
For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection - leephillips
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-police-immunity-scotus/
======
Someone1234
Sir Robert Peel would be ashamed; this is in clear contradiction to principle
7:

> To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality
> to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public
> are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to
> give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in
> the interests of community welfare and existence.

People keep asking "how do we fix policing in America?!" Maybe start by
following common sense guidelines written in 1829 that still apply today.

The Peelian principles are akin to a "Policing Constitution." The closer you
get to its ideals the higher quality your policing is, and by that standard US
policing even outside of "abuse" falls well short.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles)

~~~
Mediterraneo10
The failure to implement Peelian principles in the USA is not an oversight,
but a deliberate decision that stems from the USA’s racial tension. When this
debate has arisen, white law-enforcement elites have claimed that Peelian
policing is inapplicable to the American context, because if black communities
were policed by representatives of that community (i.e. other blacks), then
the police would likely overlook much of the crime going on. The black police
officers would sympathize too much with the citizens they policed, they would
see both themselves and the local citizens as opposed to an outside white
world, and they would be unwilling to put fellow blacks before white judges
and prosecutors. (Not to mention that there has been enormous suspicion among
the US national-security apparatus about any kind of self-organizing among
black communities.) Therefore, critics of Peelian policing claim, the only
effective solution to ensure prosecutions for crimes would be to have these
communities policed largely by outsiders.

So, if you wanted to fully implement a more just form of policing in the
United States, you would have to somehow overcome this deeply entrenched
racist thinking. Yet unfair policing also drives racism, because it tends to
perpetuate among white society an image of minority communities as hotbeds of
chaos barely kept in check by a "thin blue wall". So, the result is a vicious
circle.

~~~
pstuart
Much of the crime going on is drug related, which is a manufactured crime that
was designed to make POC criminals.

End the war on drugs and a large chunk of crime magically disappears.

Obviously this doesn't address poverty from other systematic discrimination
but it does remove a key driver for criminal activity.

~~~
taborj
I'm not sure how much I agree with this. On the one hand, yes, you'll have
fewer arrests on drug charges, but you'll still have (or maybe have more of)
crimes _related_ to drug use, such as theft and assault. Addicts looking for
cash for a fix drop much of their moral compass.

~~~
ses1984
How much of current drug arrests are related to addicts looking for a fix?

Spoiler alert, it's a tiny fraction.

Theft and assault should still be crimes. Usage should not be criminalized.
Trafficking should be replaced with regulated commerce.

~~~
WarOnPrivacy
The prominent crimes here from addicts looking for a fix are panhandling,
vagrancy and trespassing.

~~~
ses1984
I don't think anyone is arguing that ending the war on drugs is going to
directly reduce these crimes. It may have an impact on these crimes from
second order effects, but to really tackle those crimes you would need to go
one step further than ending the war on drugs and replacing it with more
progressive policies.

------
LB232323
Even before this, cops in the klan have been murdering minorities with
impunity for a long time. This is what fascism looks like, no accountability
for state-sponsored murder of innocents.

If anyone is interested in American history: Before we had our modern police
departments, our earliest systems of law enforcement were actually slave
patrols and organizations called Indian Constables. These institutions are
rooted in controlling the behaviors of minorities. If you know your history,
you know that slavery and colonization never really ended. The 13th amendment,
world-leading prison labor system, and border camps are part of this living
legacy.

You can read more here:

[https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-
slavery-a...](https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/brief-history-slavery-and-
origins-american-policing)

~~~
teddyh
While I, like you, am against both state-sponsored murder of innocents and
fascism, I believe you are using the word “fascism” incorrectly here. In my
understanding of the word, fascism is a principle where corporations and the
state make common cause against the people, whom they seek to exploit or
control, respectively. This is not the same kind of thing as state-sanktioned
death squads; even though they might be equal in their offensiveness, one
should take care not to equate them. It is a grave mistake to bundle up all of
one’s dislikes and call them all the same; they are not. Many things are even
fundamentally opposed, but equally abhorrent.

~~~
Miner49er
> corporations and the state make common cause against the people, whom they
> seek to exploit or control, respectively.

That's exactly the primary purpose of the police. The police serves capital
and the state (which also serves capital) in order to exploit and control the
people.

~~~
heliheliheli
"serves capital" capital is a conscious entity here?

------
coldtea
With the biggest incarceration rate, greatest executions in all the west, and
biggest number of cops who kill people, it's amazing how ideas like being the
"land of the free" stick to the populace...

~~~
jariel
Actually it's not contradictory at all, it makes sense.

Whenever I visit America I'm astonished at how outrageous and uncivil some
people behave. They really do want to press their freedom against the rights
of others.

Carrying guns is the best example - it's an obvious 'freedom' that massively
complicated policing and everything else.

Police in the US are rightly very afraid when pulling over someone for
something petty like speeding because that person could be upset and have a
gun. Where I'm from cops are not afraid because nobody has guns.

The woman who defied 'stay at home orders' \- how do you deal with that as a
cop? She just wants to cut hair to make money to stay alive, but you have to
arrest her, which could lead to a confrontation with her and her 'supporters
with guns'.

An ideology of 'land of the free' will necessarily have excessive conflict at
the margins where said freedoms interdict with the ostensible freedoms of
others and you have law enforcement in the middle trying to sort it out in
sometimes ambiguous situations.

~~~
leetcrew
> Police in the US are rightly very afraid when pulling over someone for
> something petty like speeding because that person could be upset and have a
> gun. Where I'm from cops are not afraid because nobody has guns.

this sort of begs the question of why direct, in-person confrontation is even
necessary for petty offenses. there's always a risk that such an interaction
could go south, whether or not guns are involved. to write a ticket, all the
cop has to do is record the measured speed and identify the vehicle and
driver. with the tools available in 2020, they should be able to do this
without stopping the person to ask for their license and registration. save
the confrontations and arrests for when the person clearly poses an imminent
threat to those around them.

~~~
toast0
> with the tools available in 2020, they should be able to do this without
> stopping the person to ask for their license and registration.

What tools would those be? Specifically how do you positively identify the
driver without checking their ID?

~~~
abeld
You make the owner responsible. I.e. if the driver can be identified (or the
owner identifies the driver) then you can fine the driver, otherwise you fine
the owner.

------
ashtonkem
It’s my understanding that qualified immunity was created by the courts; there
is no law or constitutional clause that explicitly forms it.

I’d say that Congress should pass a law to wind back qualified immunity, but I
fear they’d just make it worse.

~~~
afthonos
"Created by the courts" is what opponents of any doctrine say about it. The
Supreme Court's view of it is probably quite different. :-)

In other words, I think the only ways to get rid of qualified immunity are (1)
to get SCOTUS to overrule their own quite recent precedent or (2) pass a
constitutional amendment.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
We have an amendment, the 14th.

"...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
_equal protection of the laws_ ".

If the law is interpreted as granting qualified immunity to police officers
under certain circumstances then it should apply to anyone else who meets
those same criteria. To carve out criteria that only applies to cops should
run afoul of the 14th amendment.

~~~
abduhl
Qualified immunity is a privilege that flows from the sovereign, not from the
individual rights of the police officer. Equal protection does not apply
because qualified immunity isn’t a personal protection but rather a
governmental protection necessary for the arms of the government (eg - its
employees) to carry out their function without fear of litigation.

So, it does apply to anyone who meets the same criteria: anyone who is a
government employee carrying out their job functions.

~~~
ashtonkem
In principle this makes sense; you shouldn’t be able to harass the county
clerk with lawsuits as they implement laws duly passed by state legislators.
There are other mechanisms to challenge laws.

The problem comes into play with lethal force, and how transparently thin the
excuses tend to be. Qualified Immunity defenses hinge on there being a
_specific_ law and precedence that the cops must have known about before doing
something illegal, a gross perversion of the principle that “ignorance of the
law is no defense”. This leads to clearly unjust situations where cops get
away with killing citizens or destroying their property, because there wasn’t
sufficiently narrow case law to overcome qualified immunity.

~~~
abduhl
I don’t disagree that qualified immunity has been extended way beyond where it
was even arguably appropriate, but I was just explaining why invoking the 14th
for its protections is not appropriate.

I am anti-QI, by the way. Not just the current QI reading, but essentially all
QI defenses.

~~~
ashtonkem
Aside from really hating how QI currently works, I’m not anti-QI in principle;
but in practice I suspect that what I’d like to see is legally unworkable.

Basically I’d love to see QI reserved for low-discretion and non-lethal cases.
So QI for a county clerk implementing the law as written, you should sue the
state over that, but no QI for police officers who might shoot a citizen. The
level of discretion and the consequences for each action should be a factor in
whether or not QI applies, IMHO.

It’s just not clear to me how that could be accomplished in the current legal
framework.

~~~
ncallaway
I think anything that can be _undone_ by the state should be subject to QI.

If the State takes money from you, maybe QI applies to that, because if the
State is in the wrong it can make you whole.

But if the State's agents take your life, or if they take your freedom, the
State cannot make you whole. Maybe, then, QI immunity should not apply. These
actions are irreversible and do irreparable harm.

Further, I think the "knowledge" aspect needs to be dialed _way_ back. Way way
back. It shouldn't be sufficient for the state agent to not know about a law.
For QI the State should need to show that its legal argument would have a
reasonable likelihood of success on the merits.

Courts already think about irreparable harm and likelihood of success on the
merits when they grant things like a TRO. I think QI could be workable if it
applied on similar grounds as a TRO. It's a test courts are familiar with, and
it's almost certainly enough to prevent nuisance lawsuits against individuals
reasonably discharging their duties.

~~~
sokoloff
I'm not the biggest "law and order" fan, but we are asking law enforcement
officers to make split-second decisions with limited information about the
intention of the people they're interacting with.

Even believing that government power must be carefully and scrupulously
limited, I would hesitate to put a police officer into a mindset where they're
adopting the obligations to enforce society's laws but where we force them out
somewhat naked in terms of support from that society.

~~~
afthonos
I think that’s only valid if there is actually a serious danger to being a
police officer. While officers really like to play up their dangerous job,
it’s actually quite safe, because it turns out most people know that killing a
cop is a stupid thing to do for a near infinite number of reasons.

A clear example is the common “split second decisions” scenario. No one is
complaining about shoutouts with drug dealers. They’re complaining about a kid
getting shot by a cop repeatedly trying (and failing) to kill the tied down
family dog. They’re complaining about correctional officers leaving people in
a room with their own feces for a week. Those are not split-second decisions,
yet they got QI. Using that trope is exactly like using child abuse as an
excuse to curtail privacy and other liberties: it’s a ploy to paint opponents
as morally reprehensible, because who could support _that?_

In fairness, _some_ version of QI is, in my opinion, necessary; we’ve just
gone way too far towards no consequences for egregious behavior.

~~~
sokoloff
100% agree with your last paragraph!

In terms of danger by the numbers, while commercial fishing is about 10x more
dangerous than police work, police work is about 10x more dangerous than
office work in terms of workplace fatality rate.

------
rsync
Anytime I hear people, in conversation, speak about police and draw any kind
of distinction between "Police" and "Civilians" (their language) I immediately
interrupt and correct them: _Police are civilians_.

As a firefighter/medic this is sometimes uncomfortable, depending on the
setting, but I persist.

I would like it if this pushback, in language, would grow and I encourage
everyone to make these corrections.

EDIT: to be clear, I am encouraging a distinction between civilians (like you,
or I, or police officers) and the military who are governed by their own code
of justice and held to a different standard of law and order.

~~~
gwd
> Police are civilians.

Well the police certainly aren't (or shouldn't be) military, if that's what
you mean. But there certainly should be a distinction made between the police
and a random guy with a gun who thinks the black dude that just jogged by is
the thief they've been looking for.

~~~
scarface74
For reference;

[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/video-appears-show-
georg...](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/video-appears-show-georgia-man-
shot-while-jogging-lawyers-call-n1201301)

------
typenil
Even before I had a family member killed by police, my rule of thumb has been
to only call the police in life or death situations - because the act of
calling them turns it into a life or death situation.

~~~
downerending
This is true. It's also true of firefighters and doctors (among others). The
decision to bring people like this should not be taken lightly, because even
assuming good intent on their part (which I generally do), you're giving a lot
of decision-making power to people that you don't know.

To give a specific example, I had a kid trapped once in a situation that I
became worried could be a tragedy if they weren't freed pretty quickly. In
pretty short order, I decided to call the fire department for help, and I
quickly had six experienced guys with lots of equipment to help. But, the
solution ended up involving using a rather large, nasty-looking circular saw
within a few inches of the kid's head. That in itself could easily have turned
out far worse, as blades can break, hands can slip, etc.

Sometimes there are no great answers. As techies, we're used to the idea that
we can take our time and usually try again if our first attempt goes wrong.
Those professionals, though, often operate under time pressure and get only
one chance to get it right. I wouldn't want that responsibility, myself.

I'm very sorry for your loss.

------
canada_dry
Also factor in that the courts have upheld that police forces have "no duty to
protect" per Lozito v. New York City [i].

It's pretty clear that policing in the US is broken.

[i]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksim_Gelman_stabbing_spree)

------
Ididntdothis
I really don 't understand why media outlets lately try to damage the reading
experience with all the weird scrolling stuff. They do excellent journalism
only to make it barely readable. Does anybody find this stuff actually good?

~~~
soledades
Personally I love it. Even when it doesn't work, I am happy to see the
experimentation. Not everything has to fit my usual forms of consumption.

For those who don't like it, a normal article is just a keyboard shortcut
away...

~~~
dylan604
and that keyboard shortcut is?

~~~
Ididntdothis
Maybe it should be reversed. The experimentation is only a keyboard shortcut
away for people who like to admire animations.

~~~
soledades
I think people should be free to create as they like. I don't think simply
because something resembles an article, it must be an article. Personally, I
would like to see pages that blur the lines between articles and virtual
interactive museum exhibits, but I certainly don't think that my preferences
should be the default. As long as there are the necessary accessibility
provisions (which also provide for you to be able to read any page as a
regular article), what gives? If you want a text based internet, use a text
based browser.

------
_pmf_
Nurses are spat on, thrown bodily fluid at, bitten on a daily basis. That the
USA practically abolished involuntary admission to mental wards is what
creates scenes like in the beginning of the article.

~~~
mariodiana
> Staff at the local hospital in tiny Madill, Oklahoma, called the police in
> the early evening of March 24, 2011, for help giving Johnny Leija an
> injection to calm him.

I don't want to jump to defend the cops, but you bring up a point that jibes
with my suspicion. Just look at that opening sentence to the article. Don't
you suspect understatement there? Hospital staff deal all the time with
patients who are upset because they're having trouble breathing, which is what
I'm guessing someone who comes in sick from a week with pneumonia might
exhibit. I'm quite sure calling the cops isn't their go-to protocol. So, if it
came to their wanting to give him an injection "to calm him," I think
responsible journalism would have tried to get a better picture of exactly
what an "un-calm" Mr. Leija was like. I doubt he looked like he did in the
first 7 seconds of that video.

That said, I am of a mind to believe that cops escalate too often, when they
could deescalate if they tried. The bottom line is, if you ask me, there is
more to this story.

~~~
FireBeyond
> I'm quite sure calling the cops isn't their go-to protocol.

You'd be entirely wrong. The major hospital in my state capital, where I work
as a paramedic for the EMS system, 400 beds, a 5 unit secure mental area in
the ED, serving a population of 200,000...

... has 4 security officers 24/7.

"Tiny Madill, OK" has a population of 3,000. The "hospital" is a glorified
urgent care ([https://www.alliancehealthdurant.com/alliancehealth-
madill](https://www.alliancehealthdurant.com/alliancehealth-madill)). If they
have 24/7 security, and that's a big if, as I've delivered patients to and
from similar hospitals in the outreaches of our county and surrounds, there
would be most likely 1 person.

And in those cases, absolutely calling LE is the go to. Hell, even my hospital
described above does, when someone proves problematic, violent.

> That said, I am of a mind to believe that cops escalate too often, when they
> could deescalate if they tried.

Very true. I train new EMTs and de-escalation is a big part of their patient/
scene communication training. I repeatedly see LE on calls I am on undoing
whatever de-escalation my partner and I have done.

~~~
mariodiana
> when someone proves problematic, violent.

This is exactly what I'm getting at, unless I'm misunderstanding you. "To calm
him" is a euphemism, is what I'm saying. I specifically described it as
suspected understatement. So, thank you. I'm even more sure now that I'm
entirely right.

~~~
FireBeyond
No, I don't think so - we still do, _when the resources of security, nurses,
EMTs and paramedics_ are exhausted, say someone in excited delirium. A smaller
hospital like this one has far less of this "buffer" so their first step for
any kind of potential restraint/sedation event in a behavioral setting quite
likely will involve calling police, from their own liability perspective, in
situations a larger hospital could likely handle more easily.

I am not advocating for this. I think LE has near zero role to play in these
scenarios except for the _very limited_ "poses an imminent danger to self or
others".

But in a town of three thousand people, I guarantee that when a behavioral
crisis escalates at the local "hospital" (I couldn't even find how many beds
it has, likely under 10), for better or worse, the police are being called.

~~~
mariodiana
Okay, thank you.

------
_bxg1
Beat cops don't need guns. The UK has proven that they can do their jobs
without them. Taking them away would not only remove the possibility of
inappropriate discharge, I'd bet it would reign in the subconscious power-
tripping that so many officers succumb to. When you could shoot somebody and
they can't shoot you I imagine you experience a sense of total dominance over
them, rather than a working relationship as an officer of the peace.

~~~
alehul
American here — we have more guns per capita than any other country in the
world.

In the UK, the criminals ~never have a gun (and less crime occurs), so it
makes sense that the police wouldn't need guns either.

In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very
often illegally armed.

It would make no sense to tell an officer "you can't carry a gun" when both
average citizens and the criminals have guns. While the UK undoubtedly has a
fine model for itself, it can't be extrapolated to a country where gun
ownership is so common.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> In the US, normal citizens are often legally armed, and criminals are very
> often illegally armed.

It's a fairly common occurrence in the US for the highway patrol to pull over
a driver for speeding, the driver has a firearm, the police issue a speeding
citation and everyone goes on their way.

How does that require the police to be armed? Do you think it likely that
typical motorists would be willing to shoot a police officer in order to avoid
a traffic citation? Or that the infinitesimal minority crazy enough to do that
are going to be deterred if the police are armed as well?

Ordinary police officers don't need firearms because ordinary police officers
are not especially likely to have anyone try to shoot at them.

The situation is different if they're executing a warrant on a meth lab, but
exceptional situations are exceptional and routine situations are not.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Don't they then become targets? There is a subculture of anti-police thought
and behavior in the US (witness this thread). Do the mental exercise: will
police injuries/deaths increase/decrease if they were unarmed?

~~~
tehwebguy
Cop killers are arrested and prosecuted in record time. The system throws the
book at them and even the book is heavier when the victim is a cop (enhanced
sentencing etc) even though the occurrence is rare.

Meanwhile, cops are murdering people with impunity at a rate of about 10x the
former.

"Police" is a subculture of anti-society though and behavior and for some
reason we keep giving them guns.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Nothing about that scenario refutes "cops need guns". Its a violent society;
the police are under attack in some places.

I don't like it; but it's not helpful to shout blame. Have to understand where
we are, to drive any change.

~~~
mrguyorama
Garbage collectors are 3x more likely to die on the job than a cop
[https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-
to-...](https://qz.com/410585/garbage-collectors-are-more-likely-to-die-on-
the-job-than-police-patrol-officers/)

~~~
JoeAltmaier
...and garbage collectors aren't armed! Thank you for the confirmation.

------
tigerBL00D
This topic is quite upsetting. I wonder if there is a technological solution.
Perhaps some sort of volunteer-run citizens surveillance network that uses
sensor fusion to collect and monitor police actions leading up to and during
confrontation in detail. Could that help make stronger cases against
brutality?

~~~
djaque
Well, I think body cameras are the most important technological solution.
Unfortunately they're still huge problems with how the footage is dealt with
and who is allowed to handle it. How many times have you seen police abuse
cases where the body camera "wasn't running" or the footage was "lost"? I
remember the NYT article a month or two ago about the police officer planting
cocaine. The only reason he was caught was because he tried to shut his body
cam off and didn't do it correctly. Unfortunately he still didn't receive
reasonable punishment, but we at least know about it because of the cameras.

------
boyesm
I’d argue the US has the best branding of any country in the western world. It
promises freedom, and the rewarding of hard work which can be very appealing
to people seeking a better life.

However, based off what I see in the media, a lot of these promises are not
true for oppressed groups or for people in certain areas. Like the use of
excessive force by police officers. It seems like this all comes back to
fundamental issues in the way some Americans think (that certain people are
better than others).

My question is, is there a way to correct these fundamental issues such as
racism (or more generally ignorance)?

------
darksaints
The police culture in the United States, enabled by these absolutely absurd
legal protections, is consistently the most embarrassing thing about our
country. We're famous for our police corruption and brutality, to the point
that the state departments of foreign countries have to warn their citizens of
interactions with police while visiting the US.

The portuguese-american community that I grew up in mostly consisted of people
who fled the fascist authoritarianism of Antonio Salazar, with the promise of
freedom and prosperity. They found the prosperity just fine, but lived here
long enough to see America become even more authoritarian than the Portugal
that they fled. It is interesting to me that many of them are leaving the
prosperity behind to return to Portugal, as it is now more free than we are.

~~~
rixrax
I consider every interaction and encounter with our law enforcement officers
as a potentially life threatening situation. I can’t imagine how it is for
people of color.

~~~
twomoretime
That's plainly hysteria and you're only encouraging unnecessary distrust.

The overwhelming majority of interactions with police for any race are benign.
You've been manipulated by a race baiting media.

~~~
Miner49er
The overwhelming majority isn't great when you're talking risk of death.

Someone survives playing Russian Roulette the overwhelming majority of the
time too. 5 out of 6 times, nothing bad happens at all. 1 out of 6 times, you
die. Is that also not something you would consider a "life threatening
situation?"

It's actually an interesting question. At what point does the risk of dying in
a situation make it "life threatening"? I believe something like 1 in 291
police interactions end up with someone in the hospital or dead.

[https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/b-upk072116....](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-07/b-upk072116.php)

~~~
twomoretime
1/6 is literally 2 orders of magnitude smaller than 1/291\. Nonsensical
comparison.

More importantly, how many of those hospitalizations/deaths are justified? You
realize that police are typically responding to _crimes_ and dealing with
_criminals_ who tend to be a little more violent than the average person,
right?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a bootlicker by any means, and I acknowledge there
are serious policing problems in the US. But seriously questioning whether
you're going to survive a traffic stop if you act reasonably is irrational
paranoia.

~~~
praestigiare
I do formal risk assessments as a part of my job, in a context where people
are often risking their lives. Both 1:6 and 1:291 as the chance of of severe
injury or death are both firmly in the highest risk category under most
calculations, meaning that for decision making, you should assume that it will
result in death. Yes, they are two orders of magnitude different. But the
comparison is not nonsensical.

~~~
twomoretime
Well then you are no doubt aware that these statistics skew overwhelmingly
toward those who are noncompliant, combative, and/or felons, correct? Such
that the actual rate for "average" people (including minorities, although
their rate may be higher) is probably miniscule.

------
lidHanteyk
The words "by wearing that badge, they're the chosen whites" [0] keep going
through my head. It disgusts me that the cop who is also a pastor has no
problem with their conduct.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGV1xYJFAEI)

~~~
LB232323
Police officers and police departments are made up of all ethnicities, same
goes for the owners of capital. Not all who profess faith are true to their
teachings. Just look at how the teachings of Christianity were used to
colonize America, the largest genocide in human history.

~~~
lidHanteyk
Oh, agreed. I am fairly anti-Christian, and I don't mean to say that cops
should be held to higher standards when they're pastors, but more that it is
despicable that a single person should both claim to be a source of moral
guidance and also a tool of state violence. It reeks of theocracy.

------
Shivetya
Cato and other Libertarian groups have long been trying to get qualified
immunity thrown out and while there is an odd uninformed dislike for Cato here
this article [0] is worth perusing simply for some of the links including a
good summary [1] why QI is unlawful including how it basically defies
Congress's attempt to protect people rights [2]

Don't think the SC is deaf to the issue, the amount of money from Police and
Sheriff unions defending QI is immense so when cases do land in courts the
expertise in representation is lopsided on top of courts favoring police in
most actions.

Also make sure not to forget, QI isn't just about cops. It also shields other
government employees who cause harm to people or their property

[0] [https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-
immunity](https://www.cato.org/blog/why-qualified-immunity) [1]
[https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en](https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1128553?ln=en)
[2]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983)

------
RickJWagner
What should the cops have done? Let him run amok, possibly injuring others?

They used a stun gun, not a gun.

If the cops had let the strong, mentally confused guy go on doing whatever he
wanted, it could have ended badly in any of a million other ways. Lose/lose

------
craftinator
Maybe we need to look into more practical non lethal weaponry for the police,
and remove their ability to carry a lethal sidearm. If we could develop a high
accuracy non tethered taser, or something that has good stopping power and a
decent accuracy at 25 meters, that would be a replacement. Then they could
have an AR15 locked in the trunk; if they know they're going into a really
high risk situation, it'll be there. But it won't be the first thing that they
reach for when a homeless guy is swinging around a broom handle in public.

~~~
gccxsse
Oh, no. Police rarely escalate the situation immediately. They waiting until
sufficient back up arrives before they draw multiple guns and shout
conflicting orders.

------
jeffdavis
Why is this a federal issue? Is there a federal law protecting state police?
Or some kind of Constitution or common law thing?

------
stallmanite
Just what we need more imbalance

~~~
eeZah7Ux
In the country with the highest percentage of prison population.

And the highest number of killings by police (per capita) by far.

------
BiteCode_dev
The chapters on the USA in history books of 2030 are going to be so heavy to
read:

<< Chocked by 9/11, they decided to implicitly discard the Habeas Corpus by
installing the Patriot Act and officially autorize torture. A temporary
measure that never got revoked.

Then, they went to war on the other side on the globe, spending a trillion of
dollars, against the UN vote, lying about WMD.

Meanwhile, they setup mass surveillance of their own people, and ruthlessly
attacked the ones speaking against it.

They elected Bush twice, and Trump, reinforcing every day anti-
intellectualism, fear, agressivity and violence as part of the country
culture. The medias, including news outlets and tv shows, followed since this
is what brought the biggest audience.

Injustice rose. While the poor had a hard time even getting decent health
treatment or diet and the black community compose most inmate population,
milked by a privatized social system, the powerful are exonerated from
accountability: rogue cops are not condamned, the Panama papers lead to
nowhere, Esptein died in prison, brankrupt giants are bailed out with
peoople's money and Trump was never impeached, staying the center of
attention.

Finally, the covid-19 outbreak stuck the country in recession, rendering tens
of millions of people incapable of producing revenue, tanking the oil price,
and elevating social tensions. >>

Since the US peace keepers seems to have a licence to kill, this is not going
to end well.

I'm glad I'm in Europe watching the show from afar. You have all my
compassion.

~~~
OldFatCactus
little hyperbolic and a tad too smug I think. I believe history will be a
little kinder, all things considered.

~~~
lidHanteyk
Look at current encyclopedia articles covering these topics [0][1][2][3][4][5]
and see for yourself what sort of facts are headed for the history books.
Parent is being very gentle on our neoconservative, neocolonialist, fascist,
disappointing legacy.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States#Habeas_corpus_in_the_21st_Century)

[3]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_Unite...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_surveillance_in_the_United_States)

[4]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_Group)

[5]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States)

~~~
OldFatCactus
You can find just as many atrocities and missteps of the law by scrutinizing
other 1st world countries. The West as a whole benefits from the system that
America has created and protects. History books will give just as much a shit
about this era as they have any other and while America has the most dirt on
her face, nobody is clean.

~~~
lidHanteyk
That's not where your original goalposts were; you were talking about
historical retrospectives of the USA in particular. You've now shifted to
whataboutism [0] in order to try to minimize the USA's misdeeds. Meanwhile,
I've already shown you what's in existing encyclopedic materials covering
recent USA history. What, precisely, do you think I've failed to articulate or
contextualize? Do you think that the USA's torture, war crimes, and mass
surveillance are somehow excusable merely because other states also commit
such atrocities?

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

~~~
OldFatCactus
No, sorry, my original comment wasn't super clear. I only meant that, in the
context of world events of this era, history won't overly scrutinize the USA
while it seems to be a generally Western problem. Not interested in getting
into a back and forth pasting Wikipedia articles, sorry dude

------
tahira0509
How

------
steve76
The article fails to show how dangerous those situations are.

A pneumonia patient walking through a hospital where people are recovering
from strokes and heart attacks.

Wrestling with a police officer on a busy highway.

You can close down municipalities or live in places where there are no police.
Then other people kill you for acting like a jerk. Beaten to death by the
nurses or blasted apart by oncoming traffic.

So much better.

------
freepor
On the one hand, cops shouldn’t get to kill unlawfully and say “I was doing my
job.”

On the other hand, if an Amazon engineer checks in a bug and AWS goes down and
a hospital loses its medical records and people die, we hold Amazon liable,
not the engineer.

~~~
whateveracct
Well yeah there is a difference between killing another human being in the
first person vs indirectly through corporate processes.

------
oh_sigh
90% of this comment section is reddit-level "amerikkka bad". I can't believe
this entire thread hasn't been culled yet.

------
djyaz1200
My sister is a DA so I hear the other side of this. Police are people and they
can get scared, angry, and make mistakes.

Deaths at the hands of police are always horrible but an important message
that is not broadcast clearly enough in every community is... NEVER RESIST
ARREST!

Never! When a police officer instructs you to do something just do it. If you
disagree with the order there is a mechanism to voice that disagreement called
the court.

If you defy a police directive they will use rapidly escalating force to make
you comply that can endanger your life.

This used to be pretty well understood and I think we need better public
communication about this. We also need to make sure the courts are more
accomodating to underprivileged communities because if people don't believe
the courts are fair then disputes are going to get settled in the street with
violence.

EDIT: On the other side I believe if a police officer contributes to the death
of someone in the line of duty they need to surrender their badge, even if
they played by the rules. If the other person loses their life you should at
least lose your job. That kind of incentive might discourage some of the
cowboy culture on their side that's not helping here.

~~~
zorked
Like you I also come from a third-world country and this sort of thing is also
the advice there.

Now I live in a much better country and I no longer have to fear the police.
Quite a change.

There is no way why this has to be the way it is. If you are afraid of the
police, it is the police's fault. Time to start arresting them and cleaning
up.

~~~
LB232323
There is something enlightening and deeply inspiring about how protesters in
Ecuador were able to detain the police themselves and order them to unequip
their riot gear. Among the crowd they were presented as equal to the
protesters. Many riot police are portrayed as faceless monsters hiding behind
riot masks and advanced military equipment.

It had never occurred to me that the people can win and detain the police, not
the other way around.

~~~
bob1029
This is the silent understanding that most police departments operate under
and produce optics to insulate against. They know its a 100:1 ratio at best
and if everyone in town decided no more police all at once, there's not a
whole lot the local sheriff could do about it without ramping directly into a
regional revolution.

This is why the police departments in America parade around in armored
vehicles and use absurdly overpowered weapons for regular duty. The intent is
to keep everyone thinking that the police are incomprehensibly overpowering
and could never be approached in a direct conflict. The reality is that it
wouldn't take much to wrest back control and they know it. The 2nd amendment
is your best friend if you are an American. You should NEVER have to use it,
but it's like your copy of the police having an M1A1 tank at the local
precinct.

Just like you have to worry that the SWAT team might arbitrarily come into
your house and end your life, they should have to worry that maybe one day
everyone in town is going to get tired of their shit and band together to put
an end to it all.

~~~
dantheman
And it's worked and happened in the past:
[https://www.npr.org/2015/09/23/442801731/director-
chronicles...](https://www.npr.org/2015/09/23/442801731/director-chronicles-
the-black-panthers-rise-new-tactics-were-needed)

