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

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

#211

Post by bluGill » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 12:53 PM UTC

exabrial wrote: post #199

Getting rid of qualified immunity without instating a "loser pays legal fees" law seems like a a far worse situation.

Loser pays has negative consequences. If you have big pockets you can afford to sue, if you lose it isn't a big deal, but if you are a small guy you don't dare sue a big player: they can lawyer up, even if they only win 10% of the time via confusing legal loopholes that shouldn't apply but they can make apply anyway, that is still enough lawyer fees for the loser to pay that no regular person dares go to court.

I don't know of a solution. The problem is very complex. So far every option I've heard of (including what we have now) has serious negative effects.

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

#212

Post by bluecalm » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 12:54 PM UTC

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…

I am interested in how the no precedent thing works. Doesn't it have potential to make things widely inconsistent?

In Poland where we have similar rules in place it's just purely theoretical principle. In practice precedent is very important and learning about what other courts ruled ("orzecznictwo") is what lawyers spend their time on. It's as important if not more than the letter of the law in practice.

Source: my ex was a lawyer and we have a number of lawyer friends (judges, attorneys, corporate lawyers).

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

#213

Post by bluGill » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 12:56 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #208

gremlinsinc wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police earn more than teachers, and the median income in America. Training to be a cop often is less than to become a Teacher. Cops aren't even in the top 20 most dangerous job in America. Loggers, Sailors, Fishers, pilots, construction, oil-industry, roofers, drivers, farmers, etc are all more dangerous jobs. Honestly, cops should be paid somewhere around what a security guard at a bank is paid. Below is a list of t…

> Police earn more than teachers Have you considered maybe teachers are poorly paid, rather than police are highly paid? > Cops aren't even in the top 20 most dangerous job in America Did I say they were? Did I say they should be paid based on danger? So why do you think this is relevant? > national average: $67,600 .. median household income was $61,937 All your numbers say they earn roughly a basic middle income fo…

> Have you considered maybe teachers are poorly paid, rather than police are highly paid?

Both can be true at the same time.

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

#214

Post by Ceezy » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 12:59 PM UTC

koheripbal wrote: post #203

jmull wrote: post #181

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. 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…

Yes, but certain groups of people who's job it is to confront people in the public are the recipients of orders of magnitude more complaints than the average individual. The legal system is unfortunately set up such that there is a significant burden (time and cost) on defendants, even when cases are brought without merit. In that way, the legal system can be "weaponized" and public employees can be influenced to act…

If you are a private security agent for a mall what's the difference with a cop patrolling a mall?

In sectors where private compete with public that's very difficult to understand why people should be regulated by different laws.

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

#215

Post by Ceezy » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #154

klmadfejno wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Not in the case of criminal law violations. Civil suits should not be used as a blunt weapon to end run criminal complaints only because they set the bar lower. This is antithetical to tort reform.

Most police officers don't get murder charges anyway. Civil court exist for something. Saying that people should sue criminal instead of civil is up to the victim team not you.

If people don't want to be sued civil they should do a better job first. Removing bs laws that don't regulate anything anyway would be good also.

Laws are meant to be respected not to be dodge because your job is important. Everybody job is.

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

#216

Post by schneidmaster » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

austincheney wrote: post #184

ceejayoz wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Police absolutely do not have to read your Miranda rights in order to arrest you -- they only need to read your rights if they plan to question you with regards to a criminal investigation and they would like to use your statements as evidence in a court of law.

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

#217

Post by high_byte » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:11 PM UTC

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…

makes a lot of sense to me. if you sue someone for "bad ratings" as you mentioned, you likely have no case and incur court expanses, including penalty for wasting time... but at least you have that option for when you really have a case.

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

#218

Post by geogra4 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

In practice police are almost entirely legally invulnerable. QI is part of that, and needs to go.

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

#219

Post by slashenbash » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

MaximumYComb wrote: post #114

katbyte wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the cops who worry about this are the ones we don't want to be cops. Its like my male friends who complained about the MeToo movement "how will i date when i have to worry about consent" - uh shouldn't you already be confident theres consent before doing anything? lol

The fact that you have multiple men in your life saying this might be an indication of some of the difficulties men face. I'm making an assumption here that you chose good men to be your friends. Either you're picking sex offenders as friends or men have a difficult situation to navigate when dating? Women are all different. Some women love the idea of men asking for consent, others would find this a huge turnoff. No…

I think their is also a disconnect between how it actually functions in the world and what is discussed on places like Twitter which then get turned into clickbaity articles which that friend might see. He might not have actually encountered it in real life.

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

#220

Post by moolcool » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:13 PM UTC

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.

"If we hold them accountable for the actions they take at their jobs jobs, they'll stop doing their jobs altogether"

Wtf kind of logic is this?