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
Lets say you want to build a deck. You put together the plans, take them to the planning commission, and they rightfully reject it for being structually unsound.

Qualified immunity is what prevents you from personally suing each member of the planning commission to pressure them in to reversing their decision. Think of it like the legal system throwing an exception, we aren't even going to consider this because your beef is with the city not an individual employee.

Police have qualified immunity because otherwise they would face personal lawsuits every time they wrote a rich guy a speeding ticket, or a convicted murderer has nothing better to do but get his law degree in prison.

In my opinion, qualified immunity is _not_ the problem. If an officer does something in their official capacity that is wrong, it is up to the department and the DA to deal with. Just like if the hypothetical planning commission did something illegal. Unfortunately police unions prevent that from being a viable option.

>>dsl+Hq
I still don't get it though. What would you be suing a commissioner over that would get them to reverse their decision? If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit. If you're suing them for some unrelated valid issue, but using that as pressure for them to change their decision, then surely that's already illegal. Isn't it considered extortion or blackmail to compel someone to give you something of value by threatening to sue them or report them to law enforcement?

>>baddox+Pw
> If you're suing them directly for their decision, then surely that just wouldn't be a valid lawsuit

The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe.

>>tathou+Nx
> The commenter is saying that the fact that this isn't a valid lawsuit is what is meant by qualified immunity, I believe.

One idea: If a lawyer brings n invalid lawsuits within m months (where n, m are magic numbers, n preferably under three, m preferably over twelve), the lawyer gets disbarred. The only problem is: who decides whether a lawsuit is valid? Is there an objective way to judge this?