Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Police have QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. What is it?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
- Qualified immunity shields the police from civil suits for money damages unless certain conditions are met. But with multiple high-profile police shootings in the past few years and increased calls for greater law enforcement accountability, is it time for the Supreme Court to reassess the doctrine? Professor Fred Smith, Jr. of Emory University School of Law explains to Ingrid Bilowich how qualified immunity came to be and whether its justifications still hold up in the post-Ferguson era. For the full interview with Prof. Smith as well as legal explainers and interviews with the titans of law, visit www.talksonlaw.com.
► Patreon: TalksOnLaw is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at: / talksonlaw
► Facebook: / talksonlaw
► Instagram: / talksonlaw
► Twitter: / talksonlaw
____________________
TRANSCRIPT
FS: Qualified immunity means that when you sue a government official for violations of the Federal Constitution, you have to demonstrate that that government official violated clearly established law that a reasonable person would have known at the time of the violation.
Host: That’s a mouthful right there.
FS: Overtime, that’s become a harder and harder standard to meet. Because in some ways it depends on how we define clearly established law. So, if we say it’s clearly established that you can’t unreasonably seize someone or unreasonably shoot someone or-
Host: As one would think.
FS: Right. So, if we say that that’s clearly established, then you might say, "Well, okay. Well, anytime there’s an instance in which there’s been an unreasonable shooting, then you sue the person"-but no. So one needs to be able to demonstrate one of the following three things. One possibility is that there is a case that has previously been decided that has very similar facts.
Host: Precedent on the matter controlling law.
FS: Exactly. So, we can look and say, "Well, there’s this other case where the police officer did a shooting or engaged in shooting under the same circumstances essentially." Another possibility is that we can look at a legal rule from some prior case, and the legal rule is just so obvious that someone violated the legal rule that even if the facts were different, it doesn’t even matter. So there’s a case out of Alabama where the prison guards were putting people on what they called hitching posts. So they had these designated places outside where when they wanted to, they would put prisoners in the hot sun, and they would put them there all day sometimes. They would give them occasional sips of water, but just in hundred-degree weather, the prisoners would just hang on the hitching posts. There was no law about hitching posts, so there was no prior case about hitching posts.
Host: There was no precedent exclusively stating that you cannot tie someone to a hitching post.
FS: Exactly, right. It was an inventive way of violating people’s rights. But there was a precedent that you couldn’t engage in sadistic or malicious violence. And so, what the Supreme Court said in a case called Hope v. Pelzer is even though there’s not a case about hitching posts, there's lots of cases about sadistic and malicious violence, and it’s obvious that this is a violation.
Host: That this is what that is.
FS: Exactly. And then finally, another way is that the text of the Constitution might be really clear. Very rare that the constitutional text is so clear, right? Like, "The President has to be thirty-five years old." There are a few things that are, but most things are just not.
Time to reassess this doctrine since it's lead to so much abuse of power with police brutality and bad cops able to get away with some awful acts...
David Rozo thanks for the comment. I think the professor would agree.
the doctrine isn’t supposed to support “bad cops” as stated by DHS. And what abuse of power?
Oliver Johnson III I know what it is, I know cops abuse their power. At least a few do. Why are y’all generalizing cops as bad? Cops on the other side of the country have no idea what the fuck is going on.
Shut up Karen
the constitution has been shred into a thousand pieces and cast into the wind.
Good video. Just re-upload without music. Ruins it. This is a hot topic now with the protests ongoing, so everyone will be looking for videos about qualified immunity.
We listened an added the full interview with no music! ua-cam.com/video/F2-aDjEGEM8/v-deo.html
Seems like qualified immunity is unconstitutional
Freedom fromCruel and unusual punishment is a constitutional right
I was put in a pickle suit for four days with a woman and the toilet flooded twice we had to sleep on the cold concrete floor me naked because of refusing to wear it and it makes me sick to my stomach to relive it God awful and unusual punishment also I was on my way to babysit 11 yr old spring break 2020 and for about 12 hrs until I could call my mom to get her. My right s are Worth fighting for!!?!!! But I'm going to prison so nice to get that info to you because I'm not going down easy but so many have
who in the absolute hell chose the music for this
We will identify the culprit and he will be fired! JK but you're not alone. People don't seem to like the music. Here's the full interview, no music: ua-cam.com/video/F2-aDjEGEM8/v-deo.html
Thanks, this helped a lot with my civics project
Here to help :)
Fair evaluation in the citing of Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 (2002), a determination against the QI defense where there was not a “case on point”. This was a case where the “novelty” was introduced by the actions of the government authorities. Sometimes it’s a mix of plaintiff and defendant conduct which creates the novelty. Sometimes the novelty is introduced completely by the plaintiff.
I’m almost always skeptical of bandwagons. There’s a tendency to focus on some of the more sensational cases where lethal force is used. The reality is there are and always will be frivolous actions that are filed.
I wish that more thorough treatments of this subject were available that considered both and all sides of the arguments.
No one seems to want to talk about possible “unintended” consequences if QI where to be abolished. Currently, it can be code for “abolish the cops”. It’s a very emotional thing at the moment.
QI is a highly complex subject that is often treated in a cursory and stereotypical way. One thing that is often overlooked is the variety of outcomes in the QI determination. The way it is often presented by people who have lost 1983 actions is “they violated my rights and they got away with it because they had qualified immunity”. That is certainly a possible outcome of the determination. Another outcome is that there was no violation of rights on the first prong. That basically renders the second prong irrelevant to a large degree. But the officer may still be entitled to qualified immunity. In other words, the determination of qualified immunity doesn’t always infer a violation of federal law or constitutional rights.
Also in the mix are cases where qualified immunity is granted but the causes of actions could reasonably be dismissed or thrown out on summary judgment without the existence of qualified immunity.
Thanks for the nuanced comment and adding to the conversation. Are you an attorney or have read up on this area of the law?
@@Talksonlaw Thanks 🙏. I started reading a little bit of case law about two years ago...Not much though...I used to watch a lot of classic movies that I borrowed from the library. When the inter-library loaning system shut down because of COVID...around mid-March 2020...I started reading a lot more cases on my phone. I did read a lot of 42:1983 federal cases at that time and I still do. I slowed down a little for a few months but I’m starting to read more consistently again.
I try to focus it this way...1) The Human story in the case; 2) The reasoning used to resolve the issues before the court and 3) being able to have “conversations” about what I learn online...usually on UA-cam channels’ comments sections.
I’m legally disabled and this gives me a sense of doing something, learning, etc.
I need help I not a felon and I'm going to trial in 2022 is that so there's better chance of me losing my innocence
10/10
There was a case with a handcuffed man, held down on the street, deprived of air flow and blood circulation, resulting in death.
No fewer than 3 police officers stood by for more than 9 minutes, watching the murder, and doing nothing to stop it.
The system, paralyzed by the corrupting effects of QUALIFIED IMMUNITY, did essentially NOTHING for 4 days. They had so grown accustomed to being allowed to kill, they didn't know whether to do anything different. They were justifiably confused.
For 4 days the murderer remained free, being congratulated by his fellow police officers. Another job well done. Another safe return home for every police officer. Sometime ordinary citizens are killed, but OFFICER SAFETY IS PARAMOUNT. Our public servants.
Then came the rage.
Are hitching posts not cruel and unusual punishment?
Yes in the case the prof mentioned, they were found to be impermissible. Thanks for asking.
talk talk talk talk talk talk talk ... nothing happens ... talk talk talk talk talk talk talk
WOW!!! Our system is messed up!!!!!
Turn the damn music off
Anthony Garcia we heard you! Here’s a UA-cam link to the whole interview no music ua-cam.com/video/F2-aDjEGEM8/v-deo.html. :)
what is this music
Okay, this is great judiciously edited dialogue but why did you overlay it with this horrible distracting background music? I can barely get through this video.
We'll pass this on to our content creation team! Anyone else vote we ditch the music or just turn it way down?
@@Talksonlaw The music doesn't fit the subject and it is too loud.
@@Talksonlaw its fine, dont know why theyre complaining.
Makes the convo less professional
Please get rid of it. It is so distracting, makes it really difficult to concentrate on what is being said and makes me just want to stop the video. I would much rather there was no music. Thanks for asking for feedback :)
Are the police federal employees? Are all Law enforcement officers elected and sworn en? If the police affirm oath to Constitution why are they not upholding and invoking Constitutional Law? Why do some police despise people of the public who uphold and invoke Constitutional Laws, i.e. they refer to them as Constitutionalists or sovereigns as if those are bad terms🤔? Why does sovereignty matter to America? Was qualified immunity input into the Constitution after Congress became sine die March 27, 1861 as this was the end of dejure government? Was qualified immunity input into the Constitution after April 1861 when Abraham Lincoln enacted a defacto government? These are questions that need to be researched and answered and after researching and answering the questions properly certified letters need to be sent to the [supreme court] as a way to have the facts put onto the record or to have these facts brought forth with supporting case Laws.
The music on this piece is really distracting and pointless.
We listened an added the full interview with no music! ua-cam.com/video/F2-aDjEGEM8/v-deo.html
That music is distracting . It makes it difficult to pay attention
We heard you and are now publishing with MUCH LESS MUSIC.
What does this mean for George? Will there be justice?
Lol the cop got charged with second degree murder, he already got justice
Colton H charged is different than convicted my dude
@@Joshleslie871 bruh theres now way he gonna win tht case, he definitely goin to jail
Good question! As Colton mentioned, he's facing a 2nd degree murder charge, so he may face serious time in jail. Qualified immunity is about lawsuits and relates to getting the victims and their families money / compensation. Will his family be able to sue for damages? As the prof mentions, that's where qualified immunity can get in the way to protect the police, city, or state. A criminal conviction however would be a big help to any civil case from Floyd's family as the officer would NOT be able to successfully claim his actions were "objectively reasonable." Here's a link to the longform interview on the topic and we'll see if we can add the full vid to youtube as well. Watch free here: www.talksonlaw.com/talks/qualified-immunity-of-the-police
TALKSONLAW wow thank you this was helpful
Educate people about government officials immunity? If people knew, they would want to change what they see.
Thanks so much for the comment! But your UA-cam name... 😅
TALKSONLAW, my screen name is 1st Amendment protected. Seriously, teach people about immunity, it’s a real eye opener!
What about flipping the bird to a cop, is it free speech? Can you be arrested for free speech. No I have never done that before. Thanks.
Flipping a cop the bird is covered in the 1st amendment
We did a quick explainer on this: ua-cam.com/video/zNDlu-GbZiw/v-deo.html
wtf is this music
we have started publishing with less music these days... Thanks though!