Posted on 03/08/2021 8:18:37 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sidestepped a chance to review the scope of a legal defense called qualified immunity that increasingly has been used to shield police accused of excessive force, turning away an appeal by a Cleveland man who sued after being roughed up by police while trying to enter his own home.
The justices declined to hear the appeal by Shase Howse, who said he was slammed to the ground outside the house where he lived with his mother in a poor and mostly Black neighborhood, struck in the back of the neck and jailed after police deemed his actions suspicious. Howse, who was 20 at the time, is Black. The police involved in the 2016 incident are white.
Qualified immunity protects police officers and other types of government officials from civil litigation in certain circumstances, allowing lawsuits only when an individual’s “clearly established” statutory or constitutional rights have been violated.
The U.S. House of Representatives last Wednesday passed policing reform legislation that among other provisions would eliminate the qualified immunity defense for law enforcement. The legislation, supported by most Democrats and opposed by Republicans, faces an uphill battle in the Senate.
Howse sued two police officers, Brian Middaugh and Thomas Hodous, accusing them of excessive force in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. The officers said they used only the force necessary to subdue Howse.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Let’s just build a wall around D.C. and starve the vermin out.
Yeah, I agree.
They’re doing away with the U. S. Constitution with SCOTUS
approval.
Well guess what. That’s the only thing that protects the
SCOTUS. Who knew?
Evidently not the SCOTUS.
Alot of law enforcement officers do carry insurance on our own dime on the top of the fact that most pay union dues only for the fact that the union provides a lawyer if we are involved in a shooting.
There is no guarantee that one will be given qualified immunity as a judge can and sometimes do take away an officers qualified immunity.
One may not like or agree with qualified immunity and maybe it needs to be changed or fixed but with out sometime of protection an officer would not even be able to do their job.
If one is an anarchist I am sure getting rid of all government and law enforcement sounds great, but most would like to live in a civil society and in order to live in a civil society police are necessary.
Bad police officers need to be punished to the fullest extent of the law, but for those who are doing their best to to fulfill their duties there needs to be some type of protection. Things don’t always happen perfectly and officers being human don’t make perfect split second decisions all the time.
As of right now qualified immunity and use of force are under attack with the Lee rule. Someday you are going to need a police officer and nobody is going to show up because every officer is going to be afraid to do anything to help.
100% agree.
Which side would that be aqula48?
Qualified immunity for government officials, including cops, isn't my side.
Indeed. There might be some extremely small set of circumstances where QI would make sense, but I don't see a way to have that without having a loophole big enough to fly a 747 through.
I'm trying to think of a situation where I need a PO.
Sometime when someone commits a crime against you or a loved one.
That's what the "back 40" is for.
The only time I ever “needed” a cop none ever showed. I took care of the situation myself.
I hate to be the bearer of bads news, but you need police and government everyday if you want to live in a civil society. As a matter everyday that you live in a civil society you are using the services that the government provide which includes police because without them there would be no civil society.
So he’s changed color?
The writers of today’s articles just
CANT RIGHT WRITE!
It’s QUALIFIED immunity, not carte blanche immunity.
The cop would still be subject to prosecution in a civil suits “if the plaintiff shows that the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. “
In other words if the cop violated a law or someone’s constitutional rights he could be prosecuted and convicted. And this qualified immunity is only for civil lawsuits, not criminal.
“In the United States, qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary functions immunity from civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known”. “
I’m as weary as anybody about giving cops too much power given the possibility of abuse, but I’m also concerned about the other side of the coin, ie, tying their hands to such an extent that they’re unable or discouraged to protect us from the bad guy. So there has to be a balance, and given the fact that today things have shifted too much in favor of criminals, thugs, looters and arsonists I’m perfectly comfortable with this ruling.
That’s the rationalization that works in theory, but not in practice. QI is a fairly recent court imposed doctrine that we functioned quite well without until the 60’s.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/qualified-immunity-legal-practical-moral-failure#introduction
Swatting at flies while Dragons roam behind the razor wire.
Yes but before qualified immunity before 1960 officers did not have to be worried about the lawsuits that they now face. That was before civil rights, rampant lawsuits and cameras everywhere with judgments made because someone saw a 20 second video.
Police have a lot more to worry about these days(I don’t think that is necessarily bad). Before TN vs Garner which was 1980(I think) a cop could shoot an unarmed fleeing felon in the back just like dirty Harry. Now days police are held to a higher standard and stricter use of force policies(a good thing). Point being good officers need protection from the anti police crowd and false or frifiliz lawsuits.
Even the best police/humans make bad or wrong decisions under certain situations. There has to be some protection for officers who are doing their best to make the right split second decisions when it is or could be a matter of life and death.
Don’t get me wrong I am all for punishing bad officers, nothing makes me angrier then seeing an officer of the law abusing their authority or a person. I have been considering filing a complaint against an officer who recently violated my and 4 other people’s rights(illegal search and seizure as well as breaking and entering).
Sorry, but the entire judicial concept of “Qualified Immunity” has been shown to be an abject failure in its application as it was created by the judiciary.
The entire concept needs to be either junked or tightened down a LOT.
Lon Hourouchi is still guilty as sin, but free as a bird, largely because of QI. If I’d done what he did, I’d have been in jail for the rest of my life.
We’re not buying what you are selling on this anymore.
This gives Derek Chauvin another defense in his trial. That, plus the training materials and the medical/autopsy reports should result in an acquittal, or a reversal on appeal.
Unfortunately, qualified immunity even when it is clearly appropriate, is ignored when they want want to prosecute a cop.
For the record, the courts and prosecutors have expanded the use of qualified immunity to the point where is hard to distinguish qualified and absolute immunity. These judicially created immunity “laws” are not laws at all.
Who has what on who in the Supreme Court they’re leaving piles all over the place?.
The priests of power must have a name.
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.