Read on Twitter
A cop in Georgia shot a 10-year-old. The courts agreed it was reckless.
Yet he still received qualified immunity, barring the mom from suing.
For @Newsweek, I wrote about why we should abolish the doctrine, so we don't have more stories like this one. https://bit.ly/2PuaXxy
Yet he still received qualified immunity, barring the mom from suing.
For @Newsweek, I wrote about why we should abolish the doctrine, so we don't have more stories like this one. https://bit.ly/2PuaXxy
Conservatives have been slower to warm on this issue. Let's talk about why they're wrong.
Qualified immunity allows state actors to trample on the little guy's rights without fear of accountability. I'm not sure how any limited government advocate can stand for that.
Qualified immunity allows state actors to trample on the little guy's rights without fear of accountability. I'm not sure how any limited government advocate can stand for that.
Qualified immunity protects *all* state actors.
That includes cops, yes. But it also protects, say, corrupt college administrators who roll right on over a student's free speech and due process rights. https://reason.com/2020/06/10/its-time-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-college-administrators-too/
That includes cops, yes. But it also protects, say, corrupt college administrators who roll right on over a student's free speech and due process rights. https://reason.com/2020/06/10/its-time-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-college-administrators-too/
A common objection: "But cops will find themselves in financial ruin!"
No. Cities indemnify their employees against such harms. Between 2006-2011, individual cops paid a whopping 0.02 percent of the $730 million in judgments handed down against them. https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/police-indemnification/
No. Cities indemnify their employees against such harms. Between 2006-2011, individual cops paid a whopping 0.02 percent of the $730 million in judgments handed down against them. https://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-89-number-3/police-indemnification/
Richly ironic is that *reasonableness* is core to qualified immunity. It assumes that *reasonable* government officials need an identical court precedent to tell them that shooting a child is, uh, wrong.
In other words, we are to assume they are stupid. That's unreasonable.
In other words, we are to assume they are stupid. That's unreasonable.
Here's another horrid example: A group of cops were originally given qualified immunity after shooting an old man 22 times as he lay motionless on the ground.
He was approached by officers for walking on the street, not the sidewalk. I wish I were joking. https://reason.com/2020/06/11/qualified-immunity-wayne-jones-homeless-police-shot-22-times-fourth-circuit/
He was approached by officers for walking on the street, not the sidewalk. I wish I were joking. https://reason.com/2020/06/11/qualified-immunity-wayne-jones-homeless-police-shot-22-times-fourth-circuit/
Someone can literally *commit murder* and be given qualified immunity—if the way they murdered their victim wasn't "clearly established" somewhere in the law.
@ConLawWarrior breaks down what might've happened in a Derek Chauvin civil suit. Come on.
@ConLawWarrior breaks down what might've happened in a Derek Chauvin civil suit. Come on.
Perhaps most of all, conservatives worry that abolishing qualified immunity would drive cops out of the profession.
If we're talking about the ones who shoot kids & kill people absent just cause, then I'm glad they'd be forced to reexamine their choices—and you should be, too.
If we're talking about the ones who shoot kids & kill people absent just cause, then I'm glad they'd be forced to reexamine their choices—and you should be, too.
