Some registered account users are experiencing password recognition issues. The issue appears to have been triggered by a PHP update last night. If this is occurring, please try logging in and using the "forgot password?" utility. Bear in mind auto-generated password reset emails may appear in your spam folder. If this does not work, please click the "Contact Us" option near the lower right hand corner of the index page to contact me via email.

Thank you for your patience!
- M.W.

Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues in the State of Michigan. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
jadednihilist
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jun 16, 2019 3:31 am

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by jadednihilist »

I'm sorry to hear about your experience, paul. I hope that you are able to one day to see justice served on your behalf.

I overall tend to agree with bmw and MW that there needs to be, at minimum, reform for qualified immunity, although I would also support eliminating it. I also agree that cops deserve better pay, but I would add that we also should narrow the scope of police work. Police are responsible for too wide of an array of calls that are beyond their expertise to manage. Investing in social workers is one way to reduce the burden on police officers.

We also need to eliminate the culture that perpetuates the code of silence. As MW stated, a small fraction of officers are bad apples, but the code of silence lets the bad apples get away with bad behavior. I don't think most people are against accountability.
I'm here for a good, hearty debate, to agree and disagree respectfully, and commiserate on the current state of terrestrial radio.
User avatar
MotorCityRadioFreak
Posts: 7333
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:26 am
Location: Warren, MI

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by MotorCityRadioFreak »

Bryce wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:41 pm
paul8539 wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:24 pm I am white.

I have been beaten by the police worse than Rodney King, and they called it 'necessary force'. They got away with it.

If police beat someone up, all they have to do is claim 'necessary force'. That is it. End of discussion. They are allowed to do it, and you can not object to it.

Their excuse after the end of all this: you are not the guy we want, sorry about that.
Me thinks there's a little bit more to this story than you're telling us.

Care to tell the entire story and how it unfolded from beginning to end?
Profiling gone wrong. Paul should absolutely sue their asses.
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.
User avatar
Rate This
Posts: 16584
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 12:17 am

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by Rate This »

MotorCityRadioFreak wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 11:25 pm
Bryce wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 9:41 pm
paul8539 wrote: Thu Feb 18, 2021 5:24 pm I am white.

I have been beaten by the police worse than Rodney King, and they called it 'necessary force'. They got away with it.

If police beat someone up, all they have to do is claim 'necessary force'. That is it. End of discussion. They are allowed to do it, and you can not object to it.

Their excuse after the end of all this: you are not the guy we want, sorry about that.
Me thinks there's a little bit more to this story than you're telling us.

Care to tell the entire story and how it unfolded from beginning to end?
Profiling gone wrong. Paul should absolutely sue their asses.
So you were there too? Please enlighten us as to exactly what happened...
Donald Trump… In your guts you know he’s nuts.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by bmw »

A recent Supreme Court ruling suggests that at least some of the justices on the SCOTUS are open to significantly EXPANDING qualified immunity protections to police officers by eliminating the vast majority of federal case law (specifically - all circuit court precedent) as a basis for a Plaintiff establishing the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity test. Translation: someone suing a cop for violating his/her rights would be limited to US Supreme Court precedent to establish that your right was clearly established.
The Supreme Court handed down a brief opinion on Monday holding that a California police officer is immune from a lawsuit alleging he used excessive force while helping arrest an armed suspect...

A passage in the Court’s new decision in Rivas-Villegas, however, floats a radical idea: that officers may be entitled to qualified immunity even if they violate clearly established circuit court precedents...

Twice, the Rivas-Villegas opinion uses nearly identical language — “even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law” and “even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law” — that implies it is uncertain whether a circuit court decision is sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. These lines open the door to a new regime, where victims of police violence can no longer rely on appellate court decisions to breach an officer’s partial immunity to suit.
https://www.vox.com/2021/10/20/22733467 ... al-justice

Granted, VOX isn't exactly the most neutral news source, but I do agree with their interpretation. The entire article is worth a read, especially for those of you who believe police officers have too much immunity as it is already.
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by km1125 »

bmw wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:51 am A recent Supreme Court ruling suggests that at least some of the justices on the SCOTUS are open to significantly EXPANDING qualified immunity protections to police officers by eliminating the vast majority of federal case law (specifically - all circuit court precedent) as a basis for a Plaintiff establishing the "clearly established right" prong of the qualified immunity test. Translation: someone suing a cop for violating his/her rights would be limited to US Supreme Court precedent to establish that your right was clearly established.
The Supreme Court handed down a brief opinion on Monday holding that a California police officer is immune from a lawsuit alleging he used excessive force while helping arrest an armed suspect...

A passage in the Court’s new decision in Rivas-Villegas, however, floats a radical idea: that officers may be entitled to qualified immunity even if they violate clearly established circuit court precedents...

Twice, the Rivas-Villegas opinion uses nearly identical language — “even assuming that Circuit precedent can clearly establish law” and “even assuming that controlling Circuit precedent clearly establishes law” — that implies it is uncertain whether a circuit court decision is sufficient to overcome qualified immunity. These lines open the door to a new regime, where victims of police violence can no longer rely on appellate court decisions to breach an officer’s partial immunity to suit.
https://www.vox.com/2021/10/20/22733467 ... al-justice

Granted, VOX isn't exactly the most neutral news source, but I do agree with their interpretation. The entire article is worth a read, especially for those of you who believe police officers have too much immunity as it is already.
Good for SCOTUS to take a stand like this. I think using 'case law' as the basis of your position assumes the conditions were exactly the same as the previous case, which is not true in nearly every situation, but somehow prosecuting attorneys have been getting away with it.
bmw
Posts: 7749
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 1:02 am

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by bmw »

km1125 wrote: Thu Oct 21, 2021 10:08 am Good for SCOTUS to take a stand like this. I think using 'case law' as the basis of your position assumes the conditions were exactly the same as the previous case, which is not true in nearly every situation, but somehow prosecuting attorneys have been getting away with it.
I disagree. Keep in mind that qualified immunity in and of itself is not a legal defense; rather, it is a protection against suit. Alternatively stated, It is not designed to determine the guilt of an officer; rather, it is designed to determine whether an officer should even stand trial in the first place. The hurdles to defeating qualified immunity and even getting so far as the discovery phase are already quite high. This just makes them even higher.
tapeisrolling
Posts: 276
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:07 pm
Location: go ahead, I'm listening

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by tapeisrolling »

A good explanation of the issue...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6nSA8B7rgQ
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by audiophile »

I'm torn on the issue.

The hammer case should have went to trial. Hammer is not that great of a threat at distance, the officers should not have killed him.

On the other hand the officer on the back of suspect with a knife should not have went to trial.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
km1125
Posts: 3789
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by km1125 »

audiophile wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:49 am
tapeisrolling wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:48 pm A good explanation of the issue...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6nSA8B7rgQ
I'm torn on the issue.

The hammer case should have went to trial. Hammer is not that great of a threat at distance, the officers should not have killed him.

On the other hand the officer on the back of suspect with a knife should not have went to trial.
I think there are cases where qualified immunity could be challenged and there is a great case to modify the qualified immunity process, but I have no problem with the three cases **as he presented them** from being dismissed. I know no other details of those three cases other than what he said. He probably could have used some better examples.

The civil forfeiture I have a H_U_G_E problem with. Not sure how that has ever survived as long as it has.
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 9236
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Stripping qualified immunity for ‘bad actor’ police

Unread post by audiophile »

km1125 wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:09 am
audiophile wrote: Tue Oct 26, 2021 8:49 am
tapeisrolling wrote: Mon Oct 25, 2021 9:48 pm A good explanation of the issue...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6nSA8B7rgQ
I'm torn on the issue.

The hammer case should have went to trial. Hammer is not that great of a threat at distance, the officers should not have killed him.

On the other hand the officer on the back of suspect with a knife should not have went to trial.
I think there are cases where qualified immunity could be challenged and there is a great case to modify the qualified immunity process, but I have no problem with the three cases **as he presented them** from being dismissed. I know no other details of those three cases other than what he said. He probably could have used some better examples.

The civil forfeiture I have a H_U_G_E problem with. Not sure how that has ever survived as long as it has.
An officer should not be taken to trial personally just because he wrote you a speeding ticket. That would be frivolous.
Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!
Post Reply