But isn't the larger differentiator from most other first world countries the way officials are treated regarding the criminal code? I am expecting most countries to have a quite independent prosecuting office that prosecutes both officials and laymen, hopefully to the same degree? (The exception I expect is the military?)
In my locality one of the things I like 'best' is an article in our criminal law that lets a victim ask a judge to reconsider the decision of the prosecution not to press charges. It's one of the final balances in our criminal law.
This in effect may still shadow some of the abusive officers but it also will mean pay outs will be from the very community they were abusing people with in.
Simply put, public employee unions within the United States have an exaggerated affect on politics at local, city, and state levels. This includes both police and teachers and in many cases fire. besides bankrupting communities with excessive pension and benefits plans; in fact these were some of the golden plans mentioned as being a limiting factor to what the ACA encompassed and the House only recently tucked a provision into law that passed which removed all consideration of these plans from future ACA fudning; they are leading to bankruptcy issues for some localities. On the teacher front a three year veteran is near immune to firing in NYC if not all of NY state.
It really comes down to this, the laws have to change. Both QI as well as the legality of these particular type of unions which do not serve the same purpose unions in corporations do. They are bleeding America dry and not just in money. Be very watchful for the House to attempt to bailout all these public sector employee pensions in the near future. [0][1][2][3][4][5]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2018/10/26/ill...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/business/dealbook/coronav...
[2] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/html-page/848696
[3] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hinz-politics/pritzker-...
[4] https://www.heritage.org/jobs-and-labor/commentary/public-he...
[5] https://www.ai-cio.com/news/10-billion-illinois-pension-bail...
They are, by complete coincidence, about to possibly take on some QI cases this week.
https://reason.com/2020/05/29/the-supreme-court-has-a-chance...
Its text is quite straightforward, essentially saying that judicial officers are liable for the violation of a person's rights.
However the concept of "Qualified Immunity" is a Supreme Court invention which began to be applied in the late 1960s, and which today effectively shields police from any meaningful (civil) liability as originally defined by the law. It's hard to square the modern interpretation and its effects with the clear language in the statute, yet here we are needing to pass a law that effectively says "yes this law actually means what it says".
https://theappeal.org/qualified-immunity-explained/
IANAL.
https://www.cato.org/blog/may-15th-supreme-court-will-finall...
Sample:
Jessop v. City of Fresno. In this case, the Ninth Circuit granted immunity to police officers who stole over $225,000 in cash and rare coins in the course of executing a search warrant. The court noted that while “the theft [of] personal property by police officers sworn to uphold the law” may be “morally wrong,” the officers could not be sued for the theft because the Ninth Circuit had never issued a decision specifically involving the question of “whether the theft of property covered by the terms of a search warrant, and seized pursuant to that warrant, violates the Fourth Amendment.”
The Supreme Court has ruled a lot of things that we would not allow to stand today. For instance, the Dred Scott Case [1] "In a landmark case, the United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott's temporary residence outside Missouri did not bring about his emancipation under the Missouri Compromise, as the court ruled this to have been unconstitutional, as it would "improperly deprive Scott's owner of his legal property".
See: https://www.cato.org/blog/qualified-immunity-supreme-courts-...
https://www.cato.org/blog/wake-george-floyds-death-all-eyes-...
1. The court considers whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If yes, the court moves to part two of the test. If no, qualified immunity is immediately granted.
2. The court determines whether police should have known their actions violated the Constitution because court precedent clearly established their conduct as unlawful. If yes, the case goes to trial. If no, qualified immunity is granted.
Cases need nearly identical circumstances and in the same court jurisdiction for precedent to be "clearly established". Most cases are dismissed outright so that new precedent is never established, which leads what's "clearly established" being frozen in time.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-poli...
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.
While I agree that police work attracts a certain personality type, there are plenty of good cops too.
I was pulled over by a friendly Scottsdale cop once. I'd just accepted a fare, pulled out of the parking lot I'd been waiting, then flipped my headlights on. A vehicle did a U-turn right behind me, 'shit that's a cop...' The cop bounced over. Instead of asking for a confession (DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER?), he said "I PULLED YOU OVER BECAUSE YOUR HEADLIGHTS ARE OFF." I responded simply, "they're on now." The cop was surprised, walked to the front of the taxi to inspect, found the headlights were indeed on, trudged back defeated, then gave me the standard "license and registration" treatment. We chatted for a bit, then they let me go.
Another time a sheriff was right behind me when I pulled into a bar's parking lot. He gave the standard DO YOU KNOW WHY I PULLED YOU OVER? I said I had a few ideas. The sheriff informed of the stop sign I didn't even realize I'd missed. He gave me a written warning.
> That said, I'm not really sure what you mean by 'auto-immune drug war', as the 'war on drugs' doesn't specifically target immuno-suppressants.
IMHO the drug war is basically a societal auto-immune condition, where our population destructively attacks itself. Instead of recognizing people's actual problems (poverty, stress, genetic problems, etc), the justice system provides imprisonment in a futile effort to motivate people to stop hurting themselves. I remember going to my one passenger's drug court hearing [0]. The judge had done her homework on all the people who appeared before her. She was very stern with many of them: 'I hope 90 days in jail will be enough time to motivate you to get your act together'.
When she got to my passenger, though, she was like, 'you've really pulled yourself together... But you missed court 2.5 years ago, and I have no option but to punish you.' She gave him 30 days in jail, with work release. When I picked him up after his 30 days, all his worldly possessions had been disposed of on account of his eviction while serving the 30 days. "I can't believe I have to start over from nothing, again"
[0] my earlier comment about this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21307776
There's a surprising amount of persuasion, negotiation, and coalition-building in order to find the votes to grant cert or hold a majority. It's interesting to see how the interpersonal dynamics among the Justices influence decisions.
An example of this is looking for unanimous decisions to send a strong message, whether it is for school desegregation:
> Since 1954, the Court had always been unanimous in school cases, its strong commands to desegregate joined by every member. For fifteen years, the Justices had agreed that it was essential to let the South know that not a single Justice believed in anything less than full desegregation.
or to reject Nixon's executive privilege claims in Watergate [2]:
> The Nixon challenge had to be met in the strongest way possible. An eight-signature opinion would do it [...] The country would benefit from such a show of strength now.
These decisions required significant reconciliation between the original ideas of the Justices. They don't operate in a vacuum of law study. The Muhammad Ali draft dodging case [3] also demonstrates this, where a 4-4 deadlock is turned into a unanimous 8-0 decision centered around a technical error which would not set precedent - the book describes Burger as considering that "it might be interpreted as a racist vote" if he dissented.
Like the link, I am also curious about why these delays have occurred, especially the most recent one. Wildly speculating, maybe the Court does not want to appear too politically activist in this moment; or maybe the members are trying to find consensus for their preferred outcome before granting cert at all. One other option, though I hope it's not this one:
> [Stevens] said, it was "pointless" to grant cert only to have the majority reaffirm its well-known view [regarding Liles v Oregon, an obscenity case].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Brethren_(Woodward_and_Arm...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay_v._United_States#Opinion_...
Nature had a great analysis on the data collection/analysis perspective last year: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02601-9
Our police force has had it's immune system stripped away.
Qualified immunity, lack of independent prosecutors and police unions make this a multi angle problem.
Imagine every place you've worked (if you've done that) and the larger the company the more likely you are to have one or two scary psychos that you just try to keep off their radar, now imagine that coworker has qualified immunity, a state issued gun, police union backing and a blue line to back him up... you aren't going to antagonize that guy, at best you'll avoid him, and he'll go out effectively unsupervised or with someone who won't stop them, we need external processes to get rid of bad cops so police have a better work environment.
Police reform is the most pro human thing I can think, whether your a cop or not.
https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/area/workshop/leo/l...
Here's an example. In 2018, a police officer slammed an unarmed man into the ground. Look at the judge's decision: http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/srepfiles/qualified-immun...
"In so holding, the Court notes that a court can almost always manufacture a factual distinction. For example, here, McGarry was in his kitchen, while York was in a Target parking lot. That kind of factual difference and all of the factual differences listed above should not make a difference in the qualified immunity analysis, but, using Judge -- now Justice -- Gorsuch’s test from Kerns v. Bader, they “might make a constitutional difference,” 663 F.3d at 1187 (emphasis in original), so the Court must conclude that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity. While the Court thinks that a reasonable officer should be able to discern from York that grabbing and throwing an unarmed man to the ground without warning for arguing with a police officer amounts to excessive force, Justice Gorsuch would probably think that the police officer’s Taser threat in York is a fact that might make a difference."
The judge very much wants to NOT grant qualified immunity, but he's up against a wall and is angry about it.
What's your source for this?
It seems to be contradicted by e.g. - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/1097-4679(19... - "The most striking finding was a clear personality profile characterized by a strong pattern of self‐discipline or Control, Tough Poise, and low Anxiety"
This would imply the tactic works (and that IRS agents probably need more protection too).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-08-13-mn-861-st...
Here is a really brilliant Reddit comment that covers a broad survey of studies that broadly support my point: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/b9fkny/is...
See: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-08-13-mn-861-st...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre
That power has been taken away from the army in the UK. It now lies with the police, who, er, well at least they don't have swords:
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/sanfrancisco-vigilantes/
The federal courts eventually upheld the vigilance committee’s actions.
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.
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.
[0] https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C
> Following the search, the City Officers gave Appellants an inventory sheet stating that they seized approximately $50,000 from Appellants’ properties. Appellants alleged, however, that the officers actually seized $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins.
If the receipt was fraudulent, as is alleged here, I don't see how the seizure could be legal.
This article collects a number of statistics: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2014/12/black-community-...
> Finally, Atlantic Media’s “State of the City” poll—published this past summer—shows an “urban minority” class that’s worried about crime, and skeptical toward law enforcement, but eager for a greater police presence if it means less crime. Just 22 percent of respondents say they feel “very safe” walking in their neighborhoods after dark, and only 35 percent say they have “a lot” of confidence in their local police. That said, 60 percent say hiring more police would have a “major impact” on improving safety in their neighborhoods.
In fact, even today, a slight majority of African Americans say that the criminal justice system in their area is “not harsh enough” on criminals: https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/documents/899/download (Table 2). At the height of the crime wave of the 1980s and 1990s, over 70% of black Americans felt we needed harsher punishment of criminals. Half of African Americans today say we are spending “too little” on law enforcement.
Hispanics are even more strongly in favor of policing. 53% of Hispanic people supported NYC’s controversial (and unconstitutional) stop-and-frisk policy: https://www.blackenterprise.com/nypd-stop-and-frisk-poll-rac....
Notions of “defunding the police” are an idea dreamed up by people who don’t actually live in these disadvantaged communities. Poll after poll shows that is not what disadvantaged communities actually want. They want the law to be enforced; they can’t criminals brought to justice; and they want all that done with due process protections, just like police manage to do for white neighborhoods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit...
> In the United States, the federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit.[7] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[8] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it."[9]
The only reason the United States can legally appear as a defendant in a civil suit currently is because Congress has consented to being sued:
> The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims Act and the Tucker Act are not the broad waivers of sovereign immunity they might appear to be, as there are a number of statutory exceptions and judicially fashioned limiting doctrines applicable to both. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1331 confers federal question jurisdiction on district courts, but this statute has been held not to be a blanket waiver of sovereign immunity on the part of the federal government.
But in general, the government of the United states is immune from civil suits, and Congress can decide at any time -- even during an active case -- to decide to not want to be sued anymore.
The governments of the states -- being the ultimate sovereign authority of the United States of America -- are also generally immune from civil suit, except in limited circumstances. I believe most have however consented to being sued.
On this matter, the supreme court has said:
> we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention." States may consent to suit, and therefore waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity by removing a case from state court to federal court.
The Supreme Court has the ability to rule on things overnight. A very well known case where they did was Bush v. Gore[0]; The case was argued 11 Dec 2000, and ruled on the next day.
They just generally don’t because ruling overnight would take their focus away from the other cases they need to rule on.
"State and local governments should consider banning police unionization, or at least curbing unions' powers by, for example, eliminating disciplinary issues from the list of matters that are subject to collective bargaining. Whatever the merits of public-sector unions in other contexts, they create too much of a conflict of of interest in the case of employees who often literally wield the power of life and death over civilians."
[0] https://reason.com/2020/05/31/how-to-curb-police-abuses-and-...
You don't have to take my word for it. The Supreme Court gets about 7000 petitions per year and only listens to 100-120 of them. Per https://www.ushistory.org/gov/9c.asp the criteria that they choose by is:
Generally, the Court considers only cases that have far-reaching implications beyond the two parties involved in the dispute. For example, a case in which a student sues an assistant principal for searching a locker may shape the privacy rights of all students in public schools. The court also tends to hear cases in which two lower courts have reached conflicting decisions. And it tends to look closely at lower court decisions that contradict earlier Supreme Court decisions.
In other words it chooses cases based on the importance of the precedent that is likely to be set or reinforced. The importance of the case to the people involved is less important than that.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidentia...
0. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2F...
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/cato-addendum-tries-to-u...
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...
We know that the butterfly ballots were a poor design that caused vote confusion, and we also know that Bush was less affected by this than Gore (by virtue of the fact that Bush was the first hole, and thus any misalignment caused by an oblique view would line up with no hole, as opposed to oblique views causing Gore's arrow to line up with Buchanan's hole).
From the actual results, we know there is a chunk of votes in Palm Beach for Buchanan that doesn't seem appropriate. According to Buchanan's campaign, this would be a bit shy of 3000 votes for Buchanan that should have been for Gore [1]. No recount would have changed these votes (nor should one), but a more accurate voting machine would have given these votes to Gore.
That's why I say that it seems safe to say that Gore legitimately won Florida, on the basis on what the voters intended to vote, but it's quite unclear what even the best recount would have said the winner is.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Buchanan#2000_presidential...