Yeah, that. And add in that qualified immunity could be made to make sense - so long as the department has to compensate the victim. I get it, it's high-liability, hazardous work, you need someone...
Yeah, that. And add in that qualified immunity could be made to make sense - so long as the department has to compensate the victim. I get it, it's high-liability, hazardous work, you need someone to do it and you don't want to expose them to a 5M$ lawsuit because they got into a situation with only wrong actions. Act and do harm or halt and allow harm to occur, that kind of stuff.
But.
1.) Actual good faith needs to be visible.
2.) If the officer acted wrongly, someone needs to be liable. Ideally, that would be tax payer money. Compensation must be had, and it must come from such a place as to incentivize police to be better. Whether that means that the chief gets an ass-chewing and orders from the mayor because the mayor has to scrounge up the money, or it means that the bad cop gets fired because his paycheck is getting reallocated or it means the police don't get new guns or it means that the officer was so wrong he is personally liable... Someone has to compensate the victim.
For more general info about it, this is a good explanation of qualified immunity in illustrated/comic form that the Washington Post published a few years ago: What is “qualified immunity,” and how...
For more general info about it, this is a good explanation of qualified immunity in illustrated/comic form that the Washington Post published a few years ago: What is “qualified immunity,” and how does it work?
yeah I posted this mainly to try and start a discussion on ways to actually improve the police in the US. it seems like most people are focusing on just defunding police, which, while it might be...
yeah I posted this mainly to try and start a discussion on ways to actually improve the police in the US. it seems like most people are focusing on just defunding police, which, while it might be good for other reasons, I think it's an overly simplistic solution to a multifaceted problem. I definitely agree that funding should go from buying new toys to actual training though.
Yeah, that. And add in that qualified immunity could be made to make sense - so long as the department has to compensate the victim. I get it, it's high-liability, hazardous work, you need someone to do it and you don't want to expose them to a 5M$ lawsuit because they got into a situation with only wrong actions. Act and do harm or halt and allow harm to occur, that kind of stuff.
But.
1.) Actual good faith needs to be visible.
2.) If the officer acted wrongly, someone needs to be liable. Ideally, that would be tax payer money. Compensation must be had, and it must come from such a place as to incentivize police to be better. Whether that means that the chief gets an ass-chewing and orders from the mayor because the mayor has to scrounge up the money, or it means that the bad cop gets fired because his paycheck is getting reallocated or it means the police don't get new guns or it means that the officer was so wrong he is personally liable... Someone has to compensate the victim.
For more general info about it, this is a good explanation of qualified immunity in illustrated/comic form that the Washington Post published a few years ago: What is “qualified immunity,” and how does it work?
yeah I posted this mainly to try and start a discussion on ways to actually improve the police in the US. it seems like most people are focusing on just defunding police, which, while it might be good for other reasons, I think it's an overly simplistic solution to a multifaceted problem. I definitely agree that funding should go from buying new toys to actual training though.