Qualified immunity ends in NY.

[westwall]

Oh yeah...way to go NEW YORK---------watch your city's crime rate soar------------------never mind all of you and your families becoming victims of criminals.

No wonder all the new yorkers are moving to florida.

Stop this stupid chit-------------govern with some common sense---We in florida don't want any more new yorkers.

Qualified immunity SHOULD be eliminated. It was a license for bad cops to abuse people.

But not just for police officers, for all government officials.

Agreed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Just the beginning of actual police reform. At some point the Supreme Court should be ruling the same. Then we are a step closer to the police no longer being above the law.

The protests have made a difference.

New York Becomes First State to End Lawsuit Protections for Police Officers

Why not other government officials as well? Why just police officers?

Fauci and Cuomo should be subject to that as well

 

[westwall]

Just the beginning of actual police reform. At some point the Supreme Court should be ruling the same. Then we are a step closer to the police no longer being above the law.

The protests have made a difference.

New York Becomes First State to End Lawsuit Protections for Police Officers

Why not other government officials as well? Why just police officers?

Fauci and Cuomo should be subject to that as well

Indeed they should. ANY government officials who abuse their power should be in prison, and poor.

 

[martybegan]

Just the beginning of actual police reform. At some point the Supreme Court should be ruling the same. Then we are a step closer to the police no longer being above the law.

The protests have made a difference.

New York Becomes First State to End Lawsuit Protections for Police Officers

Why not other government officials as well? Why just police officers?

Fauci and Cuomo should be subject to that as well

Fauci yes, but elected officials have a different immunity.

 

[SavannahMann]

If a trucker makes a mistake he is sued. If a doctor makes a mistake he is sued. If anyone except a cop screws up they are sued. Why is it so disastrous to hold cops to the same standards that every other person faces?

So help me out. Explain why it is so unfair and outrageous to be able to hold a cop liable for his actions?

Yeah, good idea. Try to get anyone to be a cop in a democrat City with that

In 2019 NYC paid out nearly a billion dollars for lawsuits. That includes suits that were settled before they were filed. A billion dollars.

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/annual-claims-report/

According to the report 36% of that was because of the police. $360,000,000 is a lot of money no matter how you look at it.

But let’s look at it as cost to the taxpayer per cop.

The NYPD has 36,000 officers. That comes to $10,000 per cop per year in legal settlements.

That is every single cop. The desk sergeant who doesn’t do anything but keep a log of reports. The property room clerk. The driver of the forensic van. The cops guarding prisoners at the holding cells before they are transported to the jail proper. The cops who do all the minutiae all cost the taxpayers $10,000 each.

And let’s be honest. That cost is only going to go up.

The cops have a union. The Union could step up and take over these costs. Nope. Not gonna happen. Despite the fact that other Unions do just that. The Longshoreman Union for example protects their members from such things.

They could like everyone else but insurance. Doctors get insurance. Drivers get insurance. People have personal liability protections. Handymen have insurance.

But it is too much for Cops to get insurance.

Instead of viewing this as an opportunity all anyone wants to do is scream how awful this is. They won’t explain why it is wrong to hold cops accountable when they screw up. Just that it is.

 

[fncceo]

Your argument is that we can't have police unless we are willing to allow them to violate people's civil rights.

Qualified immunity doesn't give an LEO immunity from violating civil rights. Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil suits EXCEPT where an officer violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

In other words, it puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove the violation in a civil suit. Qualified immunity has no application in criminal law.

What you will see from this is a skyrocketing number of 'nuisance lawsuits' against both PD's and individual officers. Officers, like doctors, will require malpractice insurance to be able to perform their jobs, increasing the power of police unions that will step in to provide it.

 

[westwall]

Your argument is that we can't have police unless we are willing to allow them to violate people's civil rights.

Qualified immunity doesn't give an LEO immunity from violating civil rights. Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil suits EXCEPT where an officer violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

In other words, it puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove the violation in a civil suit. Qualified immunity has no application in criminal law.

What you will see from this is a skyrocketing number of 'nuisance lawsuits' against both PD's and individual officers. Officers, like doctors, will require malpractice insurance to be able to perform their jobs, increasing the power of police unions that will step in to provide it.

I hate to break it to you, but every day cops violate completely innocent peoples Rights. When they are caught they rarely suffer any meaningful consequences.

Good cops are rare, and should be protected. But one bad cop will make every other cop on that force suspect.

Good cops MUST get rid of the bad ones as fast as possible. But they don't.

 

[fncceo]

but every day cops violate completely innocent peoples Rights

Be specific. In what way do police daily violate civil rights? Police act within the powers given them by legislation. If you have a problem with legislation, you need to start suing the legislators who wrote it.

 

[westwall]

but every day cops violate completely innocent peoples Rights

Be specific. In what way do police daily violate civil rights? Police act within the powers given them by legislation. If you have a problem with legislation, you need to start suing the legislators who wrote it.

Watch the police auditing videos on YouTube. There are thousands of them.

 

[fncceo]

but every day cops violate completely innocent peoples Rights

Be specific. In what way do police daily violate civil rights? Police act within the powers given them by legislation. If you have a problem with legislation, you need to start suing the legislators who wrote it.

Watch the police auditing videos on YouTube. There are thousands of them.

There are millions of police interactions with the public on a daily basis. Even if you have a thousand cases of explicit violations of established civil rights doctrine, that still represents a very small fraction of police interactions. There is no statistical case to support that most, or even many, police knowingly violate civil rights on a daily basis.

 

[pknopp]

Just the beginning of actual police reform. At some point the Supreme Court should be ruling the same. Then we are a step closer to the police no longer being above the law.

The protests have made a difference.

New York Becomes First State to End Lawsuit Protections for Police Officers

If only democrat politicians weren't above the law

Unfortunate but sometimes true. It all needs to stop.

 

[pknopp]

Just the beginning of actual police reform. At some point the Supreme Court should be ruling the same. Then we are a step closer to the police no longer being above the law.

The protests have made a difference.

New York Becomes First State to End Lawsuit Protections for Police Officers

Why not other government officials as well? Why just police officers?

I've argued for all to be held to the same standard.

 

[pknopp]

Your argument is that we can't have police unless we are willing to allow them to violate people's civil rights.

Qualified immunity doesn't give an LEO immunity from violating civil rights. Qualified immunity protects police officers from civil suits EXCEPT where an officer violates "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known".

In other words, it puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove the violation in a civil suit. Qualified immunity has no application in criminal law.

What you will see from this is a skyrocketing number of 'nuisance lawsuits' against both PD's and individual officers. Officers, like doctors, will require malpractice insurance to be able to perform their jobs, increasing the power of police unions that will step in to provide it.

They may have to take out insurance. And what happens is where you have an officer that has multiple payouts they becomes uninsurable.

 

[fncceo]

They may have to take out insurance.

And that insurance will be made available through existing police unions. Congratulations, you've not only increased the power of police unions, but you've given them a financial interest (pretty significant) in making sure police officers are not arbitrarily litigated in civil court. One of the first things they will demand is punitive awards on any plaintiff deemed to bring a nuisance lawsuit against police.

Take the example of another highly litigated group of professional, doctors and nurses. Anyone bringing suit against a doctor runs a real risk of their lawyered-up association coming down hard on that plaintiff.

This will not play out as you expect.

 

[pknopp]

They may have to take out insurance.

And that insurance will be made available through existing police unions. Congratulations, you've not only increased the power of police unions, but you've given them a financial interest (pretty significant) in making sure police officers are not arbitrarily litigated in civil court. One of the first things they will demand is punitive awards on any plaintiff deemed to bring a nuisance lawsuit against police.

Take the example of another highly litigated group of professional, doctors and nurses. Anyone bringing suit against a doctor runs a real risk of their lawyered-up association coming down hard on that plaintiff.

This will not play out as you expect.

If we have to pay more to make sure that we protect our civil rights, then that's the cost. We could have simply insisted on it but if you would rather pay higher taxes then that is what it will be,

 

[struth]

I understand the reasoning and concept behind this, but it will make it that much harder to draw people to want a career in LE.

JMO

Your argument is that we can't have police unless we are willing to allow them to violate people's civil rights. I completely disagree.

How is that? Police can be prosecuted for violating the law, and if someone's rights are violated they can sue....at the very least if they violate someone's rights, such as an illegal search, the evidence is excluded from any prosecution of them.

So, not sure how you get to this conclusion

Police are instructed in not violating a person's civil rights. They aren't all that concerned because in the past nothing happened to them.

In some cases the taxpayers would get sued. Now the cop can be sued. Now they are going to care.

And there are simple ways for sworn officers to not be sued:

Stop trying to force detainees to ‘comply.’

Stop trying to subdue detainees by forcing them to the ground.

Stop trying to pursue detainees who escape custody.

Most situations involving detainees don’t pose a threat to sworn officers or the general public – until bad decision-making by sworn officers cause the situation to become needlessly dangerous.

well that’s good news...just resist arrest and run...the cops won’t do anything to stop an arrestee

 

[struth]

I understand the reasoning and concept behind this, but it will make it that much harder to draw people to want a career in LE.

JMO

Your argument is that we can't have police unless we are willing to allow them to violate people's civil rights. I completely disagree.

How is that? Police can be prosecuted for violating the law, and if someone's rights are violated they can sue....at the very least if they violate someone's rights, such as an illegal search, the evidence is excluded from any prosecution of them.

So, not sure how you get to this conclusion

Police are instructed in not violating a person's civil rights. They aren't all that concerned because in the past nothing happened to them.

In some cases the taxpayers would get sued. Now the cop can be sued. Now they are going to care.

sure things could happen...they’d blow the case...cops don’t want people they arrest going free.

yes the tax payer or govt would be sued because they were acting on their behalf. they can. still be sued. this just allows the arrestee to be sued directly as well, instead of having the immunity shield to get over first...the one the dem lawmakers left for themselves

to suggest police didn’t care in NYC is just hogwash

 

[pknopp]

I understand the reasoning and concept behind this, but it will make it that much harder to draw people to want a career in LE.

JMO

Your argument is that we can't have police unless we are willing to allow them to violate people's civil rights. I completely disagree.

How is that? Police can be prosecuted for violating the law, and if someone's rights are violated they can sue....at the very least if they violate someone's rights, such as an illegal search, the evidence is excluded from any prosecution of them.

So, not sure how you get to this conclusion

Police are instructed in not violating a person's civil rights. They aren't all that concerned because in the past nothing happened to them.

In some cases the taxpayers would get sued. Now the cop can be sued. Now they are going to care.

sure things could happen...they’d blow the case...cops don’t want people they arrest going free.

yes the tax payer or govt would be sued because they were acting on their behalf. they can. still be sued. this just allows the arrestee to be sued directly as well, instead of having the immunity shield to get over first...the one the dem lawmakers left for themselves

to suggest police didn’t care in NYC is just hogwash

Based upon the gung ho attitude towards Stop and Frisk, they did not care. Now people can sue the city and the officer for violating their civil rights.

 

[playtime]

What about the Italian thugs that are everywhere in NYC ??

what about 'em?

 

[fncceo]

Based upon the gung ho attitude towards Stop and Frisk, they did not care. Now people can sue the city and the officer for violating their civil rights.

You couldn't sue an individual officer for Stop and Frisk as long as it was Departmental Policy (sanctioned by The Mayor's Office)