| ▲ | xvxvx 3 days ago |
| No disciplinary action for the cops involved in trying to convict innocent boys, and harassing one to the extent that he’s now dead. If their own freedom was on the line, they’d not be so motivated. Time to hold the police accountable: |
|
| ▲ | WarmWash 41 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| The question to ask is of the net harm on society would be higher if cops were hesitating at every move. The stories against the police are incredibly damning, but the statistics are pretty tame. |
|
| ▲ | emdash 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The legal system is literally incapable of holding cops accountable |
| |
|
| ▲ | nekusar 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Dont forget that the whole police qualified immunity was a fiction created out of nothing from SCOTUS. Its not federal law. Not state law. Pierson v. Ray (1967) is the start of this farce. And these police, due to non-law SCOTUS making shit up, are able to hound an innocent person for decades and suffer absolutely no punishments for that. |
| |
| ▲ | parineum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The right to an abortion was also a legal fiction "created out of nothing". | | |
| ▲ | soperj 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | So was woman's right to vote?
What's your point. | | |
| ▲ | seizethecheese an hour ago | parent [-] | | You can probably assume they’re using this as an example of an “invented” right that many here would agree with, to say it’s not necessarily a bad thing for courts to “invent” a right. | | |
| ▲ | nekusar 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Part of it is also congress won't do their job. So it leaves the courts legislating from the bench. And precedents can change as the wind blows. If anything, it's problematic. Like, why do cops have immunity? Why do they deserve it, and why does SCOTUS get to invent 'qualified immunity'? Of course, yet another person brings up Roe v Wade, and didn't read the briefs. The crux of that was that states had a patchwork of laws, and some of those laws required violating privacy laws. Abortion rights were predicated upon doctor-patient privacy. The briefs also stated that first trimester should be no issue for abortion, second is not recommended, and 3rd was at threat of life of mother. That's a pretty decent and well thought standard. And.... > So was woman's right to vote? Are you for fucking serious? Have you not heard of the 19th amendment? This isn't legislating from the bench. This is 'passes constitutional muster and is part of the constution' |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | andrewstuart 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In America are police essentially literally immune from the law? |
| |
| ▲ | tough 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Who watches the watchers? | |
| ▲ | parineum 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The answer is no. It's complicated because the District Attorney is usually responsible for seeing cases against police and deciding to bring charges but they rely on having a good relationship with the police. The high profile stuff you see on the news are the hard cases. Most of the time the instances where people say they got away with something are very biased takes that leave out a lot of context rather than a successful cover-up, though both do happen. People talk about qualified immunity like it's a personal shield for police but it's much more nuanced than you'll read about most places. Qualified immunity just says that the individual police officer has immunity from prosecution or liability in cases where they genuinely believe they are doing their job correctly. | | |
| ▲ | colejohnson66 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Not quite. The way courts have applied QI is: a cop can't be held liable if there's no legal precedent that what they did would violate one's rights. The specific wording is "clearly established". So if there's no legal precedent that punching an innocent bystanding (who's recording them) is a violation of their rights, then it's not "clearly established" that their rights were violated. Ergo, QI applies and the bystander's on the hook for his/her hospital bill. The absolutely absurd wrinkle is: courts often skip the rights question entirely. Since Pearson v. Callahan (2009), they can decide either "prong" first, but many decide only that the right wasn't "clearly established". As such, the underlying violation goes unruled on and precedent is never established. Rarely, courts hold the conduct so obviously unconstitutional that no precedent is needed and that QI doesn't apply. Those rulings are rare and often reversed on appeal, including by the Supreme Court. Even if they survive appeal to the circuit level, courts are under no obligation to "listen" to a ruling from a different circuit (it's how "circuit splits" happen). | |
| ▲ | gus_massa 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > has immunity from prosecution or liability in cases where they genuinely believe Why does it apply only to cops? If I'm drivind at 60mph in a 50mph zone but I genuinely believe the max speed is 60mph, do I get a fine? |
|
|
