As Qualified Immunity Takes Center Stage, More Delay from SCOTUS

>>mnm1+(OP)
I applaud this.

EDIT: I applaud Justin Amash's proposal to eliminate qualified immunity[1] (Thanks, dang).

One of the scary things about the George Floyd incident is that resisting arrest might have been the better option. That has some pretty dark implications about rule of law.

I understand the impulse of those on the right to give police officers the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what can very often be a dangerous calling, but I think that everyone (including police officers) will be safer if the police can be legally held accountable to a higher standard.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379576

>>lliama+3B
I wonder what a bystander can do when they see a police officer doing something like holding a knee on a person's neck for 8 minutes? If you do nothing, Mr. Floyd dies. If you get involved, Mr. Floyd may live but you may be the next person under the knee.

Could a good Samaritan defense for people who interfere with the police in good faith work?

>>cridde+2I
Don't take legal advice from Hacker News, obviously :-)

In Texas[0]:

  (c)  The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
  (1)  if, before the actor offers any resistance, the
  peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses
  or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make
  the arrest or search;  and
  (2)  when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes
  the force is immediately necessary to protect himself
  against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or
  attempted use of greater force than necessary.

Elsewhere:

  Sec. 9.33.  DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is
  justified in using force or deadly force against
  another to protect a third person if:
  (1)  under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
  believes them to be, the actor would be justified under
  Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to
  protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful
  deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the
  third person he seeks to protect;  and
  (2)  the actor reasonably believes that his intervention
  is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Assuming you survive the encounter, it is possible you could prevail on your day in court.

[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C

zlacker