Amidst all the talk about defunding or even abolishing police forces, there’s a move to eliminated “qualified immunity”.
There seems to be a lot of misapprehension about this principal, and a lot of folks seem to think that the police are shielded from civil lawsuits generally.
That’s not the case. We get monthly legal training from the University of Missouri and many of the cases discussed are concerned with whether or not a particular officer’s actions allow the principal of qualified immunity to apply.
Generally, an officer is shielded from civil lawsuits if he is acting within the department’s policies. In other words, if he is acting in accordance with his training, and within policy, he cannot be sued civilly.
Note that this does not shield the department from lawsuits, who can be taken to court on the grounds that the policies themselves are faulty.
Also, this principal does not shield the officer from criminal prosecution, though it’s hard to imagine a policy that would allow criminal behavior.
Elimination of this principal would be very problematic, it would seem. If an officer, doing what his employer tells him to do, is still subject to civil lawsuit.... How would he function?
This might lead to officers being reluctant to do only the most mundane functions, unwilling to engage in anything that might result in a lawsuit.
There seems to be a lot of misapprehension about this principal, and a lot of folks seem to think that the police are shielded from civil lawsuits generally.
That’s not the case. We get monthly legal training from the University of Missouri and many of the cases discussed are concerned with whether or not a particular officer’s actions allow the principal of qualified immunity to apply.
Generally, an officer is shielded from civil lawsuits if he is acting within the department’s policies. In other words, if he is acting in accordance with his training, and within policy, he cannot be sued civilly.
Note that this does not shield the department from lawsuits, who can be taken to court on the grounds that the policies themselves are faulty.
Also, this principal does not shield the officer from criminal prosecution, though it’s hard to imagine a policy that would allow criminal behavior.
Elimination of this principal would be very problematic, it would seem. If an officer, doing what his employer tells him to do, is still subject to civil lawsuit.... How would he function?
This might lead to officers being reluctant to do only the most mundane functions, unwilling to engage in anything that might result in a lawsuit.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3hoMq62
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire