Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
This is why we don't defund police
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Arcangl86" data-source="post: 75793642" data-attributes="member: 344714"><p>The test to overcome QI is very hard to meet. So they can be held responsible, but it almost never happens, because even if somebody clearly violates the law, that's not always enough to get around QI. This case is a good example of that. <a href="https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf" target="_blank">https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf</a>. </p><p></p><p>Even if QI didn't exist, remember that cops are generally speaking indemnified by their agency or city/county, often with lawyers also payed by the government. So they aren't on the hook anyway. Even if that wasn't true, I can't think of a single reason that Cops should not be held to the same level of responsibility as anybody else. Honestly, I think an argument can be made that since they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, they should be held to even higher standards, but that's not a hill I'm willing to die on. </p><p></p><p>But government service is the only job in this country where you can harm somebody in the performance of your duties and neither you or your employer are responsible as long as you meet a very low standard. Police, and other government agents, should be treated the same when it comes to liability. Use the negligence standard even. If they acted in a way that a reasonable person would know violated a person's rights, then they are liable. Nice and simple, and it's already a well established legal standard.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Arcangl86, post: 75793642, member: 344714"] The test to overcome QI is very hard to meet. So they can be held responsible, but it almost never happens, because even if somebody clearly violates the law, that's not always enough to get around QI. This case is a good example of that. [URL]https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/09/04/17-16756.pdf[/URL]. Even if QI didn't exist, remember that cops are generally speaking indemnified by their agency or city/county, often with lawyers also payed by the government. So they aren't on the hook anyway. Even if that wasn't true, I can't think of a single reason that Cops should not be held to the same level of responsibility as anybody else. Honestly, I think an argument can be made that since they have a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, they should be held to even higher standards, but that's not a hill I'm willing to die on. But government service is the only job in this country where you can harm somebody in the performance of your duties and neither you or your employer are responsible as long as you meet a very low standard. Police, and other government agents, should be treated the same when it comes to liability. Use the negligence standard even. If they acted in a way that a reasonable person would know violated a person's rights, then they are liable. Nice and simple, and it's already a well established legal standard. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
This is why we don't defund police
Top
Bottom