Without "Qualified Immunity," Would Cops Be So Quick to Kill?

Jeff. State · Jan 1, 2015

sidestreet said:
Had a former "New Yawk" LEO tell me that, "Well, without it, nobody would work!", that was after he acted as though he had no idea what "qualified immunity" was, and I called him on it.
.

And there is the gist.

It's been said here, and admitted by LEO's. If they are held to the same standards as THE REST OF US, they will walk away. So don't anyone try to say that these are some noble, rare, courageous breed of "public servants".
They are NOT.

And thank you for confirming at least one LEO's thought on OC. Many flat out don't like seeing anyone but them ARMED.

Government is a self fulfilling black prophecy. It will only get bigger and it will only get worse. And it will need enFORCErs to do its bidding.
America nor its leaders are on a strong cultural/moral/spiritual footing anymore. "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely". That rings 100% true today in this nation.

Democide, death by Government, has been a reality around this planet to the tune of 260+ million human lives in the last 100 years. Don't let it come here. The Second Amendment is exactly what we have to hold onto to defend against it.

color of law · Jan 1, 2015

"Qualified Immunity"

To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must prove the defendant deprived the plaintiff of a right protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States while acting under the color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640 (1980). State laws “cannot create federal constitutional rights actionable under § 1983.” Wilson v. Morgan, 477 F.3d 326, 332 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Harrill v. Blount Cnty., 55 F.3d 1123, 1125-26 (6th Cir. 1995)).

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields state actors from § 1983 liability based upon their discretionary acts. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638-40 (1987). Once the defendant raises the qualified immunity defense, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving (1) he was deprived of a constitutionally-protected right (2) that was “so clearly established that a reasonable officer would understand that his or her actions would violate that right.” Thomas v. Cohen, 304 F.3d 563, 569 (6th Cir. 2002) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982)); see also Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640 (“n the light of pre-existing law[,] the unlawfulness [of the official’s actions] must be apparent.”).

sudden valley gunner · Jan 2, 2015

color of law said:
"Qualified Immunity"

So sad, the burden of proof against bad cops is on the victim.

twoskinsonemanns · Jan 2, 2015

The Truth said:
I see.

So wait, they scheduled a search of his home and gave him multiple days' advance notice? HAH

MAC702 said:
Might as well make it so he can tell them what room they aren't allowed to go in, as well.

wait. a guy is having his guns taken away by the state because of a you tube video of him kicking an owl and THATS your comment?!
:lol:

Maverick9 · Jan 2, 2015

If I were able to create a ROE, I would say to each LEO, 'here's your gun. FIND A WAY never to use it, including backing off and just getting an ID, calling in back up, taking initial fire from a distance to assure the suspect is armed - wear a helmet if you need to - and never, ever use your firearm against an unarmed suspect - find a way'.

I don't think you have to TELL a LEO to shoot to preserve his life or his partner's life. In fact it's pretty safe to say 'never use your firearm' and rely on self-preservation instinct to violate this rule only as needed. Cops are NOT executioners and we have to take big steps to reverse this trend.

OC for ME · Jan 2, 2015

I'm all for tossing QI into the ash bin of legal history. What I would like to see eliminated first is that "q-munity caretaking" nonsense.

The notion that a cop can decide what is best for you, then could be found justified if he ventilates you, if you resist his efforts to take care of you, because he knows what's best for you and thinks that you do not, is shear madness.

Cops are many times absolved of the burden to react based on what is actually taking place before them...QI absolves them of this burden.

Why is QI so vigorously defended, even applied when logic and the facts indicate that it should not be applied? Because the loss of QI means that cops will be held to the same standard under the law as I am.

twoskinsonemanns · Jan 2, 2015

OC for ME said:
Why is QI so vigorously defended, even applied when logic and the facts indicate that it should not be applied? Because the loss of QI means that cops will be held to the same standard under the law as I am.

what a tragedy that would be

Aknazer · Jan 2, 2015

Shovelhead said:
So cops should just stand there, and the suspect take the first shot to eliminate the possibility of a replica firearm?
There ARE 13 year old kids on the streets with real firearms.

In short, yes. A cop has an easier time firing on a citizen than a military member does on firing on an enemy combatant. On top of that the cop has far less repercussion from a "bad shoot" than a military member would. When it is easier to engage a citizen than it is to engage an enemy combatant in a warzone (regardless of if you agree with the war or not) there is something seriously wrong.

Now I'm not against cops being able to defend themselves. But as a group they have repeatedly shown a "shoot first" mentality and a lack of fortitude for holding their own accountable.

Grapeshot · Jan 5, 2015

Find that the title of this thread (Without "Qualified Immunity," Would Cops Be So Quick to Kill?) is overly broad in that all LEOs are not quick to kill. We must take care to not use the broad brush technique when discussing issues.

Ezerharden · Jan 5, 2015

So to all of you that advocate that the police should be fire upon first before returning fire I ask this. Someone kicks in your door at 3am. You would assume it's a bugler. Are you going to wait to be shot at first? unless you are a moron the answer is no. In your home, in most states, you have your very own "qualified immunity" called by many names, Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine to name a couple. But this person you may have just killed was actually drunk and at the wrong door. But you didn't know that, all you knew was someone broke in and you feared for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Freedom1Man · Jan 5, 2015

Paid vacation for killing?

It seems that the corrupt officers are enjoying paid vacations for murdering people while those defending the thin blue line, pretend to investigate and IF they are found in the wrong the judges who hear the cases have a habit of either not giving any jail time or giving so little that it's a joke.

There seems to be a trend that I'm seeing where the good police officers who step up to defend people against bad police officers are getting fired, assaulted, and otherwise abused.

As for painting all officers with a negative brush, I know that not all are bad. There is an annual meeting for constitution supporting Sheriffs that I learned about.

So, with that in mind, I believe that there would be fewer police killing people if they were held to the same standards and punishments that "we the serfs" have to deal with.,

Grapeshot · Jan 5, 2015

Freedom1Man said:
It seems that the corrupt officers are enjoying paid vacations for murdering people while those defending the thin blue line, pretend to investigate and IF they are found in the wrong the judges who hear the cases have a habit of either not giving any jail time or giving so little that it's a joke.

There seems to be a trend that I'm seeing where the good police officers who step up to defend people against bad police officers are getting fired, assaulted, and otherwise abused.

As for painting all officers with a negative brush, I know that not all are bad. There is an annual meeting for constitution supporting Sheriffs that I learned about.

So, with that in mind, I believe that there would be fewer police killing people if they were held to the same standards and punishments that "we the serfs" have to deal with.,

Fixed it = w/o personal bias or animosity.
It seems that the [strike]corrupt[/strike] officers are [strike]enjoying paid vacations[/strike] getting paid leave for [strike]murdering[/strike] using deadly force people while those defending the thin blue line, [strike]pretend to[/strike] investigate [strike]and[/strike] but IF they are found in the wrong the judges who hear the cases have a habit of either not giving any jail time or giving so little that it's a joke.

OC for ME · Jan 5, 2015

Grapeshot said:
Fixed it = w/o personal bias or animosity.
It seems that the [strike]corrupt[/strike] officers are [strike]enjoying paid vacations[/strike] getting paid leave for [strike]murdering[/strike] using deadly force people while those defending the thin blue line, [strike]pretend to[/strike] investigate [strike]and[/strike] but IF they are found in the wrong the judges who hear the cases have a habit of either not giving any jail time or giving so little that it's a joke.

Never a more tortured example of the King's English never have I readed.

Grapeshot · Jan 5, 2015

OC for ME said:
Never a more tortured example of the King's English never have I readed.

At least I am trying..........and I'm convicted too.

twoskinsonemanns · Jan 5, 2015

Ezerharden said:
So to all of you that advocate that the police should be fire upon first before returning fire I ask this. Someone kicks in your door at 3am. You would assume it's a bugler. Are you going to wait to be shot at first? unless you are a moron the answer is no. In your home, in most states, you have your very own "qualified immunity" called by many names, Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine to name a couple. But this person you may have just killed was actually drunk and at the wrong door. But you didn't know that, all you knew was someone broke in and you feared for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Of course before you shoot at a presumed burglar you may wish to ask the crooks pointing guns at you if they are actually SWAT peace officers who are lost and at the wrong house. If you do not and just start shooting you may be held responsible for their error.

The Truth · Jan 5, 2015

Ezerharden said:
So to all of you that advocate that the police should be fire upon first before returning fire I ask this. Someone kicks in your door at 3am. You would assume it's a bugler. Are you going to wait to be shot at first? unless you are a moron the answer is no. In your home, in most states, you have your very own "qualified immunity" called by many names, Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine to name a couple. But this person you may have just killed was actually drunk and at the wrong door. But you didn't know that, all you knew was someone broke in and you feared for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

First of all, it'd be pretty weird for a bugler to break in at 3am.

Second of all, you are equating the reality of qualified immunity among police in public AT WORK with the ability of a citizen to defend one's home against an intruder on private property. Some states do not even allow a citizen to stand one's ground defending one's home. Some states consider a locked door to be defense enough against an intruder. You gotta go hide in your closet and hope your family isn't subsequently murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

OC for ME · Jan 5, 2015

The Truth said:
First of all, it'd be pretty weird for a bugler to break in at 3am.

Second of all, you are equating the reality of qualified immunity among police in public AT WORK with the ability of a citizen to defend one's home against an intruder on private property. Some states do not even allow a citizen to stand one's ground defending one's home. Some states consider a locked door to be defense enough against an intruder. You gotta go hide in your closet and hope your family isn't subsequently murdered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

False comparisons should not get in the way of a good argument.

Aknazer · Jan 5, 2015

Ezerharden said:
So to all of you that advocate that the police should be fire upon first before returning fire I ask this. Someone kicks in your door at 3am. You would assume it's a bugler. Are you going to wait to be shot at first? unless you are a moron the answer is no. In your home, in most states, you have your very own "qualified immunity" called by many names, Stand Your Ground, Castle Doctrine to name a couple. But this person you may have just killed was actually drunk and at the wrong door. But you didn't know that, all you knew was someone broke in and you feared for your life and the lives of your loved ones.

Strawman argument. If someone breaks into a cop's house then sure they should be able to fire upon the intruder. But if I'm out in town I'm not going to shoot first and let a lawyer sort it later. This means that I'm going to make sure the person is a threat.

In addition to that, cops volunteered for their job, and as such should be held to a higher standard. Just as how by volunteering for the military I'm held to a higher standard in regards to my ability to engage a threat, rights given up, etc. They volunteered to deal with dangerous people and as such they should know that there's a risk in doing so. Instead they are held to a lower standard then the public and short of openly executing the person, they aren't generally held accountable.

Disclaimer for Grapeshot. No I'm not saying that "all" cops do such things and I acknowledge that there's good cops out there. This is only addressing those less than stellar ones and how the system rarely holds them accountable.

davidmcbeth · Jan 6, 2015

If their was no immunity, every drug head who got cuffed would complain of an injury just due to the cuffing.

Lets deal in the real world ... if their was no immunity no one would be a cop.

I could live with no cops...they tend to be at a place after the fact.

since9 · Jan 7, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
If their was no immunity, every drug head who got cuffed would complain of an injury just due to the cuffing.

Lets deal in the real world ... if their was no immunity no one would be a cop.

I could live with no cops...they tend to be at a place after the fact.

While they may indeed arrive after the fact, police departments have the resources to investigate, find the perps, and arrest them, thereby preventing future crime.

It's a team effort, but it only works if they respect and allow us to the freedom to exercise our inalienable rights.

Without "Qualified Immunity," Would Cops Be So Quick to Kill?

Banned

Accomplished Advocate

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Campaign Veteran