zlacker

Maybe qualified immunity needs to be reduced in scope, but what is the alternative? Without something like it, police might otherwise be held liable for something like having to taser a violent person, only they hit their head on the way down?

>>ineeda+(OP)
If I tasered a person, I'd have to justify it. I'd like the police to be forced to do the same.

>>ineeda+(OP)
In the current climate in the US, there will be lawyers eager to find any possible grounds to file a lawsuit for stupendous amounts because the cop looked at someone wrong, and hurt their fragile self-esteem (I exaggerate, slightly). That's probably going to make an environment where police cannot operate effectively. Yes, they'd be careful not to step across the line. But they'd have to give no grounds for a lawyer looking for a payday to even be able to claim that they had stepped across the line.

The current abuses are horrible. But cops fearful of their own shadow is not a better outcome for society.

>>ineeda+(OP)
Yes, that's how responsibility works. Doesn't mean that cops will be sentenced and go to jail for every person they tased, just means they won't be immune by default.

>>Animal+t3
You can already do that right now. You can already file a lawsuit for a stupendous amounts because the cop looked at you the wrong way. Would the cop get prosecuted? No. Losing qualified immunity doesn't mean that cops will automatically be at fault for anything you desire. The laws would still exist.

>>corrys+S3
How would that differ, functionally, from what we have now? Clearly a prosecutor can already bring charges when a cop steps over the line. Assuming that "line" wouldn't change, how does that differ from qualified immunity? I'm honestly asking here, because I'm not a huge fan of QI but I don't see a good alternative.