zlacker

>>mnm1+(OP)
I'm curious - it's obvious what abuses of qualified immunity are driving this, but the law must have been originally put in place for a reason. Are there any examples where a police officer was shielded from prosecution for something that, if you or I did it would definitely be a crime, but that a reasonable person would say, "yes, this is a good application of qualified immunity"?

>>comman+9m
It's important to clarify. "Qualified Immunity" is NOT a law. It is judicial precedent. That means the Supreme Court made this up and courts don't go against prior rulings except in rare cases. Sometimes Congress creates laws to confirm judicial rulings or go against them and clarify their intentions.

The Supreme Court has ruled a lot of things that we would not allow to stand today. For instance, the Dred Scott Case [1] "In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott

>>apover+uv
There is a difference between law and legislation; qualified immunity is law, but not legislation (that I know of).

>>nickff+Jv
According to Wikipedia

Legislation = Legislation (or statutory law) is law which has been promulgated (or "enacted") by a legislature or other governing body or the process of making it

Qualified Immunity = Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law

Legal doctrine = A legal doctrine is a framework, set of rules, procedural steps, or test, often established through precedent in the common law, through which judgments can be determined in a given legal case

So it's a bit of a grey area, but I think the greater point stands that this is how court cases are decided vs. a law in the traditional sense that people think about laws.

>>apover+3x
It's not really a grey area.

Common law, which is to say law that is not codified but defined by judicial decision making, is law "in the traditional sense that people think about laws" just as much as statute law.

In Michigan, for example, murder is a common law offense: no legislation exists that defines what murder is, although penalties etc. are legislated.