- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:10 am to wahootiger
Correct, because it's idiotic to suggest that a person who has to make a split second decision can be liable for violating something which a Court hasn't even determined to be a right.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:10 am to kengel2
quote:
Small percentage. Tell me how many cops get to choose? 0%
Huh? An Emergency Room doctor gets to pick who comes through the door?
News to me...
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:12 am to Jcorye1
quote:
Welcome to being a doctor, CPA, ect. Get some liability insurance.
None of those are pulling in $40k a year.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:14 am to tLSU
I am a lawyer and used to defend municipalities in 1983 actions, relying heavily on qualified immunity. I’m all about having a discussion on the pros and cons of the doctrine, but to say it is not a shield of civil liability (I realize you did not make that statement) when a right is violated is just not accurate.
And I think understanding what the hell we are actually talking about, as a collective society, is important now more than ever.
And I think understanding what the hell we are actually talking about, as a collective society, is important now more than ever.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:15 am to goofball
Qualified immunity gives police officers immunity from liability for certain unconstitutional actions. Arrest a man for a warrant which is unconstitutional on its face (alleged facts which negate the criminal offense)? No liability. Fail to give a severely mentally ill inmate her psych medicine so she stabs out both of her eyes with a pencil? Qualified immunity, no liability.
Eliminating qualified immunity would result in better training, better officers (the ones that cause problems with the public would get fired more often), and more accountability.
Eliminating qualified immunity would result in better training, better officers (the ones that cause problems with the public would get fired more often), and more accountability.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:15 am to Golfer
An emergency room doctor gets a medical review panel, including someone he picks, to determine if one can even pursue him.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:15 am to Jcorye1
quote:
Welcome to being a doctor, CPA, ect. Get some liability insurance.
99% of doctors, lawyers, and CPAs don’t work for the state.
Qualified immunity protects state and local budgets - and is absolutely necessary.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:17 am to chinhoyang
quote:
Eliminating qualified immunity would result in better training, better officers (the ones that cause problems with the public would get fired more often), and more accountability.
This is a ridiculous take. If you eliminate qualified immunity, the government would be footing legal bills and damage awards - not the individual officers.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:19 am to chinhoyang
quote:
Eliminating qualified immunity would result in better training, better officers (the ones that cause problems with the public would get fired more often), and more accountability.
Wrong
Eliminating qualified immunity will just result in lesser action so as to limit liability.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:26 am to goofball
Get rid of the "clearly established" prong of the test. If you violate someone's constitutional rights, you should be liable, period. The current state of Qualified Immunity in this country is fricking absurd, as it's now functionally impossible to bring a novel claim in a post-Pearson paradigm.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:33 am to Joshjrn
quote:
If you violate someone's constitutional rights, you should be liable, period.
You realize that an arrest is a violation/infringement of someone’s rights, right?
Posted on 6/20/20 at 11:37 am to brass2mouth
quote:
You realize that an arrest is a violation/infringement of someone’s rights, right?
I said, and I quote, "violate someone's constitutional rights". If you believe that a lawful arrest is a violation of someone's constitutional rights, please explain to me your reasoning.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 12:03 pm to Golfer
quote:
Huh? An Emergency Room doctor gets to pick who comes through the door?
They are a very small percentage of doctors.
Posted on 6/20/20 at 12:18 pm to Golfer
quote:
Huh? An Emergency Room doctor gets to pick who comes through the door?
Doesn't ER doctors have qualified immunity that you have to overcome?
Posted on 6/20/20 at 12:21 pm to jbgleason
quote:
QI isn’t about shielding someone who violates civil rights or commits a crime. It is about people not filing suit because they don’t like the way the officer resolved a neighbor dispute or a barking dog call.
Sure.
Jessop v City of Fresno
This post was edited on 6/20/20 at 12:22 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News