New Mexico is the second state to ban qualified immunity • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by pjc50 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:27 AM UTC

bloak wrote: post #135

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…

Other countries don't have a problem with officials getting sued. In the UK there doesn't even seem to be a problem with employees getting sued; cases always seem to end up being against the employer. So why does only the US need "qualified immunity"? (That's a real question, not a rhetorical one.)

UK lawsuits seem to be much rarer, but in this notorious case the lawsuit was against the police as an organization rather than the individuals involved: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/oct/07/met-police-p...

(our own comparable issue is probably Northern Ireland, and the still-outstanding litigation around Bloody Sunday and "Soldier F" etc)

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

#142

Post by brnt » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:29 AM UTC

twhb wrote: post #127

radlad wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing the parent said was uncivil. (I say this having largely agreed with your original comment.)

Thank you for weighing in, genuinely. I could have misread tone, I’m sorry to brnt if I did. I perceived it as uncivil because it seemed to veer into identity politics, and to belittle my opinions as “not that difficult” to see the error in.

I know critiques of political movements are painted as identity politics, but the opposite is true. Being able to discuss the merits of something like the precise role of the courts should be possible amongst people that abhor the politics of politics.

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

#143

Post by nindalf » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:32 AM UTC

DocTomoe wrote: post #131

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. This is a general problem with the US court system. People with more resources can use it to destroy people with fewer resources, because litigation is expensive and time consuming even if you ultimately prevail. This isn't a problem for the rich because they c…

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all costs associated with a lawsuit have to be paid/reimbursed by the losing party. This quickly solves the "I know I won't win, but lets ruin the other guy" problem.

This rule change makes it potentially very expensive to sue large corporations. They are already more likely to win because they can afford larger, better resourced legal teams. Now the little guy also needs to pay for that legal team when they lose? You might see most people opting not to sue Comcast, McDonalds, Amazon to avoid being financially ruined.

It’s probably just best to leave it to the discretion of the courts to decide whether one side pays the costs of the other. Better than legislating that the loser always pays.

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

#144

Post by lawnchair_larry » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:42 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #103

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…

You're not including the reasons why qualified immunity is bad though, is this a "devil's advocate" post? I mean the examples you mentioned would get thrown out by a judge because the examples cited are people doing their jobs. They're getting rid of qualified immunity because the police is abusing their power to assault and murder people. I'm not even going to soften that one by saying 'some' police, because inactio…

Qualified immunity does not allow assault or murder.

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

#145

Post by matsemann » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:43 AM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #143

DocTomoe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all costs associated with a lawsuit have to be paid/reimbursed by the losing party. This quickly solves the "I know I won't win, but lets ruin the other guy" problem.

This rule change makes it potentially very expensive to sue large corporations. They are already more likely to win because they can afford larger, better resourced legal teams. Now the little guy also needs to pay for that legal team when they lose? You might see most people opting not to sue Comcast, McDonalds, Amazon to avoid being financially ruined. It’s probably just best to leave it to the discretion of the co…

It's not black and white. If the court takes the case in Europe, it probably has some merit. If the little guy then loses, the court will then often decide it needed to be tried and both parties will cover their own expenses.

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

#146

Post by lawnchair_larry » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:43 AM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #86

tjs8rj wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear: qualified immunity is about civil liability. It doesn’t protect from criminal liability. Qualified immunity isn’t the reason cops don’t go to jail for murder, because it doesn’t apply at all for criminal procedures

That would be fine if it were possible to criminally prosecute the cops. But it isn't; only the government can do that, and they don't want to.

They are doing it right now.

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

#147

Post by Galaxeblaffer » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:49 AM UTC

nindalf wrote: post #143

DocTomoe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of creating yet another special case for government officials, the solution for the US problem is to go and take some ideas from Europe. In Germany, all costs associated with a lawsuit have to be paid/reimbursed by the losing party. This quickly solves the "I know I won't win, but lets ruin the other guy" problem.

This rule change makes it potentially very expensive to sue large corporations. They are already more likely to win because they can afford larger, better resourced legal teams. Now the little guy also needs to pay for that legal team when they lose? You might see most people opting not to sue Comcast, McDonalds, Amazon to avoid being financially ruined. It’s probably just best to leave it to the discretion of the co…

Your right.. People generally don't sue as much here in northern europe(only know the rules are like op described in Germany, Denmark, Norway and Sweeden, might be the same for all of europe) in fear of loosing, but i for one prefer it this way, much less lawsuits flying around. And also it goes both ways, as the little guy you are also less likely to be sued.

And let's be real, how often do a normal person sue big corps like the ones you mention and actually win ?

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

#148

Post by ruph123 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:49 AM UTC

coolspot wrote: post #31

upbeat_general wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that it’s their job to do so. It’s relatively trivial to check what a police officer is doing if the department cares. Doctors can be sued for malpractice yet they still perform operations.

But cost of healthcare is astronomical in part because malpractice insurance is expensive, because too many people abuse it. If we increase (already high) risk of being a cop, then we will have to be ready to pay 200k-300k salaries.

> But cost of healthcare is astronomical in part because malpractice insurance is expensive, because too many people abuse it.

You pulled the “trigger a European” card. This is not why the US healthcare is astronomically high. The reason is: practically no meaningful regulation and thus free roaming oligopolies of a few providers with insane billing practices (which hospitals are covered, etc.). And much more...

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

#149

Post by klmadfejno » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:52 AM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #144

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not including the reasons why qualified immunity is bad though, is this a "devil's advocate" post? I mean the examples you mentioned would get thrown out by a judge because the examples cited are people doing their jobs. They're getting rid of qualified immunity because the police is abusing their power to assault and murder people. I'm not even going to soften that one by saying 'some' police, because inactio…

Qualified immunity does not allow assault or murder.

Well it does protect your from civil penalties for law and murder

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

#150

Post by ianai » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 9:58 AM UTC

LatteLazy wrote: post #122

From the outside, the US has big issues with race, poverty, mental health and access to firearms. That makes policing very difficult and pushes towards a "shoot first" approach. But since the US refuses to address any of the issues, it's stuck trying to fix the problem without being able to fix the problem. What concerns me most (and I see it here in the UK too) isn't these issues themselves, it is the inability of p…

Apparently the mechanisms to address mental health were largely disbanded in the 80s. Oddly this is when many financial oversights and regulations were also undone. It’s like Not A gets established, the ramifications are obviously bad, but A is never re-established.