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

311–320 of 335 posts

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

#311

Post by austincheney »

ceejayoz wrote: post #290
austincheney wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An indictment is not an arrest. An indictment comes from a district attorney while an arrest comes from police. The two don't even have to be associated with each other as a person can be indicted before they are arrested, or vise versa. An indictment is a motion to proceed to trial, and often doesn't even require the availability or presence of the person. An arrest is a detention of a person to police custody.

The point: there aren't gonna be criminal consequences for a bad cop who made a wrongful arrest if it never goes to trial . QI shields them from civil suits, so they're quite well protected on both fronts.

Even more to the point is that there is a readily identifiable problem. It is better to put energy towards fixing the problem than apply a really shit work around with horrible second and third order sequences only for the point of doing what you couldn't do the correct way.

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

#312

Post by gamblor956 »

ksquarekumar wrote: post #307
gamblor956 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop with the anti-union FUD. The worst civil forfeiture abuses are in states where the law enforcement aren't unionized.

And I am assuming you don't have any credible data to back that claim up?

https://reason.com/2015/06/09/this-map-details-whether-asset...

First result on google for civil forfeiture. Followed up by searching for [law enforcement agency] and union returns zero results for the worst locations.

Police officers are unionized pretty much everywhere. Sheriffs, which carry out the most egregious civil asset forfeitures (usually in small travel-through towns), generally are not unionized outside of the big counties and states.

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

#313

Post by floxy »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #260
spicybright wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>this stuff is completely sacrosanct for no good reason.

Evolved law systems, like common law, do have some elegance that most people tend to overlook. Here's one article I found very interesting:

http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060886.pd...

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

#314

Post by Broken_Hippo »

austincheney wrote: post #276
filoeleven wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> That is not true. Police can detain you for some period of time without placing you under arrest. That is a 4th amendment violation. You are free to leave police presence at any time up until they place you under arrest. If you are detained without arrest the remedy is to ask to be arrested. At that point police must arrest you or release you, because any evidence or detention after that point is invalid and invali…

There are a number of reasons they can detain you without arresting you. For example, you can be detained because you refused to let the police search your car for drugs and they make you wait while they get a warrant. Similar situations can happen in residences, and a traffic ticket is detaining without arrest.

Asking for arrest will not help your case, nor will asking for a lawyer.

You can be hauled to jail without charges as well, since most places have a grace period before they file the charges.

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

#315

Post by unethical_ban »

gamblor956 wrote: post #312
ksquarekumar wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I am assuming you don't have any credible data to back that claim up?

https://reason.com/2015/06/09/this-map-details-whether-asset... First result on google for civil forfeiture. Followed up by searching for [law enforcement agency] and union returns zero results for the worst locations. Police officers are unionized pretty much everywhere. Sheriffs, which carry out the most egregious civil asset forfeitures (usually in small travel-through towns), generally are not unionized outside o…

Your argument doesn't rebut mine.

Mine: Unions have a direct, negative influence on the ability for departments/cities to fire bad cops.

Yours: There is correlation, but not causation, between non-unionized police departments and instances of civil asset forfeiture.

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

#316

Post by gamblor956 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #310
gamblor956 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop with the anti-union FUD. The worst civil forfeiture abuses are in states where the law enforcement aren't unionized.

Tell me how that correlation is a causation. Public unions, and police unions specifically, are distinct in their impact on society from other unions. Police have negotiated the right to beat and murder people and keep their jobs with pay for months. There are cities where Derek Chauvin would have been on paid leave for weeks after killing george floyd. Minneapolis had the right to fire his ass when they saw how bad…

I agree that police unions can be problematic when it comes to disciplining bad cops.

But don't blame them for something which is unrelated to the union itself.

There are cities where Derek Chauvin would have been on paid leave for weeks after killing george floyd.

Yes, and the police forces in those cities would all be unionized. Clearly, the issue is not the union; it is the city or county that negotiated poorly with the union. Though generally, in some states like the US Deep South, politicians are more than happy to give officers unlimited rights even without the unions requesting them.

Minneapolis had the right to fire his ass when they saw how bad a cop he was.

They fired him literally the next day. For prior incidents, none of them rose to the level justifying termination. That would have been true even in a non-union force.

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

#317

Post by zokula »

drc37 wrote: post #274
throwawaydeitz1 wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with all of your points, except for your idea of "the people they serve and protect." If you read about the historical origins of the US police force, their (verifiably documented) lineage goes back to the days of English colonialism. Those original patrol groups were created to "protect" the damage/loss of property- namely to prevent runaway slaves from escaping their owner's control. The US police force has…

Way to go turning the whole of the police force into a bunch of racist bigots. With many family members serving in both law enforcement and the military, this is one of the most offensive things I have heard in a long time. 99% of the police are some of the best people you will ever meet, and they will even serve and protect people like you who don't appreciate them and would spit on them if had the chance.

> Way to go turning the whole of the police force into a bunch of racist bigots.

If the shoe fits.

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

#318

Post by gamblor956 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #315
gamblor956 wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://reason.com/2015/06/09/this-map-details-whether-asset... First result on google for civil forfeiture. Followed up by searching for [law enforcement agency] and union returns zero results for the worst locations. Police officers are unionized pretty much everywhere. Sheriffs, which carry out the most egregious civil asset forfeitures (usually in small travel-through towns), generally are not unionized outside o…

Your argument doesn't rebut mine. Mine: Unions have a direct, negative influence on the ability for departments/cities to fire bad cops. Yours: There is correlation, but not causation, between non-unionized police departments and instances of civil asset forfeiture.

You're the one making the causal claim that unions are responsible for this. You need to prove your claim; I've already provided evidence that would refute the argument you would make.

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

#319

Post by Can_Not »

tinus_hn wrote: post #275
unethical_ban wrote: post #266

I understand the arguments that "QI has reasonable goals in theory", but it is time to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If cops didn't want to lose QI, they should have held themselves to account for the last few decades. Maybe the unions should have spoken up when cops steal tens of thousands of dollars in cash from a suspect, and get away with it due to QI. San Antonio, TX will be voting in May on whether to…

How is it legal to vote to disband a union? Could you vote to disband the Screen Actors Guild?

It happens all too often: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Un...

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

#320

Post by austincheney »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #314
austincheney wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is not true. Police can detain you for some period of time without placing you under arrest. That is a 4th amendment violation. You are free to leave police presence at any time up until they place you under arrest. If you are detained without arrest the remedy is to ask to be arrested. At that point police must arrest you or release you, because any evidence or detention after that point is invalid and invali…

There are a number of reasons they can detain you without arresting you. For example, you can be detained because you refused to let the police search your car for drugs and they make you wait while they get a warrant. Similar situations can happen in residences, and a traffic ticket is detaining without arrest. Asking for arrest will not help your case, nor will asking for a lawyer. You can be hauled to jail without…

> For example, you can be detained because you refused to let the police search your car for drugs and they make you wait while they get a warrant.

That is not a lawful detainment. Out convenience for both parties police can ask a suspect to wait until a warrant arrives so that the police don't have to arrest them. In other words you can offer to leave, but they are going to arrest you anyways otherwise the detainment is completely voluntary.

Post reply on HN