zlacker

[return to "As Qualified Immunity Takes Center Stage, More Delay from SCOTUS"]
1. comman+9m[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:39:51
>>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"?
◧◩
2. gamblo+qp[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:53:55
>>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.

◧◩◪
3. jstanl+uq[view] [source] 2020-06-01 17:58:51
>>gamblo+qp
> 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.)

But why shouldn't all people be protected from nuisance suits over reasonable mistakes?

◧◩◪◨
4. _bxg1+rs[view] [source] 2020-06-01 18:06:50
>>jstanl+uq
Because there's no way to draw a clear line between "nuisance" suits and "serious" suits. Go ahead, try articulating it in a precise way that can't be gamed.
◧◩◪◨⬒
5. SkyBel+hw[view] [source] 2020-06-01 18:26:37
>>_bxg1+rs
So then flip the question, why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. gamblo+cI[view] [source] 2020-06-01 19:28:01
>>SkyBel+hw
why should government be immune to nuisance suits if there is no precise way to differentiate them from serious suits?

Under the centuries-old principle of sovereign immunity, the government can simply choose not to be liable for anything at all. Sovereign immunity is the default for most countries now, and throughout history.

The US and the countries of the EU are relatively unique in allowing themselves to be sued for damages for their failures.

[go to top]