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

Grapeshot · Jan 7, 2015

since9 said:
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.

Sure it is a team effort.

Sometimes the players are on the same side/team, sometimes they are not. Howsoever.... :uhoh:

Concur in that the teams need to recognize and give full credance to the inalienable rights of all. It is not a game that is being played - it is life, real honest to G~d life.

MAC702 · Jan 7, 2015

since9 said:
... police departments have the resources to investigate, find the perps, and arrest them,...

Though these resources are often only deemed worthy of deployment when the victim is a cop.

beebobby · Jan 8, 2015

From the stats, I would guess that police in other 1st world countries don't have QI.
In Canada, he total number of citizens killed by law enforcement officers in the year 2014, was 14; that is 78 times less people than the US.
In the United Kingdom, 1 person was killed by police in 2014 and 0 in 2013. English police reportedly fired guns a total of three times in all of 2013, with zero reported fatalities.
From 2010 through 2014, there were four fatal police shootings in England, which has a population of about 52 million. By contrast, Albuquerque, N.M., with a population 1 percent the size of England’s, had 26 fatal police shootings in that same time period.
From 2013-2014, German police killed absolutely no one.
In the entire history of Iceland police, they have only killed 1 person ever.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/

Primus · Jan 8, 2015

beebobby said:
From the stats, I would guess that police in other 1st world countries don't have QI.
In Canada, he total number of citizens killed by law enforcement officers in the year 2014, was 14; that is 78 times less people than the US.
In the United Kingdom, 1 person was killed by police in 2014 and 0 in 2013. English police reportedly fired guns a total of three times in all of 2013, with zero reported fatalities.
From 2010 through 2014, there were four fatal police shootings in England, which has a population of about 52 million. By contrast, Albuquerque, N.M., with a population 1 percent the size of England’s, had 26 fatal police shootings in that same time period.
From 2013-2014, German police killed absolutely no one.
In the entire history of Iceland police, they have only killed 1 person ever.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/police-kill-citizens-70-times-rate-first-world-nations/

Be careful.... Know what else those countries also don't have?

Guns.....

So is it the guess of QI (yes... A guess becuase you have no idea) or the known fact none of those countries have citizens with guns.

So be careful what figures you throw out there. We don't need antis looking at it that way.

WalkingWolf · Jan 8, 2015

Primus said:
Be careful.... Know what else those countries also don't have?

Guns.....

So is it the guess of QI (yes... A guess becuase you have no idea) or the known fact none of those countries have citizens with guns.

So be careful what figures you throw out there. We don't need antis looking at it that way.

Both Canada and Germany have guns, they do not have the right to them, but they are legal under the law.

While England does not have legal guns, most of the police are unarmed. How many British police are killed in the line of duty per year? And they were unarmed before the citizens were.

WalkingWolf · Jan 8, 2015

256 British police officers killed in the line of duty between 1945 to 2012.

That is a average of 3.82 per year. And they are unarmed.

Taking guns away from police on duty would probably save police officers lives.

The Truth · Jan 8, 2015

WalkingWolf said:
256 British police officers killed in the line of duty between 1945 to 2012.

That is a average of 3.82 per year. And they are unarmed.

Taking guns away from police on duty would probably save police officers lives.

One could possibly argue that guns are not as common over yonder way. I have no cite for that.

WalkingWolf · Jan 8, 2015

The Truth said:
One could possibly argue that guns are not as common over yonder way. I have no cite for that.

Actually gun crime and violent crime has steadily been rising in Britain, but it seems that there is a respect for the unarmed police. There have been no police murdered since 2012 as far as I can find.

In the past the police in Britain were part of the community, they were integral to the social network just like a baker, doctor, or other profession. It is this sense of being a public servant IMO that has protected them from harm. As their policing methods change I suspect so will their safety.

rightwinglibertarian · Jan 8, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
Without qualified immunity no one would be cops either ... I could live with that.

No there would be more honest ones. Police do have a legitimate job to do, but that role has been so twisted and distorted over time, people are under the mistaken notion they are all bad or there should be no police officers. I think their should be, but they should act like the public servants they are and work with the local people who in turn behave as the militia they are.
Militia I should add would not advocate or support anarchy but support and defend the Constitution, interpreting it as literally as it was intended to.

utbagpiper · Jan 9, 2015

It seems "Qualified Immunity" is a specific doctrine from the SCOTUS and so not applicable, per that name at least, in Canada, the UK, nor anywhere else. See Wiki for a decent starting point.

However, I find several cites indicating that English police do enjoy various forms of immunity including for failure to warn/protect (known as "Hill Immunity" it seems. This case discusses issues of sovereign immunity of nations including Russia and England.

Frankly, I cannot determine whether or to what extent Canadian or English police officers might enjoy anything akin to Qualified Immunity in the USA. And so I can arrive at no informed opinion about what effect lack of QA might have on police conduct there or here. And having never lived there, I have no personal insights.

What I find curious and troubling however, is the extent to which some members are quick to take a single (potential) difference between US and UK law and credit it with vast differences in outcome. How is this materially different than what the gun grabbers do when they point to the difference in US and UK gun laws and proclaim/imply that single difference is responsible for the vast difference in murder rates between the US and UK?

Despite being divided by a common language, there are significant cultural differences between the US and the UK.

As discussed in some detail at this site total violent crime in England and Wales may (or may not) be higher than in the US even though their homicide rate is lower than the US. I note that the racial/ethnic demographics of England are notable different than our own (91% white, 5% Asian, 2% black (and a few % others) with 92% of the population speaking English in England VS 63% "non latino" White, 5% Asian, 12% black, 16% Hispanic (and a few % others) with 76% speaking English and 11% speaking Spanish in the USA). England is far more homogenous of a society than is the USA.

Given the vast difference in overall homicide rate between the UK and US, it would be shocking if there were not similar difference in police officer killing of suspects or police officers killed in the line of duty as well.

It is easy to allow confirmation bias or something similar to effect us. I think there is some value to discussing the effects of QA. I think any attempts to suggest that (possible) differences in police immunity from nation to nation are themselves materially responsible for differences in police conduct is very difficult to support. Imagine the detailed statistical analysis that would be required to even begin to isolate this one aspect of law from all other influences of behavior, both legal and cultural.

There is no doubt that we have more officer-involved killings than in some other nations. There is also no doubt that we have more officers injured or killed in the line of duty than in some other nations. Did one lead to the other? And if so, which came first?

I think very hard to say.

Charles

Primus · Jan 9, 2015

utbagpiper said:
It seems "Qualified Immunity" is a specific doctrine from the SCOTUS and so not applicable, per that name at least, in Canada, the UK, nor anywhere else. See Wiki for a decent starting point.

However, I find several cites indicating that English police do enjoy various forms of immunity including for failure to warn/protect (known as "Hill Immunity" it seems. This case discusses issues of sovereign immunity of nations including Russia and England.

Frankly, I cannot determine whether or to what extent Canadian or English police officers might enjoy anything akin to Qualified Immunity in the USA. And so I can arrive at no informed opinion about what effect lack of QA might have on police conduct there or here. And having never lived there, I have no personal insights.

What I find curious and troubling however, is the extent to which some members are quick to take a single (potential) difference between US and UK law and credit it with vast differences in outcome. How is this materially different than what the gun grabbers do when they point to the difference in US and UK gun laws and proclaim/imply that single difference is responsible for the vast difference in murder rates between the US and UK?

Despite being divided by a common language, there are significant cultural differences between the US and the UK.

As discussed in some detail at this site total violent crime in England and Wales may (or may not) be higher than in the US even though their homicide rate is lower than the US. I note that the racial/ethnic demographics of England are notable different than our own (91% white, 5% Asian, 2% black (and a few % others) with 92% of the population speaking English in England VS 63% "non latino" White, 5% Asian, 12% black, 16% Hispanic (and a few % others) with 76% speaking English and 11% speaking Spanish in the USA). England is far more homogenous of a society than is the USA.

Given the vast difference in overall homicide rate between the UK and US, it would be shocking if there were not similar difference in police officer killing of suspects or police officers killed in the line of duty as well.

It is easy to allow confirmation bias or something similar to effect us. I think there is some value to discussing the effects of QA. I think any attempts to suggest that (possible) differences in police immunity from nation to nation are themselves materially responsible for differences in police conduct is very difficult to support. Imagine the detailed statistical analysis that would be required to even begin to isolate this one aspect of law from all other influences of behavior, both legal and cultural.

There is no doubt that we have more officer-involved killings than in some other nations. There is also no doubt that we have more officers injured or killed in the line of duty than in some other nations. Did one lead to the other? And if so, which came first?

I think very hard to say.

Charles

Nailed it.

But please... Don't let facts get in the way of a good yelling/bash/insult fest. We don't need no steeking facts. [emoji39]

Grapeshot · Jan 10, 2015

Some interesting reading on the subject of QA:

Scholarly articles for John Lott qualified immunity

OC for ME · Jan 12, 2015

QI, while a detestable legal precept, does have some very limited use(s). Exemptions in the law(s), that apply to the citizenry, for LE is far more insidious.

Example: A CA cop, while using his PC in his cruiser, kills a cyclist (that CEO) will not face any criminal consequences for his distracted driving. A civil remedy is of little comfort for the loss of a family member due to the criminal acts of the state.

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

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

MAC702

Campaign Veteran

beebobby

Regular Member

Primus

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

The Truth

Regular Member

WalkingWolf

Regular Member

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

utbagpiper

Banned

Primus

Regular Member

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

OC for ME

Regular Member