zlacker

[parent] [thread] 1 comments
1. thephy+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-03 22:28:59
> He didn't include ending qualified immunity under the list of things he thought have to change, even though it's one of the most important.

I didn't name check it, but if you check my post history there's a reason I didn't call for an outright repeal of QI -- I don't yet know what the effect of that would be or what measures might replace it.

I'm all for removing QI (and outlawing indemnification of LEOs in employment contracts) and replacing QI with something like professional insurance, but from my understanding the problem isn't that "QI prevents cases from being brought to court", but that DAs don't actually bring cases to court which could beat the QI standard.

Also, in my understanding, QI is simply protection against civil actions, not criminal prosecution. To repeat - I think the core problem is more that DAs don't bring the cases, not that the law is insurmountably high.

replies(1): >>zucker+64
2. zucker+64[view] [source] 2020-06-03 22:53:05
>>thephy+(OP)
Yeah like I said, I largely agree with you, I was just tacking on QI.
[go to top]