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 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?

>>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.

>>_bxg1+rs
I think the parent comment was making the point that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If a protection is generally useful, it should be generally available.

>>nickff+uu
It IS generally available. If you are acting on the behalf of a private organization (and not a public one) the corporation that you work for is responsible for your actions (short of breaking the law) and not you.

>>banana+8L
IANAL, but I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation. You may not be worth going after if the corporation has a lot of money and you don't, or the company may indemnify you, but you're probably still liable.

>>nickff+pO
> I think that in many, if not most cases, you're jointly liable with the corporation

Probably depends on exactly where you are, but in the US the "LL" in "LLC" is "Limited Liability". (The same concept applies for a C-corp, and Europe has equivalent constructs AFAIK.)

One of the main selling points of a corporation is limited liability. If you are acting on behalf of the company you are very explicitly not "jointly" or in any other way liable for its actions. There are very specific things you have to do wrong to become individually liable; this is called "piercing the veil":

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-p...