
To Make Police Accountable, End Qualified Immunity - rchaudhary
https://thebulwark.com/to-make-police-accountable-end-qualified-immunity/
======
awillen
Crimes should be charged more seriously, not less, when they're committed by
police. This is only reasonable - any crime committed by an on-duty officer is
inherently more harmful that the same crime committed by a civilian, because
in addition to the damage of the actual crime, the officer's commission of it
also does harm to the public trust in the police and our society.

Beyond that, the police should be held to a higher standard because we as a
society acknowledge that they are trained well enough to walk around with guns
and the ability to deprive people of their freedom (even those who are
innocent - if you're locked in a cell and later not charged, you don't get
that time you spent in a cell back). We should be able to charge Chauvin with
first degree murder despite a lack of premeditation, because he was trained to
know not to do precisely what he did. If I kneel on a guy's neck and kill him
unintentionally it's manslaughter, but if a cop does it, it should be worse
because that cop should be expected to know that doing so is not an acceptable
form of restraint.

~~~
FireBeyond
So many double standards.

A police officer is allowed to "panic and fear for their life" and shoot me as
a result. I, as a private citizen, am expected to remain cool, calm and
composed in the face of multiple guns in my face.

Even more mundane things: if I break a law, "ignorance is no excuse". When
cops arrest photographers for shooting in public spaces, I have literally
heard government officials explain it away as "We cannot expect our police
officers to be constitutional lawyers".

~~~
thrwyppl
A police officer may be required to put his life on the line tens of times a
year. A private citizen may have his life on the line maybe once or twice in
their entire lifetime.

Violent crime is a scourge on America, with 15,292 homicides last year, not
including non fatal shootings and/or other violent crime. As part of their
job, police officers are called to deal with hardened criminals. There is a
high level of risk involved. Can we stop for a second and be a tad grateful to
the people that keep our neighborhoods reasonably safe?

'You've got a split second to decide whether the suspect is reaching for a gun
or not. Make a mistake one way and we'll send condolences to your family, make
a mistake another way and we'll throw you in jail for two decades. Make the
right choice, and we'll throw another one your way next week'. Who in their
right mind would take that kind of a deal? And if nobody in their right mind
would do, who's going to keep the tough guys from imposing their own rule at
gun point?

~~~
Jeema101
The occupation of police officer in the US is roughly as dangerous as being a
construction worker. Police aren't even in the top 10 most dangerous
occupations [1]. So this type of fear is not really justified and probably
contributes to the problem.

[1] [https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-
dangero...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/01/08/most-dangerous-
jobs-us-where-fatal-injuries-happen-most-often/38832907/)

~~~
lostmsu
Considering the number of occupations that is not really a good number.

~~~
dungdang
considering the comparison to a well known and broad job description
-construction worker, the list being used for this top 10 number does not have
a large number of occupations. and considering that you clearly undersdand
that, your comment is pushing a false narrative using misinformation. and
considering that this forum is not a place for calling people losers and
purposely dense clowns, i won't.

~~~
lostmsu
Yeah, no joke. There are several hundred occupations in the original report:
[https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0326.htm](https://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/cfoi/cftb0326.htm)

They likely picked the most dangerous ones.

------
fosk
I am european, and police in the US really is something else: the mindset, the
culture, the engagements. There needs to be a nation-wide police reformation.

~~~
WesternStar
We should start by repealing the 2nd amendment. It is a bad law. Edit: This
along with arm confiscation would limit force in police interactions and thus
lower aggression.

~~~
sumedh
> We should start by repealing the 2nd amendment

How should people protect their houses/shops when armed criminals try to rob
your place?

~~~
WesternStar
Call the police and have insurance.

~~~
sumedh
What should you do till the police don't come and who will help you out till
you get the insurance payout which is not a guarantee.

~~~
WesternStar
Well I didn't say you couldn't fight. My proposal includes confiscation.
Assume very aggressive pursuit of criminals with an unlicensed firearms. Like
multi-county dragnet with blocked roads. Like we get O(100) cops for one gun.
Most criminals will just probably keep it to cold arms.

~~~
sumedh
How exactly are you going to fight armed criminals with just your hands or a
knife?

Confiscation from lawful gun owners, why, what crime did they commit?

~~~
WesternStar
People with guns lose fights too. Cold Arms are easier to assess and much
easier to run from. Who said anything about a crime that's like asking in the
current regime cocaine users what crime did they commit. I'm not suggesting
arresting them. I want their weapons. They aren't using them to defend against
tyranny so what good are they.

~~~
sumedh
People can lose if they are armed or not armed so that is not valid argument
for not taking up arms.

> They aren't using them to defend against tyranny so what good are they.

They are using it to protect their homes and stores from rioters so they are
atleast doing something.

Its very easy to say take away their weapons but you dont provide a realistic
solution for defending life and property.

------
TeaDrunk
Another suggestion: Bolster social programs that is being hamfisted through
the justice system, necessitating larger police forces who don't have
deescelation training and are not legally obligated to know the law they
enforce.

Police don't need to bust someone for drugs if we have robust social programs
that adequately address poverty and addiction.

Police don't need to harass homeless people if we have robust social programs
that adequately address homelessness.

Police don't need to deal with severely mentally ill people who are
unpredictable and potentially dangerous if we have robust social programs that
adequately address the mental healthcare crisis in this country.

~~~
thephyber
> Bolster social programs

I think you are actually talking about dismantling more than half of the
existing criminal statutes. I agree that we should do it, but there's a reason
it hasn't been done before: there are still a ton of citizens who believe the
only way to deter crime/poverty is a bigger stick, not swapping a stick for a
carrot.

------
mnm1
Police officers, given that they have the power of life or death over others'
lives, should be held to a higher standard, not a lower one. Apparently, this
is still extremely controversial in America, where our culture insists that it
be the opposite way: hold police to a lower standard, let them steal, beat,
rape, and murder almost at will. In a sick society like this, one shouldn't
wonder why the masses are cheering on the burning of police stations and
courthouses. In a society like this, police are just the biggest gang and
frankly, any action against them is defensible ethically, if not legally.

------
howmayiannoyyou
We ask cops to be part social worker, part solider, part lawyer, part
investigator, part paramedic - and we pay them a salary for just one of those
professions at best. Law enforcement is a small part of the job many days.

It's time to create mission specialist in large police forces with depth in
these areas and to deploy them as teams of 2-4. Yes, there will be shortages
in coverage and that is okay.

~~~
seemslegit
"We" didn't ask them to be any of these things, especially soldiers - this is
power that they actively pushed for, there was no crime wave in the early
2000s when the militarization of police began in full swing - just a post-9/11
power opportunism and the need to find jobs for discharged soldiers.

Mission specialists always existed, they're called detectives.

~~~
thephyber
> there was no crime wave in the early 2000s when the militarization of police
> began

I would argue we started the militarization of police in the 1970s-1980s when
NYC was a festering hotbed of crime and when Miami drug dealers were shooting
automatic weapons during turf wars (which was when we started Civil Asset
Forfeiture... which allowed police/prosecutors to essentially steal assets
from civilians without a criminal conviction).

We gave surplus DoD weapons to police for cheap after 9/11 and judges started
rubber-stamping no-knock warrants around 2001, but I don't think that was the
only inflection point.

~~~
seemslegit
Not the only, but 1970s-1980s had a real crime emergency, the 2000s didn't
nearly as much.

------
ineedasername
I'm not sure about this. Maybe qualified immunity should be reduced in scope,
but I don't know about doing away with it. A police officer that tasers a
violent suspect should be immune from prosecution if that suspect falls and
hits their head, or has a heart attack. I don't see a way that police could do
their jobs without some version of qualified immunity.

I think that at least part of solution lies in better training on use of
force, massively increase training on deescalation techniques, better
psychological screening and continuous followups, full-time body cams that
don't turn off and are tamper resistant with appropriate logging of metadata
to detect misuse-- to the extent that if a complaint is made against an
officer and the camera is mysteriously not functional, the disciplinary burden
should be moved to favor the complaint. And probably other things too-- this
is not meant to be an exhaustive list of reforms.

~~~
Simulacra
I think that might be the logical end goal: Remove police from street
policing, and let communities police themselves.

~~~
thephyber
> let communities police themselves

This happened in the wild west and didn't work out so well.

~~~
vulcan01
At least, we should reinstate requirements that police should come from their
own communities...

~~~
thephyber
That might be an improvement in many places, but it would probably create
problems for San Francisco and San Jose, where cost of living is largely
unsustainable for people who make starting police salaries unless they lucked
into a family house.

We sometimes forget that officers get to choose where they want to work and
will migrate to the best place for them. The ratio between housing costs and
salary (among other quality of life factors) is pretty important to lots of
officers and we may end up lowering the quality of officers by only
restricting the pool of eligible employees.

------
codegeek
How about focussing more on teaching police officers to learn how to be calm
and composed as much as possible instead of going on the offensive too
quickly. Yes, there are times when you will "fear for your life" and have to
act with force but far too often our police officers are casual in going on
the offense. In many cases, it is just a case of being pissed off because the
guy/gal they pulled over is rude or verbally abusive or is not complying to a
request. Can you take a deep breath and agree that it is part of your job to
deal with idiots/crackheads/vulgar people as well and learn how to deal with
them without always flashing your gun or tasers ?

One thing the police do where I live is to do community get togethers to get
to know the actual people. It helps to reduce anxiety and stress. Yes I live
in a "nice" neighborhood so it is easy for me to say may be. But can we not
try similar police and public get togethers in the "not so nice" neighborhoods
? Is it not even worth a try ?

Also, be more strict in getting rid of bad apples which I believe this article
touches upon a bit. This specific police officer had a history of violence and
he should have been under more scrutiny that he was.

Until the respect is mutually created between police and public, no law on the
books can prevent these types of unfortunate incidents.

~~~
FireBeyond
> How about focussing more on teaching police officers to learn how to be calm
> and composed as much as possible instead of going on the offensive too
> quickly.

Most police departments do. In the area I work as a paramedic, they certainly
are trained in de-escalation.

I also know that some of them just... don't... care.

I've been dealing with mental health patients, got them calmed down, got a
plan for dealing with their issues. And then had a cop march back over (who
was on scene, saw the initial incident, the de-escalation), and start shouting
at the patient over the destruction of property. The patient's property. "Who
the fuck do you expect to clean up that broken glass? Selfish asshole. I
should make _you_ get on your knees and clean it".

End result? The patient who was compliant and willing to go for evaluation in
the back of my ambulance needed to be sedated and narrowly avoided being
tased. In the grand scheme of things, worse things have happened. But this was
a situation actively under control. And a situation this officer, and only
this officer, actively worked to make worse.

That incident resulted in a complaint, though I have no idea what the
resolution was.

~~~
codegeek
But that is the problem then right ? Conduct like that should have
consequences and today there is none. Cops should not abuse anyone even
verbally, period. That is their job to handle, descalate as much as possible.
Yes there are many good ones but I feel like there are many bad apples too and
it is not just a few anymore. It is the culture and mindset of "how dare you
challenge my authority or disrespect me".

I personally have come up against one cop like that many years ago and funny
thing is that I was actually trying to be compliant. He was just on his own
high horse and had made up his mind that I was drunk and forced me to take the
breath analyzer test. I remember specifically him asking me in a pissed off
condescending way "So you are telling me that this machine is going to show 0
reading??" and I was brave enough to say "yes sir since I didn't have any
alcohol for last few days at least". I guess I was lucky he didn't do more.
But man, he was pissed when he pulled me over for supposedly tailgating
him/his partner (It was 2 AM at night and I was coming home from a long drive
and was a bit tired and may have gotten a bit closer than reasonable to his
car from behind). He punished me hard for that. We went to court. He argued
that I seemed drunk and all I could do was like WTF. The point is that he
could have easily pulled me over and just asked me "sir is everything ok since
you got closer to my vehicle. " I anyway said "Officer I am sorry that I
didn't realize as I am coming from a long drive but I am now prompt and
aware". His whole premise was he had assumed I must be high/drunk since it was
late at night. That is a bad cop to me.

~~~
FireBeyond
Absolutely it's the problem. It should have consequences. And often, not only
does it not, but there is a non-negligible group of police who will "defend
their brother" over "doing what is right".

There are bad apples in Fire and EMS. We are not perfect. But Fire is proud of
a heritage cultivated over many long years of honor and trust, and when
someone in the Fire Service abuses that trust (be it theft, assault,
otherwise), the "thin red line" doesn't fold in to defend him against all
insult, real or imagined, but instead ostracize him.

------
dangoljames
Malpractice insurance and touchy premiums, fuck up, and you can't afford to be
a cop and a dept can't afford to hire you.

------
seemslegit
Or at least make it actually qualified.

------
jacobush
Was there a higher voted story about the same thing which just disappeared?

Or should we discuss some Javascript framework instead?

------
blackrock
The root problem is not the cops. Well, the abusive cops seriously aggravate
the problem. And the police is the enforcement arm of the system.

But the root cause is the economic system on which America is built, and which
it enforces throughout the world with its military, and enforces domestically
with its militarized police.

Predatory capitalism has run its course for the past 500 years. It’s all about
extracting from the poor, and feeding it to the rich, the well connected, and
the powerful. In this case, the rich are the white wealthy Americans, and they
have been at the top of the ladder for the past 300 years in America.

America needs a new economic system.

What’s the point of making $15/hour, or $30,000/year, when your rent costs you
$15,000/year, or 50% of your gross income? You barely have any money left over
for other mandatory necessities.

Meanwhile, the oligarchs that owns the stock market and Wall Street, and
Fortune 1000 companies, lives lofty lives, and Bezos is about to become the
world’s first Trillionaire. And if they fail, and screw up the economy for
everyone else, then well, they’ll just get another bailout. The poor ends up
paying for it, since costs go up for everyone.

But in an alternate universe, Floyd was arrested because he was suspected of
using a fake $20 bill. But somehow, he drives a Mercedes Benz SUV, which is a
rather fancy vehicle for someone to be driving, who’s suspected of using a
counterfeit $20 bill.

The rents are too high. The cost of living is too high.

The wealth distribution is not even. And what we have right now in America, is
run-away capitalism, where the rich takes all the money. And the poor, the
destitute, and especially the minorities continue to suffer.

This fosters a society where poor people are destitute, And they resort to
unlawful things, and the larger society mandates tougher cops and tougher
predatory criminal laws. Which feeds ever more on itself, in a vicious cycle,
until something finally breaks. And that’s what we have this week, with the
death of Floyd, and the nationwide protests.

If you can solve the economic system, then maybe, you can get cops who are not
afraid of minorities. But to be honest, I have little hope of either issues
ever being solved.

------
claudeganon
Verso has also made the ebook edition of Alex Vitale’s excellent “The End of
Policing” free:

[https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-
policing](https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing)

TLDR: any society which refuses to provide social democratic floors to people
will increasingly rely on violence to maintain its social order. You can’t
expect policing to be the primary means with which we deal with things like
the housing and healthcare crisis without disastrous consequences.

~~~
thephyber
> You can’t expect policing to be the primary means with which we deal with
> things like ...

I don't buy this argument because it removes agency from law enforcement
officers, who -- as a class of people -- very highly buy into the concept of
free will.

Right now, police departments have a significant amount of moral hazard. They
are expected to behave in a very legal and upright manner, but not all do and
those who don't are very rarely held legally or civilly liable. I think doing
something like removing qualified immunity (or at the very least just giving
DAs tools and directives to prosecute more egregious use of force problems) or
putting more of the police officers' wealth at risk (by tying their retirement
programs to the funds which pay out for violations of civilian rights).

------
throwawaygh
The textualism of the conservative justices is primarily just a rational
instrument for unwinding the liberal reforms of the Warren court.

