An end to Qualified Immunity?

[rifleman 61]

I can see both sides of the argument here. On the one hand, you need to be able to sue and prosecute a bad LEO who abuses their powers, but on the other you need to protect the honest LEOs from frivolous suits by people looking to make a quick buck. Given the level of corporate and public support for reform, how do folks here feel about it?

Ben and Jerry's founders support Qualified Immunity reform

[ryoder 1,381]

It already ended here in CO:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/06/21/colorado-passes-landmark-law-against-qualified-immunity-creates-new-way-to-protect-civil-rights/

Edited February 1, 2021 by ryoder

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I agree that there are two sides to this issue.

I think it can be reformed without being totally ended.

The article in the OP talks about 'split second decisions'.

 

How about shooting someone in the back?

How about blatantly false search warrant affidavits?
How about going to the wrong address?
How about 10 minutes of kneeling on someone's neck?

NONE of those fall under the 'split second' thing. 

[BIGUN 1,050]

10 hours ago, rifleman said:

Given the level of corporate and public support for reform, how do folks here feel about it?

We had this discussion around June of 2020. Most of us agreed that "Qualified" and "Sovereign" immunity should be removed.  Being immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution allows those in positions of power to act outside the law.  

[sfzombie13 307]

47 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

We had this discussion around June of 2020. Most of us agreed that "Qualified" and "Sovereign" immunity should be removed.  Being immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution allows those in positions of power to act outside the law.  

yet another incident that proves that my theory that "all zero tolerance policies are bad", since nobody should be immune from a lawsuit if they did something wrong.  either that, or everyone is immune every time.  it just makes sense that to be fair, one has to have all rules applied to everyone. 

[nwt 131]

12 hours ago, rifleman said:

you need to protect the honest LEOs from frivolous suits

Everyone needs protection from frivolous lawsuits, not just cops. If current protections are insufficient, they need to be fixed for everyone, not just cops.

Even an honest cop can make a mistake through negligence, causing harm to an individual who should be made whole.

I don't see two sides to this at all. Immunity is bad.

[wmw999 2,116]

36 minutes ago, nwt said:

I don't see two sides to this at all. Immunity is bad.

I do, but mainly because there are abusive suers, and we don't have a good way to deal with them. But that "qualified" needs to be much more seriously qualified. It's messy, and any completely clear guidelines are just going to be gamed in the future.

Wendy P.

[ryoder 1,381]

2 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I do, but mainly because there are abusive suers, and we don't have a good way to deal with them.

Sure we do; Just as the English have a better solution for how to control traffic at intersections, they also have one for lawsuits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)

[nwt 131]

10 minutes ago, wmw999 said:

I do, but mainly because there are abusive suers, and we don't have a good way to deal with them. But that "qualified" needs to be much more seriously qualified. It's messy, and any completely clear guidelines are just going to be gamed in the future.

Wendy P.

We currently have a system where frivolous lawsuits are denied all the time. If you mean to assert that this system is not working well, could you explain why you think so?

Why are cops deserving of more robust protection against abusive suers than everyone else? Why shouldn't we all have the same level of protection? Why not doctors?

[okalb 78]

48 minutes ago, ryoder said:

Sure we do; Just as the English have a better solution for how to control traffic at intersections, they also have one for lawsuits:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_rule_(attorney's_fees)

That is definitely better that what the US currently has, but it still has issues. For example, years ago I was sued by a business partner. There were three partners total. One of them was not contributing in any way and costing the business money. Myself and the other partner decided she needed to go. Based on the value of the business, we made her a very fair offer which she refused and didn't even try to negotiate. She filed a lawsuit for millions. The case dragged on (because she wanted it to) for 4 years. She cost us over $250K in legal fees. In the end, a judge awarded her a total of $15K which substantially less than we offered her in the first place. Because she was awarded a settlement, she technically won the suit. So, we would still be responsible for the $250K in legal fees that it cost us to defend against the lawsuit, plus her legal fees.

 

[nwt 131]

3 minutes ago, okalb said:

That is definitely better that what the US currently has, but it still has issues. For example, years ago I was sued by a business partner. There were three partners total. One of them was not contributing in any way and costing the business money. Myself and the other partner decided she needed to go. Based on the value of the business, we made her a very fair offer which she refused and didn't even try to negotiate. She filed a lawsuit for millions. The case dragged on (because she wanted it to) for 4 years. She cost us over $250K in legal fees. In the end, a judge awarded her a total of $15K which substantially less than we offered her in the first place. Because she was awarded a settlement, she technically won the suit. So, we would still be responsible for the $250K in legal fees that it cost us to defend against the lawsuit, plus her legal fees.

Why would it be wrong for you to pay her legal fees in this example? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think it's not as obvious as you think, and it's better to not force everyone to make assumptions about what your argument may actually be.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

24 minutes ago, nwt said:

Why would it be wrong for you to pay her legal fees in this example? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think it's not as obvious as you think, and it's better to not force everyone to make assumptions about what your argument may actually be.

Learning how the game is played can be expensive. Often times the winner in a threatened legal action can be predicted early on just by observing who will be able to pluck the heart strings the loudest. The main thing is to not let yourself get too wrapped up in who is right or wrong. The main thing is, that if you want to settle, you need to know what your true cost of defense will be if you lose. That's the number you are working with. If on principal you have no intention of settling, and you damn well might, then the money is spent and no bitching later. Seems to me a $15K settlement against $250K plus a lot more in defense fees was a poorly fought case. Never forget Rule #1: Courts are no place to go for justice.

[okalb 78]

1 hour ago, nwt said:

Why would it be wrong for you to pay her legal fees in this example? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just think it's not as obvious as you think, and it's better to not force everyone to make assumptions about what your argument may actually be.

The woman was brought in as a rainmaker. 2 years later she hadn't brought in a single dime of business. We made her an offer of $75K to go away. Given the value of the company at the time, it was a fair offer. She sued for millions. This is a small business and that was more than several years of our gross. She dragged the suit out for 4 years just to cost us as much as possible in legal fees. We spent $250K defending ourselves from the lawsuit. In the end, the judge awarded her $15K just to finally put an end to it. Why should I be responsible for her legal fees? She already cost me $250K in my own fees just to be awarded $15K when I offered her $75 in the first place.

Edited February 1, 2021 by okalb

[ryoder 1,381]

2 minutes ago, okalb said:

The woman was brought in as a rainmaker. 2 years later she hadn't brought in a single dime of business. We made her an offer of $75 to go away. Given the value of the company at the time, it was a fair offer. She sued for millions. This is a small business and that was more than several years of our gross. She dragged the suit our for 4 years just to cost us as much as possible in legal fees. We spent $250K defending ourselves from the lawsuit. In the end, the judge awarded her $15K just to finally put an end to it. Why should I be responsible for her legal fees? She already cost me $250K in my own fees just to be awarded $15K when I offered her $75 in the first place.

I think there is a "K" missing.

[okalb 78]

Just now, ryoder said:

I think there is a "K" missing.

Thanks!

[okalb 78]

28 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Learning how the game is played can be expensive. Often times the winner in a threatened legal action can be predicted early on just by observing who will be able to pluck the heart strings the loudest. The main thing is to not let yourself get too wrapped up in who is right or wrong. The main thing is, that if you want to settle, you need to know what your true cost of defense will be if you lose. That's the number you are working with. If on principal you have no intention of settling, and you damn well might, then the money is spent and no bitching later. Seems to me a $15K settlement against $250K plus a lot more in defense fees was a poorly fought case. Never forget Rule #1: Courts are no place to go for justice.

Unfortunately, we didn't have a choice. She just wanted to punish us and there was nothing that she would have accepted from us to go away. We made her a fair offer to buy her out of the business in the first place. When someone sues, you pretty much have no choice but to settle or defend yourself. She wouldn't settle, so we had to defend. She dragged it out for 4 years to inflict as much pain as possible. 

[Phil1111 908]

There is a reason why there are so many "ambulance chasing whores" running around. They have experience sniffing out Ben Franklin's wherever they can be found. That relates to why many large corporations pay "greenmail". Even though they may have in-house council seemingly doing nothing. Nobody probably knows this better than trump. In addition there's the well known "golden rule" which trump is also aft to use.

[airdvr 197]

2 hours ago, okalb said:

The woman was brought in as a rainmaker. 2 years later she hadn't brought in a single dime of business. We made her an offer of $75K to go away. Given the value of the company at the time, it was a fair offer. She sued for millions. This is a small business and that was more than several years of our gross. She dragged the suit out for 4 years just to cost us as much as possible in legal fees. We spent $250K defending ourselves from the lawsuit. In the end, the judge awarded her $15K just to finally put an end to it. Why should I be responsible for her legal fees? She already cost me $250K in my own fees just to be awarded $15K when I offered her $75 in the first place.

But you could have offered her anything shy of $325K and been ahead.  I know, hindsight is 20/20.

I'm involved in a battle right now to try and force a home builder to honor the agreement we had.  I'd rather not get the legal eagles involved and settle this man to man and move on.  The legal fees could easily exceed the agreed commission.  I've learned over the years there is no guarantee the judge will see things the way you do.

 

ETA...W/R/T immunity.  While I'm in agreement in principle I think it might get alot tougher in the future to find folks who want to wear the uniform.

Edited February 1, 2021 by airdvr

[okalb 78]

Just now, airdvr said:

But you could have offered her anything shy of $325K and been ahead.  I know, hindsight is 20/20.

I'm involved in a battle right now to try and force a home builder to honor the agreement we had.  I'd rather not get the legal eagles involved and settle this man to man and move on.  The legal fees could easily exceed the agreed commission.  I've learned over the years there is no guarantee the judge will see things the way you do.

I don't think there is a number that we could have afforded that she would have accepted. Her goal was to cause us pain and she accomplished that. The worst part is she changed attorneys every 6-12 months. They took it on a contingency because she kept convincing them there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There wasn't and once they realized it, they would drop her and she would find another. In the end, I assume her lawyer got 33% of the $15K settlement. I doubt he was very happy.

[BIGUN 1,050]

On 1/31/2021 at 10:27 PM, rifleman said:

prosecute a bad LEO who abuses their powers,

There's just some shit that makes my blood boil. Cops (as in plural) pepper sprayed a nine year old child. WTF. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-did-it-yourself-officer-tells-9-year-old-girl-n1257630 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

7 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

There's just some shit that makes my blood boil. Cops (as in plural) pepper sprayed a nine year old child. WTF. 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/you-did-it-yourself-officer-tells-9-year-old-girl-n1257630 

Yup. Can you even imagine the outrage if this young girl had been white?
(or imagine that it would have even happened to a white girl?)

[JoeWeber 2,294]

On 2/1/2021 at 6:44 PM, okalb said:

I don't think there is a number that we could have afforded that she would have accepted. Her goal was to cause us pain and she accomplished that. The worst part is she changed attorneys every 6-12 months. They took it on a contingency because she kept convincing them there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There wasn't and once they realized it, they would drop her and she would find another. In the end, I assume her lawyer got 33% of the $15K settlement. I doubt he was very happy.

Man, I have ridden this stubborn damn mule too many times to see what you believe. Angry plaintiffs with a hard on for a large dollar payoff are everywhere until they sit in front of a contingency fee lawyer. I'm thinking you either had a shit case and got off lucky at 15 grand, or you were taken to the cleaners by your lawyers because you were foolish and ripe, or you refused to settle when the getting was good.