zlacker

If someone could explain this to me, please do. The wiki [1] on qualified immunity talks about civil action. So US officials (cops among those) are mostly shielded from civil action for their misdeeds and to even a greater degree than the former test that asked whether they legitimately believed they were following the law And acted in good faith. (Which is already a stretch since I don't quite follow how ones understanding of the laws enters the question of having followed it.) So no civil action then.

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.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

>>wjnc+(OP)
Qualified immunity is especially hurtful because it is the only recourse left when prosecutors decline to prosecute cases against police, the norm even in Floyd's case (only one out of four killers has been charged). Yes, it would be ideal of prosecutors prosecuted police properly or if we had an independent investigation/prosecutor for such cases but this is never the case, even when officials pretend it is. It's always cops investigating other cops and the same prosecutors that normally work closely with police and have clear conflicts of interest doing the prosecution. Activists want to get rid of qualified immunity because trying to reform the actual criminal investigation and prosecution is impossible. Also, the doctrine changes the actual law to make it the exact opposite of what was intended, effectively rewriting the law into its opposite. The focus on qualified immunity assumes there will be a miscarriage of criminal justice. That's almost always the case.

>>wjnc+(OP)
The Federal criminal law analogue of 42 USC 1983 is 18 USC 242 ("deprivation of rights under color of law"). It probably doesn't surprise anyone to hear that referrals to prosecute under 242 have steadily declined over the years, regardless of the party of the administration.

>>mnm1+16
Which happens in part because the office of attorney general is an elected position. Police are very powerful politically. And for whatever reason, you are seen as "soft on crime" if you attempt to prosecute police for carrying out crimes.

>>bcrosb+Fa
> for whatever reason, you are seen as "soft on crime" if you attempt to prosecute police for carrying out crimes.

I suspect that the reason is a very simple worldview that divides everything into good vs evil / us vs them, and therefore cops vs criminals.

>>bcrosb+Fa
As an example, the VA GOP yesterday called for Lee Carter, a member of the VA house of delegates, to resign for even suggesting cutting police budgets.

https://twitter.com/VA_GOP/status/1267164943994032128