“qualified immunity”

Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Public House › “qualified immunity”

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • June 19, 2020 at 10:55 am #116773
    Avatar photowv
    Participant

    The sticky subject of legal “Immunity.”

    qualified-immunity:https://theintercept.com/2020/06/12/qualified-immunity-police-wayne-jones/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=The%20Intercept%20Newsletter

    “This Has to Stop”: Court Rejects Qualified Immunity for Officers Who Shot Wayne Jones 22 Times
    Jordan Smith

    The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived a federal civil rights lawsuit this week against police in Martinsburg, West Virginia, vacating a lower court ruling that had granted five officers qualified immunity in connection with the murder of Wayne Jones. “This has to stop,” Judge Henry F. Floyd wrote.

    The opinion forcefully rejected the officers’ contention that they shouldn’t be forced to defend killing Jones, which they called a “split-second” decision after he’d refused to comply with their lawful orders.

    The idea of qualified immunity for police is that they can be insulated from charges of violating a person’s constitutional rights when they could “reasonably believe” that their actions were lawful, and it has been front and center amid protests and calls for reform since the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers on May 25. Though not immediately relevant in that case — the four officers have been criminally charged — qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that regularly shields officers from facing any civil sanction for using excessive force. The Justice in Policing Act of 2020, filed by House Democrats on June 8, seeks to do away with its sweeping protections.

    In the Jones case, the officers argued….see link…

    June 19, 2020 at 12:02 pm #116778
    waterfield
    Participant

    I’ve been down that road on qualified immunity in federal court. Conservative judges who want to protect officers will look to the words “”clearly established” federal law or constitutional rights. ” That means if the officers have a reasonable belief that their conduct does NOT violate “clearly established…” I’ve had judges ask “is there any prior legal decisions on the conduct at issue so as to give the officers notice that they were in violation of clearly established law? If you think about it that is a tough standard to overcome since each case brings a unique set of facts. The counter argument is that the victims specific constitutional right to not be harmed by intentional governmental conduct is being violated and thus there is no need to look to case law for the identical facts.

  • Author
    Posts
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Comments are closed.