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

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

#221

Post by throwaway0a5e » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:15 PM UTC

brnt wrote: post #110

twhb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 your wine bar a bad rating? Sue the inspector personally. That’s exactly the way it should work! If an animal control guy has it in for you and writes you off-leash citations every week while you’…

It's undemocratic, because unless all lawyers are great and free for all, this path is a matter of money. Now, you may have bought into the libertarian marketing of freedom without democracy, after all so many Americans have, but there are extremely good reasons for why this is problematic, which are actually not that difficult to cobble together with some spare time.

Pay (a lawyer) to play is a heck of a lot more democratic than the current system where if you're given crap service at the discretion of the government (as opposed to the bureaucrats doing their job wrong) you need to find a string you can pull to go over the head of whatever bureaucrat screwed you. Money for a lawyer isn't perfect but it is far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population than the connections required to go around a bureaucrat who has screwed you at their discretion. Furthermore, organizations that screw a lot of people tend to circle the wagons so if you're screwed by the cops knowing a guy who golfs with the chief might not help you, you need to know a guy who golfs with the guy the chief reports to (ditto for the planning department or whatever).

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

#222

Post by Ceezy » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:17 PM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #163

bloak wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

Sweden basically has qualified immunity for all employees (our law is a bit different but offers almost as strong protections). So, no, I do not think the US is the only country which needs qualified immunity.

Well in the US. That's only for public official, not for your average Joe. So if you are a security you can be sued. And actually the two security guard that didn't help the older asian lady were fired(in NY). For doing nothing. Meanwhile a cop could not be sued for the same thing...

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

#223

Post by CountDrewku » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

aseipp wrote: post #204

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.

"Cops violate citizens rights, but if we stop them their feelings might get hurt and then they might willfully stop doing their jobs, can't you see that cops are the good guys" isn't exactly the slam dunk defense you think it is.

Neither is a blanket statement like "cops violate citizen rights". The way to fix these issues is not to make it so the good ones are scared of helping people due to possible litigation. That's just silly.

It's already a job very few people want to do and you're making it even less desirable.

This is a good way to ensure you only get shitty cops.

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

#224

Post by MomoXenosaga » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:20 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…

Making government worse is all part of the Republican plan. Their propaganda is that government is bad and incompetent.

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

#225

Post by koheripbal » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

Ceezy wrote: post #214

koheripbal wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People doing their jobs and receive training should be personally immune from legal liability. That liability should be held by their employer.

...which is generally how it works, though it's not as strongly codified as it is with qualified immunity.

If you're saying we should expand qualified immunity, I agree.

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

#226

Post by ashneo76 » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:28 PM UTC

End qualified immunity couple with increased pay and benefits and more psych training and DEI training before hitting the ground.

It is a risky job and it should valued as such. It should be selective too.

We have bodycams, to reduce the chances of "he said, she said"

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

#227

Post by freen » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:31 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…

Qualified immunity for police officers includes immunity from criminal prosecution and is extremely different from the civil liability you are talking about.

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

#228

Post by scrozart » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:34 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…

> Invest in educational resources to teach communities how to deal with law enforcement.

You have this exactly backwards.

It's telling that instead of mentioning doing away with warrior training, for instance, you list things we, the people, need to do to deal with poorly trained cops with licenses to kill, which, in the case of the police, is exactly what this immunity grants.

The police need better training to handle the people they serve and protect, period. The police need to perform better psychological evaluations of prospective cops. The police need to develop better community relations with the communities they serve.

I agree with reforming the unions and installing more independent civilian oversight. I also agree that the U.S. needs major reform of metal health and drug rehab, but that particular issue is more of a left outer join with the issue being discussed; they overlap unfortunately, but the all-too-often grim outcomes of that overlap are due to the state of policing.

The police and their unions acting in bad faith, and abusing their immunity, is why we're here. WE don't need to clean up our interactions with police. It's the other way around.

Edited: typo, wording, and removed unnecessary emphasis

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

#229

Post by filoeleven » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:35 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.

> In order for police to detain people they need to place them under arrest

That is not true. Police can detain you for some period of time without placing you under arrest. You can be detained for “reasonable suspicion” that you were involved in a crime. There are naturally a lot of arguments about what qualifies as reasonable suspicion.

This is why every “know your rights” organization instructs people to ask, “am I being detained? am I free to leave?” when trying to determine their status or end a police encounter. The link below is just one example.

https://www.halt.org/am-i-being-detained-6-questions-you-sho...

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

#230

Post by sneak » Thu, Apr 08, 2021, 1:39 PM UTC

jeltz wrote: post #164

sneak wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that then when a police officer breaks the law and harms you, and you later sue them, the taxpayers end up paying the settlement due to the fact that you have to sue the whole department rather than the criminal themselves. There are no consequences, criminal or civil, for the person who actually broke the law. New York City taxpayers pay $300M a year or so (IIRC) paying out civil judgements against th…

How is that a problem? It was after all the tax payers who voted for politicians who are in favor of violent policing. I feel the issue here is that the courts are corrupt and do not convict police for their crimes. Not that you cannot sue employees. I feel fixing a broken criminal justice system with civil lawsuits only creates more issues than it solves.

The problem is that the violent criminal suffers no consequences whatsoever.

Any consequences, even kludgy ones, are better than none.

Perhaps the increased cost of liability insurance for the most violent will ultimately force them out of a job that shields them from criminal liability for violent crime, as someone else pointed out.