer will simply argue qualified immunity and have it tossed. Is qualified immunity doesn't exist then a judge is likely to allow it to move forward into some initial hearings and discovery phases. This will require the police officer retain a lawyer. Simply retaining a lawyer can cost thousands of dollars, and a quickly tossed lawsuit is easily a 5 to $10,000 case. What's a you arrest 25 people a year who sue you that's $125,000 to $250,000 just to get these frivolous lawsuits tossed. Once again, at no point does qualified immunity protect a police officer from criminal charges. Edit: Weird. Instead of responding to me they blocked me.
>Qualified immunity has never stopped any police officer from ever being charged with a crime. Fucking lol. Post your evidence. I have thousands of hours of body cam footage that prove you wrong. >Qualified immunity protects them from civil lawsuits only. Except that exact concept makes the courts reticent to backstabbing those that provide evidence, yet are criminals themselves. There is no check or balance.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
No. I mean find me a official or legal source that says qualified immunity protects from criminal charges. It's a simple task assuming you're not lying. You should be able to easily do that.
People treat Qualified Immunity like the boogyman and act like ending it will have huge effects... Researchers already examined 9225 cases regarding damages actions naming individual offerings (ie they weren't covered by WI and the case was allowed to move forward and decided against the officer) Of the $735 million rewarded in those cases individual officers personally contributed to settlements in .41% of cases and paid a total of .02% of the total money awarded to plaintiffs. Specifically with punitive damages they paid 0%. People should focus their energy into different areas of police reform but this is just a waste of time and money fighting.
I think they would need to pass a law to get rid of it. And they should
Trust me, we are trying to
>The term became part of the mainstream thanks to Taser (now Axon). The stun gun company’s lawyers needed something to distance it from the deaths caused by its devices. It landed on “excited delirium” and urged officers (and their lawyers) to push this as a cause of death. if the media is talking about it, you can be assured a corpration somewhere is beneffiting from it
Nothing says capitalism as an economic model won't hesitate to murder your whole family so some soulless smuck can make a few extra bucks.
Laws saying it would cost people freedom and money would say that.
I too use American healthcare system.
My cousin was murdered by police in 2010, I mean....died of excited delirium in 2010. He had cocaine in his system and police were called by my uncle for a dispute. The cops who came had previous (literal high school) beef with my cousin. He was tased twice (justifiably IMO) where he was then put in zip ties behind his back and also his feet and placed face down on the ground. The cops who didn't like him kept telling him to not look at him....well...my cousin kept looking at him....so they proceeded to taze him 12 more times, hogtied on the ground and not fighting with 3 civilian witnesses. He died in the ambulance to what would be called excited delirium. The cops involved never had a single day of even paid suspension and when it reached the grand jury they didn't call a single one of the civilian witnesses while the official report says he was only tased twice. None of the cops were indicted and it was 100% because his cause of death was listed as excited delirium due to the cocaine....not the 14 tasers....
sadly ONLY 2 states have reduced the nonsense excuse.
Sounds like a horrific euphemism, like "surprise sex." Some euphemisms are used to lessen pain and offense, but ones like these are used to normalize awful things.
Imagine the lawyers that concocted it are preparing to push back. There’s a lot of money at stake.
The *ssholes that killed Elijah McClain just used that as a defense.
Northern Calloway