Massachusetts Ends Qualified Immunity for Police, Fire

@no1marauder said
The racism drooling forth in this thread is precisely the reason why this Forum was shut down in the first place. The usual suspects have learned nothing.

And, of course, not a single one of them have the foggiest notion of what "Qualified Immunity" means or the intellectual curiosity to find out. Instead we have another race baiting, black bashing thread which I guess RHP wants to be famous for.

I thought it was shut down because a bunch of people routinely used ad hominem and nothing was done about it?

I'd love some more background information.

@no1marauder said
The racism drooling forth in this thread is precisely the reason why this Forum was shut down in the first place. The usual suspects have learned nothing.

And, of course, not a single one of them have the foggiest notion of what "Qualified Immunity" means or the intellectual curiosity to find out. Instead we have another race baiting, black bashing thread which I guess RHP wants to be famous for.

"And, of course, not a single one of them have the foggiest notion of what "Qualified Immunity" means or the intellectual curiosity to find out. Instead we have another race baiting, black bashing thread which I guess RHP wants to be famous for."

The thread has spun out on what the removal of "Qualified Immunity" may actually hope to achieve. As for not knowing what qualified immunity is... precisely...in a legal sense? You got me. The language seems to imply some shielding from making mistakes up to some high degree of negligence. Does the definition distill in legal layman's terms to something remarkably different from what I have described?

I'm not "black bashing". Everything statistic I have presented is factual. I'm saying based on the evidence this is proposal and police reform is like pissing in the ocean of lost Black lives.

@no1marauder said
The racism drooling forth in this thread is precisely the reason why this Forum was shut down in the first place. The usual suspects have learned nothing.

And, of course, not a single one of them have the foggiest notion of what "Qualified Immunity" means or the intellectual curiosity to find out. Instead we have another race baiting, black bashing thread which I guess RHP wants to be famous for.

I couldn't agree more. And I am the thread starter. I don't like where this thread
has drifted.

Eliminating qualified immunity is a HUGE step for various reasons.
This is NOT the case where a city here or there cuts back the police budget,
which are city POLICIES that can be changed in a heartbeat at the local level.
Rather, this move by the Massachusetts legislature is STATE WIDE, and it is
written in law, which means the local cities and towns have no opinion, and no
right to have their own policy.

We'll see where it goes. The possibility exists that other liberal states do
the same thing. And we have to be *at least* curious of the everlasting effect,
if not worried.

@joe-shmo

Joe, simply put in layman's terms, the police can now be sued just like you and
I can be sued. If an arrestee says that the police roughed him up..,? here comes
a civil law suit and those usually go fairly well for the plaintiff.

Cops will be scared shetless to touch anyone, let a lone shoot them.

@earl-of-trumps said
@joe-shmo

Joe, simply put in layman's terms, the police can now be sued just like you and
I can be sued. If an arrestee says that the police roughed him up..,? here comes
a civil law suit and those usually go fairly well for the plaintiff.

Cops will be scared shetless to touch anyone, let a lone shoot them.

Ok, sounds like what I interpreted it to mean.

I don't see how it is helps saving lost black lives. How will the police intervene in gang violence...the #1 ( 80% ) reason for lost black lives? Since they have to physically capture gang members to bring them to justice, they have basically shifted "qualified immunity" to those who don't follow the law.

Statistically, the instances of the police kindly asking a gang member to put their hands behind their back as they gently cuff them is in my estimation...practically null.

@earl-of-trumps said
@joe-shmo

Joe, simply put in layman's terms, the police can now be sued just like you and
I can be sued. If an arrestee says that the police roughed him up..,? here comes
a civil law suit and those usually go fairly well for the plaintiff.

Cops will be scared shetless to touch anyone, let a lone shoot them.

Wrong.

You might want to try reading the article I linked to on the first page.

""Qualified immunity" is a judicially created doctrine that probably misreads the intent of those who created Civil Rights law. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

@no1marauder said
Wrong.

You might want to try reading the article I linked to on the first page.

""Qualified immunity" is a judicially created doctrine that probably misreads the intent of those who created Civil Rights law. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

"Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that shields government officials from being held personally liable for constitutional violations—like the right to be free from excessive police force—for money damages under federal law so long as the officials did not violate “clearly established” law. Both 42 U.S.C. § 1983—a statute originally passed to assist the government in combating Ku Klux Klan violence in the South after the Civil War—and the Supreme Court’s decision in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971) allow individuals to sue government officials for money damages when they violate their constitutional rights."

Ok, I'm still not seeing it. What is the legal nuance you are going to point out?

Taking away cops qualified immunity means they will be sht-their-pants scared of doing their jobs for fear of being sued and destroyed financially.
Qualified Immunity doesn't mean a cop can do anything he wants on the street, it means that an arrest ,detention, or street interrogation can't be held against him if it's done in good faith during the commission of his duties.
What is wrong with that?

@joe-shmo said
Ok, sounds like what I interpreted it to mean.

I don't see how it is helps saving lost black lives. How will the police intervene in gang violence...the #1 ( 80% ) reason for lost black lives? Since they have to physically capture gang members to bring them to justice, they have basically shifted "qualified immunity" to those who don't follow the law.

Statisticall ...[text shortened]... o put their hands behind their back as they gently cuff them is in my estimation...practically null.

I don't at all suspect lives will be saved here, and I think it will go the other way.

Look at CHOP. 5 people shot, 2 killed. Cops couldn't get into their autonomous zone.
Ya know what? libs DON'T CARE abut lost lives, including some of theirs.

This is hard core politics, not searching for solutions

@no1marauder said
Wrong.

You might want to try reading the article I linked to on the first page.

""Qualified immunity" is a judicially created doctrine that probably misreads the intent of those who created Civil Rights law. https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-qualified-immunity-and-what-does-it-have-do-police-reform

You may know the law but your estimate as to the effect of the new law leaves
something to be desired. Police here are very worried and the union is having
a strategy session.

@earl-of-trumps said
You may know the law but your estimate as to the effect of the new law leaves
something to be desired. Police here are very worried and the union is having
a strategy session.

They'd better spend their time trying to figure how not to violate the rights of the People than trying to figure out how they can escape responsibility for doing so.

@joe-shmo said
Black out drunk in a Wendy's drive through, passed out, vehicle running is a clear provocation. It is a violation of drinking and driving laws. He was a clear and present danger to himself and the community around him.

I had a friend...white. Did a similar thing. Problem with alcohol. While drinking and driving he pulled his vehicle over on the side of an onramp and ...[text shortened]... d have happened. If he had done what "Brooks" had done he may very well have had a similar outcome.

Your obviously conditioned to accepting a much lower quality of law enforcement officer than would be accepted in most places.
The Wendy’s killing has been discussed at length, I suggest you take your anecdotal evidence concerning your ‘white’ friend (what’s their skin colour got to do with anything) to whoever is defending the killer cops involved.

@kevcvs57 said
Your obviously conditioned to accepting a much lower quality of law enforcement officer than would be accepted in most places.
The Wendy’s killing has been discussed at length, I suggest you take your anecdotal evidence concerning your ‘white’ friend (what’s their skin colour got to do with anything) to whoever is defending the killer cops involved.

“There is no ‘provocation’ for killing someone other than those I’ve mentioned unless you believe that being a bit stroppy carries a death sentence or sleeping it off in your own car is a capital offence. Your not making sense here.” -kevcvs57

This gross simplification of events that end in the death of black people indicates to me that you were missing 99.9% of the actual story. So it obviously wasn’t discussed nearly enough.

The “White” part of my story was critical because it appeared that you were so unbelievably misinformed about the sequence of events that took place leading up to the shooting of Brooks, that I should provide evidence that “white” people are indeed arrested for taking naps if they are simultaneously operating a vehicle and intoxicated.

@joe-shmo said
“There is no ‘provocation’ for killing someone other than those I’ve mentioned unless you believe that being a bit stroppy carries a death sentence or sleeping it off in your own car is a capital offence. Your not making sense here.” -kevcvs57

This gross simplification of events that end in the death of black people indicates to me that you were missing 99.9% of the actua ...[text shortened]... are indeed arrested for taking naps if they are simultaneously operating a vehicle and intoxicated.

No I think the only reason for the character in your story being white was to, not very subtly, Imply that black people are responsible for their own murders because of some congenital or cultural defect.
The obvious lesson to take from your anecdotal example being that both cases differed only in the reaction of the cops based on the skin colour of the arrestee.

@kevcvs57 said
No I think the only reason for the character in your story being white was to, not very subtly, Imply that black people are responsible for their own murders because of some congenital or cultural defect.
The obvious lesson to take from your anecdotal example being that both cases differed only in the reaction of the cops based on the skin colour of the arrestee.

"The obvious lesson to take from your anecdotal example being that both cases differed only in the reaction of the cops based on the skin colour of the arrestee."

See, I knew you were going to be dishonest...what you have said is a complete fallacy! Had my friend done what Brooks had done, he very well could have had the exact same outcome. It has nothing to do with the color of your skin and everything to do with how one physically responds to the idea of being arrested. I said nothing of any "congenital or cultural defect" of Black's. You are putting words in my mouth, now kindly retract your statement.