zlacker

>>sorami+(OP)
Man, this seems like such an uphill battle. I feel like unless they can show police were trying to deliberately target the press rather than just treating them like any other members of the public, they'll have that much more difficult of a time getting past qualified immunity and winning a lawsuit.

>>mehrda+1y
> getting past qualified immunity and winning a lawsuit.

There's a lot of hubub about qualified immunity these days, but it only shields individuals from individual civil responsibility, it does not shield organizations from organizational responsibility for the actions of individuals under their employ.

Chances are, parties would sue the organization anyway, as the individuals are unlikely to be able to pay significant damages.

>>toast0+iG
The organization is funded by taxpayers and any awarded damages would be covered by taxpayers... so it's not a disincentive for the Police.

>>petroc+kI
Even if the individual office was fiscally responsible, their money came from taxpayers too. The community ends up paying for the damage its agents do to the community.

The police forces are managed by elected officials, who are elected by taxpayers. These politicians should be held to account by voters for either their lack of leadership on police abuse of force (my preference) or their lack of fiscal responsibility in allowing police abuse of force to continue, accruing large legal bills and settlements (and increased liability insurance costs, presumably).