What's new

Pakistani Cab Driver Jumped in NYC

That's actually not what qualified immunity means...

Qualified Immunity only cover civil case, because the government don't want financial burden to impede Law Enforcement Officer or Agency. Since everyone can sue civilly, and if everyone can sue, then basically that can paralyse a department if they were hit by lawsuit left and right. So they cannot be sued civilly, which is why many civil lawsuits against Police Brutality are filed against the city or state that employ that police force. Any officer would still be held legally and criminally accountable if a crime is committed by a LEO (an organisation or agency cannot be criminal responsible for a criminal charge due to absolute entity)

Qualified Immunity also does not work if the department or the officer is not act on an action of clearly established law requirement. This part is a bit tricky because this is an objective measure. But mostly you can define them with 2 examples. Qualified Immunity will applies if a cop or an agency violate your 4A right and perform an illegal search, however, that only applies if the officer knows the search would violate someone's 4A right and went ahead and do it anyway, for example, if a cop obtained a search warrant to search your house, and mistakenly belief that they also have the right to search your shed in the garden where it was not specified (House usually means inside the home) and searched the shed, while that is a violation of your 4A right, Qualified Immunity would applies.

Another example is when a police discharge their weapon negligently, but without the intent to harm (say he/she fire 4 times instead of 1 or 2) that also covered by Qualified Immunity, however, if the cop intent to do that to cause harm (say the suspect is down and he/she continue to shoot) that's a criminal act and not covered by Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity needs to be abolished, and then cops will be liable for the crimes they perpetrate on the citizenry. Your US taxpayer will not have to pay out for The Millions and millions of dollars for the lawsuits that they cause!
 
.
Qualified immunity needs to be abolished, and then cops will be liable for the crimes they perpetrate on the citizenry. Your US taxpayer will not have to pay out for The Millions and millions of dollars for the lawsuits that they cause!
Again, if so, then Police Department around the US can technically be inundated with suit whether or not those suit have merit, again, you don't need to have a clause to file a civil lawsuit, as long as you have around $200 to pay the court fee and $150 for filing a petition, that's all you need for a platiff and you can compel the defendent to response. You can sue anyone and everyone in the US.

I mean if I am a criminal organisation, I would be delighted for them to take away qualified immunity. Say NYPD have 5000 cop, I can file 5000 lawsuit, all it takes is less than 2 millions and I can compel all 5000 cops to the court and testify and not doing their job and have the city all for myself and my criminal enterprise.....
 
.
Again, if so, then Police Department around the US can technically be inundated with suit whether or not those suit have merit, again, you don't need to have a clause to file a civil lawsuit, as long as you have around $200 to pay the court fee and $150 for filing a petition, that's all you need for a platiff and you can compel the defendent to response. You can sue anyone and everyone in the US.

I mean if I am a criminal organisation, I would be delighted for them to take away qualified immunity. Say NYPD have 5000 cop, I can file 5000 lawsuit, all it takes is less than 2 millions and I can compel all 5000 cops to the court and testify and not doing their job and have the city all for myself and my criminal enterprise.....


the murder of Mr. Floyd as just a ‘bad apple’ cop issue are ignoring one incredibly important question: what made those cops so comfortable doing that in broad daylight with spectators around and the murder being filmed? Part of the answer is that they assumed they have qualified immunity. Cops never fear repercussions for their actions because they never expect to be held accountable for them. I appreciate your argument, but the facts are the facts.
 
.
the murder of Mr. Floyd as just a ‘bad apple’ cop issue are ignoring one incredibly important question: what made those cops so comfortable doing that in broad daylight with spectators around and the murder being filmed? Part of the answer is that they assumed they have qualified immunity. Cops never fear repercussions for their actions because they never expect to be held accountable for them. I appreciate your argument, but the facts are the facts.
That's 2 separate issues here. And the case of George Floyd is really an outliner, an individual bad apple case here, I mean US Cop is not generally out there put their knee on someone neck.

The issues here are what is the recourse for the Police? Would taking off Qualify immunity have any impact? And the second issue here is what make these cop abuse power like that?

The second issue is a bit harder to explain, but the first one isn't, it would do absolutely nothing even if the Qualified Immunity is out and you can sue individual cop, that's won't do anything because you can sue me, but I can just not pay, I mean, a lawsuit is only as good when individual pay, people can hide behind Bankruptcy, I mean you can have a judgment on me for 100 millions dollar, you will still get nothing unless I pay up. So cop won't learn if you hold them civilly responsible. The current criminal prosecuting system in the US are very effective at picking up rouge cop, that is if they cross that line.

As for why cops abuse power like that? Well, you can have your opinion as well as mine. But if you ask me? Stupidity? Probably these people should never be a police officer to begin with, the problem is, taking power off cop aren't the solution here, because you can't just say, "Oh there are too much power and there must be abuse in between, so we will need to limit those power" The problem is, you cannot enforce law if you are not given special power to, otherwise you may as well disband the entire Law Enforcement system and have a free for all and every men, family for themselves.

You need Police Officer to have power over normal folks to enforce law, the issue here is who you are giving those power to. That is a boarder and harder question to judge, but it would impact more in ground reality. People do stupid thing over time, and since Police basically deal with the lowest tier of people exclusively, an average Police Officer would see a lot more violence than a normal people would. Call it a defence mechanism or Standard Procedure you want, but some time the only way to deal with this violence behaviour is with violence, that's why they gave us weapon to enforce law. The key issue here is you do not go abuse that weapon, or the power that was given to you, whether it was the power to arrest or power to detain, that's the core of the issue.

On the other hand, believe it or not, US actually have more liberal law against the police than the rest of the world, 4, 5 and 6 A gave a lot of right to civilian and protect them from abuse of power from governmental figure, police included. I remember when I was first transitioned to NSW Police Force after being a Kansas Cop for some time. The first thing I realise is US Cop don't really have that much power to abuse, Australia don't have 4A, so you literally do not have the right to have an attorney automatically. Also, the scope of probable clause are a lot more lenient in Australia than in the US, for example, as long as you are in the driver seat of a car, you don't have to move the car or even switch on the engine, as long as you are in the driver seat of the car, police in Australia can pull you over and order you to do a Breathalyzer test. In the US, you need to have physical sign of being intoxicated. Another probable clause issue is as long as you look funny, police in Australia can detain you, and ask you for basic information and can do an non-intrusive search. You can't do that in the US.
 
.
That's 2 separate issues here. And the case of George Floyd is really an outliner, an individual bad apple case here, I mean US Cop is not generally out there put their knee on someone neck.

The issues here are what is the recourse for the Police? Would taking off Qualify immunity have any impact? And the second issue here is what make these cop abuse power like that?

The second issue is a bit harder to explain, but the first one isn't, it would do absolutely nothing even if the Qualified Immunity is out and you can sue individual cop, that's won't do anything because you can sue me, but I can just not pay, I mean, a lawsuit is only as good when individual pay, people can hide behind Bankruptcy, I mean you can have a judgment on me for 100 millions dollar, you will still get nothing unless I pay up. So cop won't learn if you hold them civilly responsible. The current criminal prosecuting system in the US are very effective at picking up rouge cop, that is if they cross that line.

As for why cops abuse power like that? Well, you can have your opinion as well as mine. But if you ask me? Stupidity? Probably these people should never be a police officer to begin with, the problem is, taking power off cop aren't the solution here, because you can't just say, "Oh there are too much power and there must be abuse in between, so we will need to limit those power" The problem is, you cannot enforce law if you are not given special power to, otherwise you may as well disband the entire Law Enforcement system and have a free for all and every men, family for themselves.

You need Police Officer to have power over normal folks to enforce law, the issue here is who you are giving those power to. That is a boarder and harder question to judge, but it would impact more in ground reality. People do stupid thing over time, and since Police basically deal with the lowest tier of people exclusively, an average Police Officer would see a lot more violence than a normal people would. Call it a defence mechanism or Standard Procedure you want, but some time the only way to deal with this violence behaviour is with violence, that's why they gave us weapon to enforce law. The key issue here is you do not go abuse that weapon, or the power that was given to you, whether it was the power to arrest or power to detain, that's the core of the issue.

On the other hand, believe it or not, US actually have more liberal law against the police than the rest of the world, 4, 5 and 6 A gave a lot of right to civilian and protect them from abuse of power from governmental figure, police included. I remember when I was first transitioned to NSW Police Force after being a Kansas Cop for some time. The first thing I realise is US Cop don't really have that much power to abuse, Australia don't have 4A, so you literally do not have the right to have an attorney automatically. Also, the scope of probable clause are a lot more lenient in Australia than in the US, for example, as long as you are in the driver seat of a car, you don't have to move the car or even switch on the engine, as long as you are in the driver seat of the car, police in Australia can pull you over and order you to do a Breathalyzer test. In the US, you need to have physical sign of being intoxicated. Another probable clause issue is as long as you look funny, police in Australia can detain you, and ask you for basic information and can do an non-intrusive search. You can't do that in the US.

I am not anti police, just anti criminal regardless of uniform or not,

All a cop has to do is the job without ego, necessary violence, or any constitutional violations. Why is this so hard?, I feel this is the beginning of the true weeding process of criminal cops in favor of mature, professional cops. No more toxic culture like "thin blue line" mentality or the "wall of silence", police doing their job with respect, humanity, and a healthy concern for their own careers and their reputations within the communities they serve. The police who speak out against Eliminating Qualified Immunity this are probably the ones that SHOULD be concerned, just clean up your act, these lawsuites will only be successful if you are guilty of civil rights violations with the burden of proof, it is all under your control.
 
.
I am not anti police, just anti criminal regardless of uniform or not,

All a cop has to do is the job without ego, necessary violence, or any constitutional violations. Why is this so hard?, I feel this is the beginning of the true weeding process of criminal cops in favor of mature, professional cops. No more toxic culture like "thin blue line" mentality or the "wall of silence", police doing their job with respect, humanity, and a healthy concern for their own careers and their reputations within the communities they serve. The police who speak out against Eliminating Qualified Immunity this are probably the ones that SHOULD be concerned, just clean up your act, these lawsuites will only be successful if you are guilty of civil rights violations with the burden of proof, it is all under your control.
No no no.....It's alright, I am here to just discuss, better this than those discuss where the other guy put out some circle jerk argument that out of no where.

Not all cops was like that, police population is very much like a normal population, you have people of all sort in the Police force, and in this case, just like a normal population, there are ALWAYS people that don't belong in the force exist, most cop do their job 9 to 5 (or 2 to 11 if you work night shift without any incident, which means you will probably never heard about it. But when ever there is a disdain on cops, you sure as hell will know, as I said before, the issue is not the power, the issue is to who you entrust the power to.

On the other hand, you don't need to be successful to done damage in lawsuit. Again, lawsuit filed would draw money and resource away, you will need to diver resource, and manpower to investigate. And also, you can compel the person you sue to court, they cannot be absent, or they lose the case by default. Again, if you can sue the individual cops, 5000 cops a department, only 1.7 millions and you will have no cops on a street for one day, that's why there is qualified immunity. And again, as I said, even if you can sue those people civilly, that wouldn't do shit, they just wouldn't pay up, it's criminal court can scare these people.
 
.
No no no.....It's alright, I am here to just discuss, better this than those discuss where the other guy put out some circle jerk argument that out of no where.

Not all cops was like that, police population is very much like a normal population, you have people of all sort in the Police force, and in this case, just like a normal population, there are ALWAYS people that don't belong in the force exist, most cop do their job 9 to 5 (or 2 to 11 if you work night shift without any incident, which means you will probably never heard about it. But when ever there is a disdain on cops, you sure as hell will know, as I said before, the issue is not the power, the issue is to who you entrust the power to.

On the other hand, you don't need to be successful to done damage in lawsuit. Again, lawsuit filed would draw money and resource away, you will need to diver resource, and manpower to investigate. And also, you can compel the person you sue to court, they cannot be absent, or they lose the case by default. Again, if you can sue the individual cops, 5000 cops a department, only 1.7 millions and you will have no cops on a street for one day, that's why there is qualified immunity. And again, as I said, even if you can sue those people civilly, that wouldn't do shit, they just wouldn't pay up, it's criminal court can scare these people.

Cheers and Thanks to your reply. It’s pleasure to talk to someone who listens and is respectful to other peoples points of views. And you do share lots of your vast experiences on various topics on here i see regularly. Hope it continues..,

Continuing, with my argument lol

Can we Make all civilian lawsuits against the police that are won, that the lawsuit should be paid by the police union, police pension, and a penalty fee personally charged to the police chief as well as allowing the individual police involved are legally open to be sued. Remove the entire umbrella of "qualified immunity".
Bet you'd see a bunch of cops quit and police chiefs rule with an iron fist over their departments and other cops to keep their peers in line because it would affect their pensions and union fees.
 
.
@Title, USA is still a violent and racist place. This is what people told me in Canada.
 
. .
The bodycams are a big problem now too. Now the criminals can outsmart the cops as the cop would be limited as they are afraid to apprehend them due to jail time, getting fired, etc.
Everything is recorded now. The bodycam does protect the law-abiding officer against edited footage and false accusations.
 
. . . .
Same in Chicago, since our governor passed a similar bill, crime has shot up 160% per some reports.



Cabbies & Others will need to start carrying firearms for self-defense. These crimes are going to keep increasing, as dealing with the insurance industry it's shaken things up, whereas carriers are pulling out of specific markets due to negro behavior.





BLM was the trigger before the police shot these negro's and kept them in line, but now it's like a herd of hyenas is on the loose.
It's happening all over US. Divide and rule, have the people fighting each other so the real enemy is not focus of attention.
 
. .

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom