Michigan RadioFour members of the Michigan Black Legislative Caucus are proposing legislation to deny legal protections for police who inflict unjustifiable violence.
State Rep. Cynthia A. Johnson (D-Detroit) says the state may consider imposing an additional requirement on police.
“In addition to these particular bills, we may want to hold police officers responsible by having them bonded, and they would have to pay for their own personal liability insurance.”
Law enforcement officers are protected by a provision known as qualified immunity. That means they’re shielded from civil liability for serious injury or death if their actions fall within the scope of their official duties. The proposal from four members of the Michigan Legislative Black Caucus would strip that protection from police who exert unjustified violence.
Acceptable registrations in the queue through May 29 at 11:00p ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619
Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
More and More states are removing this protection from police as unjustified injury and deaths continue by bad cops... I hope it comes to Michigan soon.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
As someone who assisted someone fighting (pro-se) and defeating an officer's qualified immunity claim over the course of over 7 years in federal court, I think I have solid standing to state an opinion on this.
Despite what I went through, I am NOT in favor of ditching qualified immunity for law enforcement. I am, however, in favor of tweaking it. The biggest problem is procedurally how qualified immunity plays out. In my case, it went something like this:
-Complaint filed.
-Defendants answer and assert qualified immunity.
-Defendants file motion for stay of discovery until qualified immunity resolved. Motion granted.
-Defendants file motion for Summary Judgment to have case dismissed, based on qualified immunity claim.
-We respond to motion and defeat it.
-Defendants file interlocutory appeal in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing lower court denial of immunity
-We respond to appeal and defeat it. Case remanded.
-Discovery finally commences.
-Defendants file RENEWED motion for summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that discovery established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
-We respond to motion and defeat it yet again.
-Finally, trial commences.
That entire process took over SEVEN YEARS to play out. My proposal reform would be as follows:
1 - Getting rid of the right to an interlocutory appeal.
2 - Limiting Summary judgment motions to ONE on immunity, and making Defendants make the choice whether they want to do that with or without discovery having commenced. If they move to stop discovery, then qualified immunity must be definitively resolved in short order and cannot be asserted again. Or they can wait until after discovery.
Remember, qualified immunity is not in and of itself a legal defense, but rather is a protection against litigation. As such, I quite frankly think it should be allowed but resolved quickly and not appealable in any way.
Despite what I went through, I am NOT in favor of ditching qualified immunity for law enforcement. I am, however, in favor of tweaking it. The biggest problem is procedurally how qualified immunity plays out. In my case, it went something like this:
-Complaint filed.
-Defendants answer and assert qualified immunity.
-Defendants file motion for stay of discovery until qualified immunity resolved. Motion granted.
-Defendants file motion for Summary Judgment to have case dismissed, based on qualified immunity claim.
-We respond to motion and defeat it.
-Defendants file interlocutory appeal in 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, appealing lower court denial of immunity
-We respond to appeal and defeat it. Case remanded.
-Discovery finally commences.
-Defendants file RENEWED motion for summary judgment, arguing (among other things) that discovery established that they are entitled to qualified immunity.
-We respond to motion and defeat it yet again.
-Finally, trial commences.
That entire process took over SEVEN YEARS to play out. My proposal reform would be as follows:
1 - Getting rid of the right to an interlocutory appeal.
2 - Limiting Summary judgment motions to ONE on immunity, and making Defendants make the choice whether they want to do that with or without discovery having commenced. If they move to stop discovery, then qualified immunity must be definitively resolved in short order and cannot be asserted again. Or they can wait until after discovery.
Remember, qualified immunity is not in and of itself a legal defense, but rather is a protection against litigation. As such, I quite frankly think it should be allowed but resolved quickly and not appealable in any way.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
I think that the process of determining whether immunity is granted needs to be addressed as well.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
The process or the standard? Because I pretty much summed up the typical process in a nutshell - immunity could have been granted at any of the various stages I described above.
The standard is along the lines of "would/should a reasonable person standing in the officer's shoes know that his/her conduct violated a clearly established Constitutional right of the plaintiff?" I think the standard is a fair one.
The standard is along the lines of "would/should a reasonable person standing in the officer's shoes know that his/her conduct violated a clearly established Constitutional right of the plaintiff?" I think the standard is a fair one.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
I'm suggesting that the relationship between police and the judicial system is too tight to allow decisions to be made in that way.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
So you're talking about WHO makes the decision. As it stands now, it is always decided by a judge, and if denied, can still be granted by an Appellate judge.
What would you suggest? I'm not exactly sure how an independent board or group could be set up to make such a determination. Perhaps that burden could be placed on the same mediators that conduct mediation when a case is referred to mediation? Maybe when qualified immunity is invoked in an Answer to a Complaint, a case could immediately be referred to the mediators to decide immunity?
What would you suggest? I'm not exactly sure how an independent board or group could be set up to make such a determination. Perhaps that burden could be placed on the same mediators that conduct mediation when a case is referred to mediation? Maybe when qualified immunity is invoked in an Answer to a Complaint, a case could immediately be referred to the mediators to decide immunity?
- MotorCityRadioFreak
- Posts: 6532
- Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
- Location: Warren, MI
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
Qualified immunity has to go...tomorrow!
They/them, non-binary and proud.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Remember that “2000 Mules” was concocted by a circus of elephants.
The right needs to stop worry about what’s between people’s legs. Instead, they should focus on what’s between their ears.
Audacity sucks.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
Will we be eliminating the protections of governmental immunity from members of the House of Representatives too?
Explain to me, why the officer in this video should have to endure civil suits from a bevy of ambulance chasers because of what she did.
Explain to me, why the officer in this video should have to endure civil suits from a bevy of ambulance chasers because of what she did.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
What kind of crazy thing are you trying to show us?
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
Click on the "Watch On Youtube" link and find out.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
So getting back to the topic of police protections that allow them to brutalize citizens.
I think that defunding the police is probably a bad idea but making them accountable for their actions is the right approach.
I think that defunding the police is probably a bad idea but making them accountable for their actions is the right approach.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
Who gets to decide which actions warrant accountability? Other police officers?
And, if legislators are able to strip police of their legal protections, should they be willing to give up theirs?
And, if legislators are able to strip police of their legal protections, should they be willing to give up theirs?
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
I suppose if legislators start brutally killing citizens in the street we should consider it for them too. Keep in mind, it's not stripping them of this protection it's holding them accountable when they are operating outside the law and outside police protocols. The chokehold has been outlawed almost everywhere, if an officer uses it, I say this protection is unavailable.
I can't see police policing themselves, the internal investigations certainly have not been just.
I would think a jury of some sort would be the way to go. It certainly works for everybody else.
“Blessed are those who are righteous in his name.”
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
― Matt
Posting Content © 2024 TC Talks Holdings LP.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
I don't agree with departments banning chokeholds. If someone is in a struggle for their life, every tool to end the threat should be an option.
Oh, by the way, how many people in government went to prison over the Flint water debacle?
I fear removing protections will result in unwarranted civil actions against police officers.
Oh, by the way, how many people in government went to prison over the Flint water debacle?
I fear removing protections will result in unwarranted civil actions against police officers.
New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.
Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police
Rep. Cynthia Johnson (D) is on video inciting violence.TC Talks wrote: ↑Sat Dec 19, 2020 10:43 amI suppose if legislators start brutally killing citizens in the street we should consider it for them too. Keep in mind, it's not stripping them of this protection it's holding them accountable when they are operating outside the law and outside police protocols. The chokehold has been outlawed almost everywhere, if an officer uses it, I say this protection is unavailable.
I can't see police policing themselves, the internal investigations certainly have not been just.
I would think a jury of some sort would be the way to go. It certainly works for everybody else.
Voting for Trump is dumber than playing Russian Roulette with fully loaded chambers.