Here is an example... https://ij.org/press-release/police-stole-225k-in-cash-and-coins-and-the-courts-said-okay/
There are thousands of examples and I say get rid of it. Hopefully we can get the legislation passed... "Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) said Sunday that Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) has told him the Senate’s policing reform proposals may address the doctrine of qualified immunity, despite Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) saying the White House considers the issue a “poison pill.” “I know the heart of Tim Scott, and senators like Sen. Braun, who said to me ‘qualified immunity’s on the table,’” Booker said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We are one body in the United States Senate, and people of good heart and good spirit, regardless of what the president does. He can veto a bill, but we should come forward in this moment in history.” "Booker said the legal doctrine, which shields government employees from civil liability for actions taken on the job, “allows a case in Washington where a pregnant woman, seven months pregnant, was dragged into a street for not signing a parking ticket and Tased three times, no accountability.” https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday...tor-has-told-him-qualified-immunity-is-on-the
I'd posted elsewhere Amash's house bill (or the promise of such) erasing Q.I. Here's the latest: https://reason.com/2020/06/11/justi...ripartisan-support-to-end-qualified-immunity/ (trigger warning: glamorous, wind-swept Amash looking sexy picture)
I am sure there are cases where the officers are doing everything proper but something occurs that can spark a lawsuit (especially in our litigious society). It also protects them in a "good" shoot or in a situation where they hurt someone inadvertently while properly performing their duties.
I'm sure there are cases like that that does NOT protect private company or citizen. If society is concern about "litigious nature", why not expand it to cover all? Why should the gov get a special treatment? The balance is already in the gov favor in that the gov has almost unlimited fund (to defend) vs an individual or a company. If that was the goal, it has gone beyond that and I can't think of why we want to continue to have QI - to provide protection for gov to steal from the people?
So... in the case I referenced, the USSC had already refused to take it up last month. Here is my lawyer son discussing a bit about it...
"Tucker Carlson Might Want To End Qualified Immunity If He Actually Knew What It Was": https://reason.com/2020/06/26/tucker-carlson-qualified-immunity-fox-news/
Following quotes from Tucker... "There are a few problems with the statement, the largest being that it is not true."
I'd like to see a compromise on this .... If the cop or government official is found to have acted criminally he'd forfeit QI. Otherwise , let it stand.
