Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
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
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 1972718" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>And yet it doesn't come up that often. I think that speaks to the overall professionalism of law enforcement as a whole. I think an obvious example where qualified immunity should be denied is Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor). That's an obvious abuse and violation of his oath of office. </p><p></p><p>Most cases of lost qualified immunity result from wrongful death suits where the officer acted outside the scope of their authority.. Here's a case where qualified immunity was upheld because the officer asserted it (it's an affirmative defense that must be asserted) and ultimately provided a reasonable explanation of the circumstances that led to his decision:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Here's a case where QI was lost:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See the difference?</p><p></p><p>Every state in the nation offers law enforcement a level of QI. However, QI being an affirmative defense, it's still subject to judicial review on a case by case basis. Why is QI offered? Here's an excerpt of a legal paper on QI in Maryland that sums it up nicely:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I won't bore everyone with the entire article, but here's a pretty good snapshot of the what, when and why of QI:</p><p></p><p><a href="http://lawenforcementlawyers.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/qualified-immunity-or-why-am-i-still-a-defendant-in-a-lawsuit/" target="_blank">http://lawenforcementlawyers.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/qualified-immunity-or-why-am-i-still-a-defendant-in-a-lawsuit/</a></p><p></p><p>Based on all this information, the court would have to decide whether it was reasonable and prudent to detain Mr. Draco Toter, based on the entirety of the information available to the officer at the time of the event. I believe that under those circumstances, QI would be applicable. Keep in mind that QI applies to individuals, not agencies. This is the reason most (if not all) tort claims list both the agency and officer as defendants. If discovery reveals that the officer acted outside the scope of their authority, acted with malice, etc., the officer will be swinging in the breeze without a net. If they meet the standards for QI, the agency can still be held liable for failure to train, failure to properly supervise, failure to enact necessary policies and procedures, etc. </p><p></p><p>It's a tricky subject and savvy officers do a credible balancing act between acting soon enough and with that force which is necessary, and becoming a slain officer statistic. I say this because one study found that "Officer Friendly" types were far more likely to be feloniously killed in the line of duty than more aggressive officers. Overall, the washout rate within 2 years of entering law enforcement is as high as 80%, and cop suicides outnumber those killed in the line of duty by a sizable number. Just some things to think about for those that want the cop fired or sued out of existence.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 1972718, member: 1132"] And yet it doesn't come up that often. I think that speaks to the overall professionalism of law enforcement as a whole. I think an obvious example where qualified immunity should be denied is Mike Nifong (Duke lacrosse prosecutor). That's an obvious abuse and violation of his oath of office. Most cases of lost qualified immunity result from wrongful death suits where the officer acted outside the scope of their authority.. Here's a case where qualified immunity was upheld because the officer asserted it (it's an affirmative defense that must be asserted) and ultimately provided a reasonable explanation of the circumstances that led to his decision: Here's a case where QI was lost: See the difference? Every state in the nation offers law enforcement a level of QI. However, QI being an affirmative defense, it's still subject to judicial review on a case by case basis. Why is QI offered? Here's an excerpt of a legal paper on QI in Maryland that sums it up nicely: I won't bore everyone with the entire article, but here's a pretty good snapshot of the what, when and why of QI: [url]http://lawenforcementlawyers.wordpress.com/2011/06/30/qualified-immunity-or-why-am-i-still-a-defendant-in-a-lawsuit/[/url] Based on all this information, the court would have to decide whether it was reasonable and prudent to detain Mr. Draco Toter, based on the entirety of the information available to the officer at the time of the event. I believe that under those circumstances, QI would be applicable. Keep in mind that QI applies to individuals, not agencies. This is the reason most (if not all) tort claims list both the agency and officer as defendants. If discovery reveals that the officer acted outside the scope of their authority, acted with malice, etc., the officer will be swinging in the breeze without a net. If they meet the standards for QI, the agency can still be held liable for failure to train, failure to properly supervise, failure to enact necessary policies and procedures, etc. It's a tricky subject and savvy officers do a credible balancing act between acting soon enough and with that force which is necessary, and becoming a slain officer statistic. I say this because one study found that "Officer Friendly" types were far more likely to be feloniously killed in the line of duty than more aggressive officers. Overall, the washout rate within 2 years of entering law enforcement is as high as 80%, and cop suicides outnumber those killed in the line of duty by a sizable number. Just some things to think about for those that want the cop fired or sued out of existence. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom