"We're calling on this state to raise the minimum arrest age. While I remember the fact that there once was no minimum age of arrests, 7 is just too young."
Often the civil lawsuits are about alleging that an officer committed a crime and a judge has to determine whether that’s the case. The officer is usually represented by a police union who usually invoke Qualified Immunity to absolve the officer i.e. there was probable cause for their actions.
That is incorrect. Civil and criminal are separate sections of the law. They had different rules and procedures.
Also incorrect. The union does not represent the officer in court. The union is not a lawyer. Probable cause is not relevant to qualified immunity and is only relevant in civil court. Immunity is not just for police officers. It is for every government employee. Police have more protection than most other government employees but less than judges, prosecutors, etc.
Personally, I think they should all lose it but in return, it means fewer cases will be prosecuted. The courts will just reject most of the cases since they won’t have the staffing to deal with every case.
Admittedly, my legalese isn’t great. However, I wasn’t implying that the union itself represents the officer, just that they provide support in that aspect. I know it’s for all government officials, the focus here was on the police so I stuck with that.
I agree on the last part. Often it feels like government officials are above the law.
They provide moral support. They also provide support for policy violations. (Not a civil or criminal court but internal disputes)
For some reason, many people think it is a get-out-of-jail card. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with criminal liability. It is only civil liability.
I get why the judges put it in place. You can’t have a cop sued whenever he makes a minor mistake. The issue, though, is it has turned into a blanket immunity even when they did something so egregious they should be sued.
I was in law enforcement for years. I want to see a reform of the system as we deserve better.
You ABSOLUTELY can have a cop sued for making a minor mistake. They can carry malpractice insurance, just like I do. Don’t give me that shit. There is no reason cops should be immune from lawsuits
What are you going on about? That is what qualified immunity is all about. Civil liability. You can sue, but most likely, the case will be rejected unless there is prior precedent.
That is the only thing qualified immunity covers is civil liability.
What do you think they are qualified to be immune from?
Qualified immunity deals with civil lawsuits and not criminal charges.
Often the civil lawsuits are about alleging that an officer committed a crime and a judge has to determine whether that’s the case. The officer is usually represented by a police union who usually invoke Qualified Immunity to absolve the officer i.e. there was probable cause for their actions.
That is incorrect. Civil and criminal are separate sections of the law. They had different rules and procedures.
Also incorrect. The union does not represent the officer in court. The union is not a lawyer. Probable cause is not relevant to qualified immunity and is only relevant in civil court. Immunity is not just for police officers. It is for every government employee. Police have more protection than most other government employees but less than judges, prosecutors, etc.
Personally, I think they should all lose it but in return, it means fewer cases will be prosecuted. The courts will just reject most of the cases since they won’t have the staffing to deal with every case.
Admittedly, my legalese isn’t great. However, I wasn’t implying that the union itself represents the officer, just that they provide support in that aspect. I know it’s for all government officials, the focus here was on the police so I stuck with that.
I agree on the last part. Often it feels like government officials are above the law.
They provide moral support. They also provide support for policy violations. (Not a civil or criminal court but internal disputes)
For some reason, many people think it is a get-out-of-jail card. It isn’t. It has nothing to do with criminal liability. It is only civil liability.
I get why the judges put it in place. You can’t have a cop sued whenever he makes a minor mistake. The issue, though, is it has turned into a blanket immunity even when they did something so egregious they should be sued.
I was in law enforcement for years. I want to see a reform of the system as we deserve better.
You ABSOLUTELY can have a cop sued for making a minor mistake. They can carry malpractice insurance, just like I do. Don’t give me that shit. There is no reason cops should be immune from lawsuits
What are you going on about? That is what qualified immunity is all about. Civil liability. You can sue, but most likely, the case will be rejected unless there is prior precedent.
That is the only thing qualified immunity covers is civil liability.
Your words