Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The Qualified Immunity Doctrine...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    nj
    Posts
    3,277

    The Qualified Immunity Doctrine...

    Hi Folks

    While this subject is not OC related, the topic has been referenced here in many threads..

    The Qualified Immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages' insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
    see Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800,818 (1982)...

    What this doctrine means is that if your statutory/civil rights or constitutional rights are not clearly violated then you have no redress, however if your rights are clearly violated then QI gets tossed out the court room window..

    QI does not trump civil or constitutional rights.. If you feel that your rights have been violated, seek out a competent attorney well versed in constitutional law.. Said attorney will be familiar with USC title 18 - 241 and 242. There is also civil redress under USC title 42 section 1983 and possibly 1981 and 1985...

    Unlawful actions by government agents have repercussions.. Under the 1983 section, you can also bring suit against the individual actor..
    QI only protects those that are innocent of the violations...

    My .02

    Best regards
    CCJ
    Last edited by countryclubjoe; 07-25-2016 at 03:22 AM.
    " I detest hypocrites and their Hypocrisy" I support Liberty for each, for all, and forever".
    Ask yourself, Do you own Yourself?

  2. #2
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    Quote Originally Posted by countryclubjoe View Post
    Hi Folks

    While this subject is not OC related, the topic has been referenced here in many threads..

    The Qualified Immunity doctrine protects government officials from liability for civil damages' insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
    see Harlow v Fitzgerald 457 U.S. 800,818 (1982)...

    What this doctrine means is that if your statutory/civil rights or constitutional rights are not clearly violated then you have no redress, however if your rights are clearly violated then QI gets tossed out the court room window..

    QI does not trump civil or constitutional rights.. If you feel that your rights have been violated, seek out a competent attorney well versed in constitutional law.. Said attorney will be familiar with USC title 18 - 241 and 242. There is also civil redress under USC title 42 section 1983 and possibly 1981 and 1985...

    Unlawful actions by government agents have repercussions.. Under the 1983 section, you can also bring suit against the individual actor..
    QI only protects those that are innocent of the violations...

    My .02

    Best regards
    CCJ
    tks for this tidbit on a subject i have been pondering on awhile, and if i might ~ since you have your finger in the book...when and why (circumstances.) did the this propogated in the first place?

    finally, if QI is a recent manifestation, e.g. established in say sixties, has police caused injuries to civilians significantly increased. i can this if someone has bkgnd when and why the practice began.

    again tks ccj, tis appreciated

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    The problem with Qualified Immunity is the court decides who gets the relief not a jury.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982)

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fed.../800/case.html

    .Despite its immediate application to White House aides in the case at bar, the case is regarded as most importance for its clarification of the qualified immunity standard that is applicable to government actors more generally. The Court held that "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  5. #5
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,875
    tks read that and others that ccj initially posted, these (paraphased) talk about defense of absolute immunity, well on second thought maybe not absolute, but 'qualified' immunity...

    absolute immunity? any USC bestowing that to whom specifically?

    QI, you are saying the concept is just case law no USC behind the mentality?

    or did the concept mythically pop up and the powers that be did a May day dance around the pole and now it is embedded in our folk lore judical system?

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,732
    And that is a wishy-washy standard. Qualified Immunity was judicially fabricated based on Article I - Section 6 of the constitution.
    Article I - Section. 6. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
    Slippery slope.

  7. #7
    Regular Member Maverick9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Mid-atlantic
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    The problem with Qualified Immunity is the court decides who gets the relief not a jury.
    LE just counter-sues for PTSD. It's not a winning situation.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    And that is a wishy-washy standard. Qualified Immunity was judicially fabricated based on Article I - Section 6 of the constitution.
    Slippery slope.
    Even this immunity has been cut back by the courts ... seen many cases where this argument was made by congressmen only to have it shot down by the courts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •