Should police have qualified immunity?

[CountValentine]

Vote!

[yuneeq]

Are you asking if they should have additional immunity? As it stands they already have more immunity than they should ever need to do their job properly.

[CountValentine]

Basically asking what immunity they should have if any.

[YitzyS]

Here's my perspective.

It is sometimes the job of a police officer to take out their gun and shoot someone. They are expected to size up situations, often very chaotic, potentially life-threatening situations, in a split second and make a decision if they should shoot or not. That being the case, while they should have absolute accountability and full training, their poor decisions, made in crazy situations, should NEVER be equated to a common criminal who never had the business to have a gun in the first place.

I don't think it's fair that if I make a mistake doing my job, I get reprimanded, while if a man who puts his life in danger to protect me makes a mistake, they go to jail for life. Obviously, their mistakes have much bigger ramifications, but there still should be a level of leniency in the picture.

[CountValentine]

Here's my perspective.

It is sometimes the job of a police officer to take out their gun and shoot someone. They are expected to size up situations, often very chaotic, potentially life-threatening situations, in a split second and make a decision if they should shoot or not. That being the case, while they should have absolute accountability and full training, their poor decisions, made in crazy situations, should NEVER be equated to a common criminal who never had the business to have a gun in the first place.

I don't think it's fair that if I make a mistake doing my job, I get reprimanded, while if a man who puts his life in danger to protect me makes a mistake, they go to jail for life. Obviously, their mistakes have much bigger ramifications, but there still should be a level of leniency in the picture.

Nice post.
What about something you consider a reckless mistake?

[zh cohen]

Qualified Immunity only exempts police officers from civil liability. In other words, they can't be sued for doing something unless it was clearly established that it was illegal. I think that there is room to adjust the definition of clearly established as illegal, and not just for police officers but for other government officials.

The ones who would most benefit from revoking qualified immunity would be insurance companies who would immediately have a huge market for malpractice policies. Eventually, those policies would become a part of the standard benefits package for police officers, and we'll be right back where we are now (except with insurance companies a lot richer).

[YitzyS]

Nice post.
What about something you consider a reckless mistake?

There should be a high bar for police officers, the same way I try to hold myself to a high bar as an Orthodox Jew. I think there should real consequences for a reckless mistake, but I still feel that the jail sentence should be shorter than one imposed on someone who had no right to pick up a gun in the first place.

Off the top of my head, without giving this too much thought: if the officer who used the gun instead of the taser last week is found guilty, she should face a year in jail, maybe two. Not a decade or two.

[CountValentine]

Off the top of my head, without giving this too much thought: if the officer who used the gun instead of the taser last week is found guilty, she should face a year in jail, maybe two. Not a decade or two.

Get out the butter as you are on a roll. Love that example.

[AsherO]

Somewhat off topic, but it would be great if we could somehow put these officers on trial without the jury knowing their race or the victim’s race. Likely impossible, but still.

[CountValentine]

Somewhat off topic, but it would be great if we could somehow put these officers on trial without the jury knowing their race or the victim’s race. Likely impossible, but still.

What would that accomplish?

[AsherO]

What would that accomplish?

Lack of bias or accusation thereof.

[CountValentine]

Lack of bias or accusation thereof.

Would you support that for all trials?

[Yo ssi]

Isn't the idea of qualified immunity (vs absolute immunity), to have some form of immunity?
I don't see why option 3 makes sense.

[CountValentine]

Isn't the idea of qualified immunity (vs absolute immunity), to have some form of immunity?
I don't see why option 3 makes sense.

Option 3 was put there because most members here are incapable of answering a yes or no question. 

[yitzgar]

Would you support that for all trials, job applications, elections, everything else in life?
YES

FTFY

[mmgfarb]

Option 3 was put there because most members here are incapable of answering a yes or no question. 

[mmgfarb]

Would you support that for all trials?

It's probably not a bad idea although in practice it's basically unfeasible. The jury needs to be able to see the evidence presented which would often include pictures or videos that clearly shows the gender/race/age, etc. of the defendant.

[CountValentine]

It's probably not a bad idea although in practice it's basically unfeasible. The jury needs to be able to see the evidence presented which would often include pictures or videos that clearly shows the gender/race/age, etc. of the defendant.

I think we can all agree it would be impossible to do.

[yuneeq]

Option 3 was put there because most members here are incapable of answering a yes or no question. 

You voted option 3 as well 

[CountValentine]

You voted option 3 as well 

I voted?