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
The idea behind qualified immunity is to protect government employees from nuisance suits over discretionary actions performed in their official capacity, excepting actions that violated local laws or civil rights. (Basically, it lets a human government employee make reasonable mistakes.)

The original laws of this country did not permit lawsuits against government employees acting in an official capacity. After the Civil War, the Civil Right Act of 1871 was passed allowing citizens and residents to sue government officials for civil rights violations suffered under color of law. The qualified immunity doctrine was created by the courts after that to shield public officials from nuisance suits for discretionary actions (generally meaning bureaucratic actions) by people angry over actions that went against them (i.e., for denials of licenses, judgments, etc.).

Unfortunately, due to the volume of nuisance suits, this doctrine got stronger and stronger over time. At some point, the courts began applying this strengthened doctrine intended for bureaucratic actions to police actions.

>>gamblo+qp
The idea that law enforcement and government officials should be treated less strictly under the law is, to me, completely preposterous. If anything, they should explicitly not be given the benefit of the doubt and should be treated much more strictly under the law.

I realize that a huge number of people completely disagree with that, and I don't really know how to persuade any of them other than to urge them to examine history and note the consequences of authoritarianism.

>>baddox+9w
>If anything, they should explicitly not be given the benefit of the doubt and should be treated much more strictly under the law.

How many of your tax dollars are you willing to pour into addressing the volume of nuisance cases then?