Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

innocenceproject.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 335 posts

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#61

Post by astrange »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #44
CA0DA wrote: post #3

> recover damages from the government when their constitutional rights are violated Great, so I'm paying for the sins of crappy cops via my taxes. Do I have an ability to influence my city or state to not hire unethical cops? (serious question)

One proposed tactic has been that either cops need to hold individual "malpractice" insurance (like doctors) or that settlements need to come out of the union retirement fund.

This already happens.

https://www.npr.org/2019/04/12/712606977/how-the-insurance-i...

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#62

Post by barnaclejive »

mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

"without fear of personal liability"

You see no issue with that, seriously?

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#63

Post by JumpCrisscross »

torstenvl wrote: post #55
adamsvystun wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police? If not, then the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases.

> Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police No. > the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases. That makes no sense. A government official performing a government job because they are required to by the government should not then be ordered by the government's co…

> government official performing a government job because they are required to by the government should not then be ordered by the government's court system to pay restitution for damages caused by the government's ordered action

There is a lot of grey area in qualified immunity. Government officials actions are protected so long as they are legal. If someone knowingly orders an illegal action, qualified immunity no longer applies. If someone knowingly follows an illegal order, they too may bear burden. (If they unknowingly follow an illegal order, we enter the greyer shades of grey.)

(Edited.)

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#64

Post by cgriswald »

arcticbull wrote: post #37
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #10

I don't know why anyone would want to be a police officer. There's no upside. Aside from the genuine affection they get from the people they help here and there. Given the nature of their job, it seems like there would be too much personal risk to get involved in any kind of physical altercation with the public. Because if you get in a fight, I mean a real fight, you better be ready to fight-to-win. Because there's a…

Police officers actually don't have particularly risky jobs. In this list based on BLS data [1] it makes #22 behind crane workers, delivery drivers and crossing guards. Important work? Definitely. It's not logging, though - not even close. [1] https://www.ishn.com/articles/112748-top-25-most-dangerous-j...

You’re arguing police work isn’t dangerous because there are a handful of more dangerous jobs, by linking to a page that includes police officer as a dangerous job.

In any case, you aren’t really offering a compelling case for several reasons:

-Death is not the only negative outcome of danger.

-Not all police jobs are equal so any metric that measures across the entire array of such jobs is fundamentally flawed. An undercover officer going after a drug dealer is in much more danger than a desk sergeant.

-Other people are the primary danger to police officers, so even if we accept the numbers as meaningful, there is a qualitative difference. A tree doesn’t decide you need to die, it just falls and you die or you don’t and it’s over. People aren’t like that.

-This is a measurement of outcomes with safety measures in place, including some that people find distasteful, like carrying fire arms.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#65

Post by barnaclejive »

coolspot wrote: post #17

I think that the Game theory suggests that cops will be less inclined to show up to a call or do anything to fight crime, because it could bring too much legal responsibility. Eat donuts, ignore the radio and you will be fine.

Stop name-dropping "Game theory" into everything. Life is more complex.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#66

Post by [deleted] »

mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

[deleted]

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#67

Post by e_y_ »

gibolt wrote: post #51
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make an error that ends up with someone else spending life in prison, it's not a minor error.

Depends on the available evidence and intent. Life is random and mistakes happen, in any job. Some just have much more significant outcomes.

Also there's the risk of someone being set up as the fall person for the mistakes.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#68

Post by wahern »

joosters wrote: post #50
wahern wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated at the federal level, but in this case the bill abolishes qualified immunity when suing New Mexico officials in New Mexico courts for violations of New Mexico law. Presumably New Mexico courts adopted the federal concept of qualified immunity at some point. See https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/21%20Regular/bills/house/HB... You usually sue state officials under Federal law when a state doesn't p…

Isn't it more accurately called 'Miranda warning '? The point is, there are no new rights being granted, the notification is merely informing someone of their existing rights. The fifth amendment was ratified back in 1791.

Fair point. I meant right to a Miranda warning. Though the Warren court also firmed up and expanded some of the underlying rights.

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#69

Post by dk775 »

adamsvystun wrote: post #49
mike_d wrote: post #40

The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. It applies to all parts of government. Didn't get the building permit for your kids horse barn? Sue the planning commission members individually. Animal control writes you a citation for Puddles not being on a leash? Unleash the lawyers. Health department gave yo…

Isn't qualified immunity applies only to police? If not, then the solution should be to end qualified immunity for police only. There is a difference between health department inspector and police officer, no reason to apply the same standards in both cases.

If true that’s more to the point. The deal is that you work for the police, govt gives you some discretion and power to act on their behalf.

If I don’t get any protection for that, why would I err on the side of intervening in ambiguous situations.

I’d even argue that it’s normal to expect some mistakes, and in general QI should be protected for this reason.

Govt should realize police are only real thing they have to enforce those reams of legalese (not taking about other things like fines). Meaning if they want to stop you RIGHT NOW, they going to have to use a cop. Govt shooting themselves in the foot by neutering their legitimacy to enforce what they say we have to do

Re: New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity

#70

Post by okwubodu »

danielheath wrote: post #59
arcticbull wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally these are crimes of intent so good faith mistakes are unlikely to yield a sentence.

When a jury is involved, all bets are off.

In that situation, a good faith mistake wouldn't be prosecuted in the first place. It's hard enough getting clear malpractice charged anyways.
Post reply on HN