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

321–330 of 335 posts

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

#321

Post by austincheney »

ceejayoz wrote: post #280
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…

No, it's not. A traffic stop is a temporary detention without an arrest. You are not free to leave. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

The most important word in that entire Wikipedia article is brief. The stop requires probably cause and must not exceed the minimum time necessary to inform dispatch, issue a citation, and perform a basic warrant search on their computer. Signing a citation provides a written promise to appear in court so that police do not have to arrest you and is not an admission of guilt. Refusal to sign is grounds for arrest. Either way police cannot reasonably communicate to you from another moving vehicle, which is the primary basis of such a stop, not a detainment pending other inquiries.

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

#322

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

devwastaken wrote: post #80
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 was made up by courts, their legislating from the bench should have no merit, and therefore revoking qualified immunity is the right thing to do under checks and balances. We need a replacement, one written in legislation, that puts fixed narrow limits on how immunity applies. If you break the law - you should receive no protections. There is no excuse for enforcers of law to not know the law. This…

> There is no excuse for enforcers of law to not know the law.

I wonder how often cops break the law because they actually don't know, or if they do know but also know they'll get away with it.

For example, police are still trying to arrest people for recording them, despite courts repeatedly upholding that citizens have a right to record police. Do cops actually don't know citizens have the right to record them, or are they just making threats that they know won't hold up because they know they can get away with the lie?

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

#323

Post by KptMarchewa »

ruph123 wrote: post #195
KptMarchewa wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would that be? In countries with universal health care (which would be pretty high up on the regulation scale) costs for medical procedures are significantly lower. [0] Americans have to understand that they are drastically overpaying for almost everything medical including drugs. There is no way around it. [0]: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/03/comparing-health-ca...

Oh yes, but it's pretty different when you're regulating interactions between complex network of private entities, and just telling state health fun to cover some procedure.

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

#324

Post by jshen »

mike_d wrote: post #54
jshen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So a police offer that kills someone will at worst be fired?

Civil liability is not the same as criminal charges.

Thanks, I didn’t know it only applied to civil charges. “ civil suits are the only means by which individuals or their families can get compensation for the violation of their constitutional or civil rights. And, in practice, civil lawsuits are often the only means to seek justice at all because prosecutors—themselves government workers—are typically reluctant to bring criminal charges against their government colleagues, especially police officers who are crucial to the work prosecutors do on a daily basis.”

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

#325

Post by upbeat_general »

pydry wrote: post #132
upbeat_general wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that it’s their job to do so. It’s relatively trivial to check what a police officer is doing if the department cares. Doctors can be sued for malpractice yet they still perform operations.

It's unfortunately not required that they do their jobs. This is established case law - in Castle Rock vs Gonzales.

Sure they may not be legally obligated but it's still their job. People perform non-governmental dangerous jobs without being legally obligated to do so.

The department can still fire an officer (assuming no union intervention) for failing to do their job, even if they can't be sued.

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

#326

Post by nerdponx »

gamblor956 wrote: post #316
unethical_ban wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

NYC has two police "unions" which openly and loudly protest against police reform, defend officers who commit civil rights abuses, and are really more like PR and lobbying organizations than good-faith collective bargaining apparatus for organized labor.

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

#327

Post by nerdponx »

throwawaydeitz1 wrote: post #261
scrozart wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hand…

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…

I've heard this argument before and I think it's a cherry-picked factoid meant to sound scarier than it is.

From what I've read (e.g. https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/history-policing-united...), the "slave patrol" thing is only part of the story. If anything, policing was developed first in the 17th century in England and the 13 colonies, and the slave patrols evolved to match the modernizing template of a police force.

If you want to lean a bit farther left, the obvious implication here is that police exist to benefit those who have power and property, projecting the former and protecting the latter; if necessary, abusing those who lack power/property in the process.

That policing ends up being "racist" then is then a natural consequence, and not at all an axiom.

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

#328

Post by pydry »

upbeat_general wrote: post #325
pydry wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's unfortunately not required that they do their jobs. This is established case law - in Castle Rock vs Gonzales.

Sure they may not be legally obligated but it's still their job. People perform non-governmental dangerous jobs without being legally obligated to do so. The department can still fire an officer (assuming no union intervention) for failing to do their job, even if they can't be sued.

Why would you assume no union intervention?

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

#329

Post by austincheney »

Ceezy wrote: post #301
austincheney wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civil court exist for something. Sure, but that something isn't criminal law.

What you are saying is factually wrong. If I can sue a mall security for something. I should be able to sue a police officer for the same. The job of the defendant doesn't change the status of the charge/request. Most public servant don't work as a spy imbedded in Russia.

Your logic doesn't make any sense. You can sue for absolutely anything, but that doesn't mean a judge is willing to hear your case or that it is grounded upon any law.

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

#330

Post by VWWHFSfQ »

anigbrowl wrote: post #48
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #10

I don't know why anyone would want to be a police officer. There's no upside. Aside from the genuine affection they get from the people they help here and there. Given the nature of their job, it seems like there would be too much personal risk to get involved in any kind of physical altercation with the public. Because if you get in a fight, I mean a real fight, you better be ready to fight-to-win. Because there's a…

Because there's a good chance that the meth'd out junkie you're fighting Arguing from stereotypes isn't helpful.

What do you think police officers do
Post reply on HN