Prelude to Agony wrote:
Yeah, I'm sure you know where I stand.

Qualified Immunity is just that...qualified. The issue, however, stems from courts splitting hairs on it. I will admit that I believe the courts give cops the benefit of the doubt, which is a problem.

I never really looked into what qualified immunity was until this year. I don't act in a manner to have had to worry about it. I've never been sued (which some would say it's because I don't do the job right).

One of the points about qualified immunity is, cops are tasked with a job that they have to perform. In order to do that job, there's a reasonable expectation of protection from frivolous lawsuits from people who are pissed that they were arrested, ticketed, or even talked to. There is an expectation that use of force may be necessary, and again, there's protections built in for being sued despite doing what was proper under the law.

When cops don't act properly, the 'qualified' comes in to play. This isn't 'absolute' immunity, and there is a 2 part 'test' to determine that. It's subjective though, as anything is. I mean, it seems cut and dry to me....cop violated a right, cop clearly knew it was an established right and did it anyway (as I interpret it). Still....we all know about the courts. Allegedly, if the case brought before the court is basically the same as a previous case, the court is supposed to rule that way, or it's automatically resolved that way.

Of course the prevailing comment is that if qualified immunity was removed, and a cop is sued, the municipality would simply pay on behalf of the officer.

Yeah....right.

Whether you like it or not, I am tasked with assigned duties. With qualified immunity, so long as I'm doing what I am supposed to do under the constitution, I'm good. Without it, I'll still do my job, but the idea of having to fend off BS suits because someone got mad, is ridiculous.

I know that Biden signed something regarding reform, but I haven't read it (I'm still off). Our Prosecutor put out something to break it down, and basically most crimes we don't lodge for now, we just write a ticket. If we do arrest, we need to document all of the reasons why we felt that was necessary. There was bond reform, and some other administrative changes for arraignment.

What the Prosecutor didn't cover, was qualified immunity. When I asked my boss about that, he said the PA would get back to us on that. It would be nice to know, for sure, as it may alleviate some of our concerns too.

What I think is the youngsters on our department are already unmotivated. Now, with the idea they can be sued personally for basically anything they do, they're less likely to get involved. It's sad, honestly, and it's going to make shit worse, not better IMO. Old dogs, like myself, will probably not want to risk their retirement and anything else, and may also be ineffective.

If the intent is to get cops to 'act right', it may do that, but it's going to have some unintended consequences that I don't think they considered. Maybe the reform should have been with the courts, or case law, instead.

Look at how defunding is going....funding is being given back to departments. Knew that would happen. Reform I could get behind to a point...though it was a bit shortsighted to do it without true understanding of what we do. I'd really love reform if it made my job easier...it's become more complicated over the last 15 years.

I know cops aren't loved here...I get it. But there's shit we have to do because the idea is to serve and protect. We shouldn't have to fend off bullshit complaints in court, simply cos someone was mad. Sorry, not sorry.

If they take qualified immunity, it is what it is, hell, I'm one foot out the door anyway. Yet, maybe they should change how law suits work, so that if you file BS suits against anyone, not just the cops, you automatically have to pay their attorney fees, plus the amount you were asking to be awarded. Maybe it would help reduce suits down to those that are more legitimate.