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 actual law in this case is the 1871 Enforcement Act, also known as the Civil Rights Act of 1871: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Enforcement_Act

Its text is quite straightforward, essentially saying that judicial officers are liable for the violation of a person's rights.

However the concept of "Qualified Immunity" is a Supreme Court invention which began to be applied in the late 1960s, and which today effectively shields police from any meaningful (civil) liability as originally defined by the law. It's hard to square the modern interpretation and its effects with the clear language in the statute, yet here we are needing to pass a law that effectively says "yes this law actually means what it says".

https://theappeal.org/qualified-immunity-explained/

IANAL.

>>bgentr+rp
> shields police

shields police officers, not police departments.

The part I don't understand is that does QI prevent or chill suing departments (which have more money than officers), who then could sue officers for exceeded their job duties?

>>gowld+7C
Suing the department just means the taxpaying public (who are generally the injured party in the first place) end up paying more in taxes to cover the cost of the lawsuits and the police department continues unscathed.