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

181–190 of 335 posts

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

#181

Post by jmull »

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…

> The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation.

Shouldn’t we all be able to carry out our lives without undue fear of personal liability or harassing litigation?

It makes no sense to provide a special civil liberty for government employees and no one else.

If we need to reign in law suits, then let’s do that for everyone.

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

#182

Post by CPLX »

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.

Sure but then you create a new problem, which is that there much less of an incentive to settle.

The current system is not perfect but if does very clearly incentivize people not to incur legal fees in excess of the actual amount of money being argued about.

The vast vast majority of legal cases are settled through negotiation.

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

#183

Post by petertodd »

austincheney wrote: post #179
petertodd wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it's not. Both because courts don't always give you costs, and because even when they do award costs, actually collecting is tough, and finally, because courts don't always award the full amount of your costs. Source: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-l... "To further this goal, the losing side doesn’t usually pay the winning side's attorney's fees. In the United States, the rule (called t…

You are over complicating the issue and misunderstanding it. Quite simply the loser of a law suit typically bears the costs of court fees and legal expenses for both parties unless a different arrangement is negotiated. How high those expenses are are irrelevant to this issue and are generally not known before or during trial.

I have sued someone in the US and had this discussion with my lawyers. What you are saying simply is not true in the US. It's such a well known feature of the US legal system that it's even called "American Rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...

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

#184

Post by austincheney »

ceejayoz wrote: post #172
austincheney wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Qualified immunity does not shield police from wrongful detention or arrest. An arrest must be valid according to a given charge and evidence even if those do not survive to trial.

In practice, it does. https://www.marketwatch.com/story/they-get-a-get-out-of-jail... > “In such cases, when the court declines to establish whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment, it avoids setting a clearly established precedent for future cases, even for the most egregious acts of police violence,” the report said. “In effect, the same conduct can repeatedly go unpunished.” > For…

Those are both irrelevant to the issue at hand: wrongful arrest. Wrongful arrest occurs when either the incorrect person is detained or when a person is detained without merit.

In order for police to detain people they need to place them under arrest, which includes Maranda warnings, or have a signed warrant.

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

#185

Post by chrisseaton »

coolspot wrote: post #41
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Police report to elected governments. They are checked the same way the rest of the state is: through elections. Police pay is high across America because they're widely seen as bringing value to the community. Their strikes are feared by politicians; the cops turning on the mayor sign…

I am not sure you are familiar with usual clientele of law enforcement officer, but usual day-to-day interactions are not nice. You will have to use violence, because nice obedient people don’t cause trouble. People that cops are called on will likely fight and resist and you will have a high chance of breaking someone’s bones (or kill someone). So, a rational cop can just avoid risky situations by doing absolute min…

> You will have to use violence, because nice obedient people don’t cause trouble. People that cops are called on will likely fight and resist and you will have a high chance of breaking someone’s bones (or kill someone).

Just checking are you aware that this isn't how it is in most other countries?

The people in similar countries manage to get by with a whole lot less violence just fine.

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

#186

Post by austincheney »

petertodd wrote: post #183
austincheney wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are over complicating the issue and misunderstanding it. Quite simply the loser of a law suit typically bears the costs of court fees and legal expenses for both parties unless a different arrangement is negotiated. How high those expenses are are irrelevant to this issue and are generally not known before or during trial.

I have sued someone in the US and had this discussion with my lawyers. What you are saying simply is not true in the US. It's such a well known feature of the US legal system that it's even called "American Rule": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_rule_(attorney%27s_fe...

Did your attorneys discuss fees with the opposing party prior to the suit? If not that’s why. This is common practice. It’s also why Google sent Oracle an extremely large legal bill when Oracle lost its first lawsuit over Java APIs.

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

#187

Post by austincheney »

jmull wrote: post #181
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…

> The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. Shouldn’t we all be able to carry out our lives without undue fear of personal liability or harassing litigation? It makes no sense to provide a special civil liberty for government employees and no one else. If we need to reign in law suits, then let’s do that…

Sure it does. I don’t want paramedics prematurely giving up on saving peoples lives because there is fear of a lawsuit.

Software developers don’t have this fear, so we get to kill people through releasing buggy bloated applications without any fear of personal liability.

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

#188

Post by spicybright »

michaelt wrote: post #168
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.

Well, the German legal system is actually different in a bunch of ways: 1. They don't use precedent, judges rule based on legislation alone. 2. Germany criminal and administrative law uses an "inquisitorial" system where the judges perform fact-finding and question witnesses (in contrast to the "adversarial" system used in common law countries) 3. German lawyers have their fees set by the "RVG" (Act on the Remunerati…

It's too bad the US is too hard headed to adopt some of these practices.

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

#189

Post by KptMarchewa »

ruph123 wrote: post #148
coolspot wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

And some of the meaningful regulation drastically increases costs. Mostly for good reasons.

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

#190

Post by ookdatnog »

austincheney wrote: post #159
ookdatnog wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game theory is an abstract mathematical model. Citing mathematical models is not science: science requires experiment to verify whether your model holds up in practice. In this case, one could gather data from different countries to see if there's any correlation between the effectiveness of police and their level of legal protection. AFAIK, police forces in other rich nations function just fine without qualified imm…

Are police in other countries without qualified immunity more or less likely to be sued? Your argument ignores the rather important consideration of civil litigation frequency, which is a question of torts not policing.

If you find a single instance of a nation where the police functions well without qualified immunity, you can at least conclude that it's not a necessary condition for police to be able to operate well.

Sure, in a different context it may be a necessary condition, if you consider all other variables immutable. But there's no need to do that. Many variables can be changed, including the legal system.

I think if you observe that your legal system is so janky that you can only have a functioning police force by making police officers selectively immune to the law, your response should be to not accept such a kludge and insist on actually reforming your legal system.

Post reply on HN