zlacker

It's sad to see how little progress has been made on concrete reforms that would meaningfully reduce these problems. Curtailing qualified immunity, and limiting the power of police unions to protect "bad apples" is something with bi-partisan ideological support.

You'd think reforms to qualified immunity--which everyone from the ACLU to Heritage to Cato agrees on--would be on the fast track to legislation, at least in left-leaning states. There is no reason a state like California, where politicians habitually genuflect to social justice, couldn't pass legislation to create causes of action against police officers that aren't subject to the federal constitution's qualified immunity doctrine. None at all. Instead, for some reason the debate is now about whether rioting and property destruction is an acceptable response to police brutality--an extreme position that is not going to carry the day with anyone but a tiny minority.

replies(2): >>corrys+C2 >>ashton+Vq

>>rayine+(OP)
Police unions are the real problem in this situation. There will always be criminal cops. As long as they are protected by corrupt and powerful unions - they will have very little incentive to change.

replies(1): >>newacc+c4

>>corrys+C2
I don't know that the unions are the problem per se. They're just the face of the advocacy for the interests of criminal cops (which isn't surprising: it's literally their job to advocate for their members).

In fact when this gets polled, police rank and file are absolutely behind their "bad apple" compatriots. There is deep mistrust of public oversight within the law enforcement community as a whole, and that doesn't have to do with their labor organization.

replies(1): >>corrys+b5

>>newacc+c4
From my (limited) understanding of the role of police unions in cases like that, they basically threaten local governments and demand no prosecution for their members. They hold the keys to more public oversight and accountability.

>>rayine+(OP)
Is QI something easily amenable via legislation? I was under the impression that the Supreme Court created the doctrine based on the constitution, which I thought means it’ll be hard to legislate.

replies(1): >>rayine+mm1

>>ashton+Vq
The qualified immunity doctrine is a judge-created limitation on claims based on violations of federal constitutional rights. It doesn't preclude legislatures from creating causes of action under state law to allow officers to be held accountable.