They are talking about personal liability. The officer is sued personally, not the city, county or state.
ISU Gambling Megathread
- Thread starter Cyclonemaniac
- Start date
Medical practitioners are required to carry their own malpractice insurance for this reason. Same should go for this case. Why should the taxpayers be responsible for payouts to fellow taxpayers for the wrongdoing of the police?
Your scenario is not the same as what happened in this case. The officers in this case knowing violated the rights of the student athletes. The officer in your scenario ran into an innocent on accident. There should be repercussions for both but the repercussions should be vastly different.
Based on the article, it sounds like the court actually found the opposite. That while this is a violation, this was something that had never come up before and so the officers wouldn’t and couldn’t have know this was a violation. That’s why they got qualified immunity
That's interesting. Can this same ruling be applied to private citizens who break the law but are ignorant of the law they are breaking?
I’m not sure a private citizen can get qualified immunity, and I may be going out over my skis on this, but I could see a losing defendant in a civil case of first impression (so you’re being sued for something that the court has never ruled on before) not being assessed punitive damages (damages that are imposed to act as a deterrent/punish the defendant for engaging in the behavior). Which would be kind of similar
Well in most cases in any job, that happens then yes. If you round the corner and plow into someone in your company car, your company is going to pay for the damages, if you do it in your personal car, you probably are going to be liable. No one cop or not should be immune to responsibility.
But that being said you are talking about an accident, vs intentionally, ignorantly, or negligently, violating the law and a persons constitutional rights.
In most cases yes even in an accident, someone is liable for damages. But in the case of intentionally or by sheer ignorance or negligence not only should they be liable, they should be criminally charged. Cop or no cop.
If you violated someone's rights, whether you knew better or not, you would be criminally charged. If you hold someone against their will it is kidnapping etc. If a cop does it in violation of the constitutional rights of the person, it should be no different, especially since it is their job to know better. Being a cop they are supposed to actually know the laws and the constitution, so they should be held to a higher standard it IS THEIR JOB.
Except as a COP, they should know the law, the constitution and the rules.
And in this case giving the Cop immunity also limits their municipalities immunity.
Fact of the matter is, if you dont know the law, the rules, or the constitution, or if you have such an ego that you cant keep your power trip in check you have no business being in any form of law enforcement. This has been the problem for too long, to many egomaniac, ignorant, and down right bad cops giving law enforcement a bad name. Throwing qualified immunity out the window would be a good start to getting rid of the bad apples.
These cops that actually get held accountable and lose their job, just go somewhere else and do it again. If you get fired for being a bad cop, you should lose your certification, so you cant be a LEO anywhere again. Same goes for a lot of jobs. Where they restrict what you can tell a new employer about an employee, when they get fired and look for a new job.
I have met some great cops, and they deserve a lot of credit, I have also met some absolute garbage human beings that are cops and somehow as bad as they are, they somehow keep their job.
Ignorance of the law does not make it legal.
If you are driving down a road, that you have never been on before and dont konw the speed limit. If you are driving 20MPH over the limit, it is still illegal, you will still get pulled over, you will still get a ticket. etc.
That is the whole point, qualified immunity should go the way of the dodo. There should be no such thing for ANYONE. No one is above the law, and too many bad cops use it to be exactly that.
Except that really isn’t ignorance of the law. It’s that it hasn’t been decided if it’s against the law in the first place
Sounds like the takeaway here is as long as you do bad things in new and unique ways you can get away with it.
I think that can be said about almost anything. And when you have a case like this you establish said precedence.
But throwing out the case doesn't do that, it passes the buck down the road, because the judge doesn't want to set the precedent.
Every law gets broken a first time, that doesnt exactly mean its a free pass. Someone always is the first person to be held accountable.
Right, this case is now precedent. So the police can’t use the same reasoning next time
That's convenient, considering all those people whose constitutional rights were trashed. And the yahoos that did it get away scot-free.
Again, the precedent should have been set that these officers never work in law enforcement again, and they are held responsible for the damages. Just like any other private citizen would have been if they violated someone else's rights.
NCAA: Six hoops players banned for betting plots
Six former men's college basketball players at New Orleans, Mississippi Valley State and Arizona State participated in gambling schemes that included game manipulation or sharing information with known bettors, the NCAA announced.
