CU88 wrote: ↑Wed Jun 17, 2020 4:14 pm
"By removing qualified immunity, what you're doing is essentially not allowing police to do their job," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany. "Taking away qualified immunity would make this country much less safe."
Police can’t do their job without violating the Constitution and people’s rights?
Qualified immunity only protects police who *have* violated someone’s rights.
How does allowing them to violate rights with impunity make anyone safer?
You do understand the concept of indemnity, don't you? Whatever police department the police officer works for takes on the responsibility for the acts of individual officers. How much did Freddie Gray's settlement by the City of Baltimore amount to? Same thing for corporate boards, who buy Director's and Officer's Liability Insurance against wrongful acts by board members and officers. Depending on states they pay on behalf or indemnify the defendant (meaning if there is a judgement they reimburse the director or officer for the judgement plus legal expenses). Without it, no corporate boards.
Because of defense costs alone, no officer could possibly serve and afford to defend themselves against even charges that don't involve use of force. I don't anticipate the "LP Lawyers Club" to offer Pro Bono legal services to cops. Your pool of potential officers would be miniscule. You could expect tons of frivolous lawsuits from activists just wanting to hassle individual officers and reduce the police's role in the community.
The Law of Unintended Consequences is almost as immutable as the Law of Gravity. I wonder in this case, however, if it is unintended.
"I would never want to belong to a club that would have me as a member", Groucho Marx