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

251–260 of 335 posts

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

#251

Post by brnt »

twhb wrote: post #235
brnt wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was not aware I was uncivil, certainly didn't mean to. Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. That makes the legislative or libertarian version of freedom undemocratic. If that interests you, basically any critiq…

> Your comment does not address the basic problem with a legislative implementation of freedom: it is undemocratic because the power to fight legal battles will always be constrained by money, therefore giving more weight to those that have more. Yes, my comment did not address the US legal system’s wealth bias, except to say that if it needs solving then all citizens should benefit from the solution, not just one cl…

Nowhere did I bring up different laws for difference classes. What I was addressing was that the courts are perhaps not the way one should be supposed to handle the liability of persons in the government. How it should work is that we make and hold elected officials accountable through a functioning democratic process.

Biased legal systems are biased towards the affluent. That is an uncontested tell for problematic democratic legitimacy. Because it's difficult to remove that bias entirely, qualified immunity is a tool to defend from wealthy parties.

I made the link to libertarianism because this is a stated goal in most of their thinking: courts over democracy, and it's up to you to be able to afford it. Affiliated think tanks are quite lucid as to why [1]: precisely because it stacks the system in favor of the affluent. And that is thus precisely why I'm against any move in the direction of a litigious society, even though I can imagine and recall cases where I'd certainly like to.

[1] Some thinking from these property rights supremacists (read: unapologetic in their favoring of 'freedom' over democracy): https://fee.org/articles/freedom-and-democracy-are-different...

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

#252

Post by whymauri »

eplanit wrote: post #237

With this, police will soon stop intervening to stop crimes from happening, and will instead focus their attention on after-the-fact data gathering and reporting. I can't blame them, but quality of life for law abiding citizens is likely to suffer. In high crime areas, I can understand police considering certain neighborhoods as "no go" zones. Why take such a risk with your own life to stop a crime against somebody e…

>With this, police will soon stop intervening to stop crimes from happening

They already do this and are legally protected to do so. [0][1] The TL;DR is: the police is not legally required to help you, protect you, or take any action, really. Honestly, Lozito v. NYC makes me wonder what exactly the police is required to do, if anything. I'm certain that individual city's City Attorney's office decide this in their contract(s) with the police, but those provisions are unlikely to be directly related to the day-to-day job of officers AFAIK.

[0] Lozito v. New York City

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0

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

#253

Post by landemva »

runako wrote: post #239
austincheney wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Software developers don’t have this fear We should. A software engineer was one of a handful of people sentenced in the Volkswagen emissions scandal.

It was fraud, and submission of false documents to further their conspiracy. There was code involved, to further the fraud. Not a hapless software dev.

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

#254

Post by brnt »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #221
brnt wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You're probably posting under a throwaway for a reason, but let me just say that none of what you say is in favor of your solution: improving the quality of the democracy you live in would be. Money by definition is not far more accessible to a far broader cross section of the population, your vote is. The problem with requiring connections to go around a bureaucrat who has screwed you at their discretion is that your version of democracy is flawed, you must move it away from that clientellist mode towards something where your vote and procedures are effective.

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

#256

Post by Ceezy »

koheripbal wrote: post #225
Ceezy wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think it's more about finding the right middle ground than anything else. So expanding is good if people are still responsible in a way.

I agree that a lot of time the institution are liable (mostly for ordering people to achieve impossible target).

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

#257

Post by ascagnel_ »

geogra4 wrote: post #218

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

The issue isn't QI in and of itself -- as others have said, it serves a useful purpose in protecting the personal liability of government agents acting out their official duties, which can be reasonable (one example was that a planning board member shouldn't face personal liability for denying a proposal). In my mind, there are two issues (one direct, one indirect) with QI and policing specifically:

- QI has been defined as so broadly covering the police that any situation that hasn't explicitly already been defined as an overreach or overreaction will be considered as covered by QI, so officers face little to no personal accountability.

- Police and civilian oversight boards are largely ineffective at doling out substantial punishments, so officers face little to no professional accountability. Such oversight is typically fought, and fought hard, by police unions.

As a result of this, police officers face little pushback for misbehavior, or even patterns of misbehavior. Court decisions narrowing the scope of QI as it applies to police officers (eg: any behavior by a police officer that's not "by the book" would not be considered eligible for QI) would go a long way towards providing accountability.

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

#259

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

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…

> Sue the planning commission members individually.

In case of their gross misconduct - sure.

This is the same situation we have with non-government employees right now. Would you sue a club bouncer because he denied you entry? I guess no.

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

#260

Post by Ericson2314 »

spicybright wrote: post #233
vimax wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is just being hard headed. I don't know of a practical non-disruptive way to change the basis of the US legal system away from common law. Edit: not that I support the legal status quo, I just don't see the public bipartisan will to make that level of systemic reform

That's pretty much what I mean by hard headed, no one is willing to consider change. Not an individual, just the people that create laws and policies.

Yeah no kidding. Common law is perhaps at the heart of how rich Americans understand the state. And then the overrepresentation of lawyers in legislatures just makes this worse. Either way, this stuff is completely sacrosanct for no good reason.
Post reply on HN