Posted on 10/18/2021 9:24:55 AM PDT by RandFan
Yeah, I was thinkin’ that but wasn’t going to say it.
The California case is pretty stupid. There are plenty of bad uses of police authority that should be fully prosecuted, others that are not. Police should not have unfettered immunity, it should be subject to meaningful review so that bad cops can be fired, prosecuted, and jailed.
We really need to address the fundamental lawlessness behind Frothingham v Mellon too.
Qualified Immunity has been in place since the 1960’s, from what I’m seeing.
As a matter of function, it’s aim is to reduce court and police workload that would otherwise be spent if a case was allowed to proceed to trial.
Whether or not a principle is reasonable misses the point, I think. Any pronciple (like any tool) can be properly used, or it can be abused. State secret, immunity, firearms, exigenent circumstances piercing 4th amendment. All tools that can used for good, and can also be used for bad.
We are coming into a time (heavy-handed government enabled by governmnet-paid and system-loving court minions) where I am of a mind that immunity for government actors is more likely to be abused than to be used for good. It’s a pointless observation. QI is a judicially created widget. There is nothing can be done to reign it in or control it. The courts will do what the courts will do, and no matter how bad the courts behave, there will bo no correction.
No clearly established right not to be manhandled with excessive force by government thugs? (Not that most police officers have historically been government thugs, of course.)
Giving rights to police over other civilians is a dangerous precedent.
Can I have qualified immunity too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.