This is a tough issue for me. I have significant appreciation to both perspectives. I see problematic issues and examples that do resonate from each direction, and admittedly, I am wary of concentrations of power and authority. I am also quite unappreciative of some judicial decisions with findings that are antithetical with serious public safety and 'equal treatment or application under the law (or Constitution), in findings of 'the State's interests'..., and "the State, or law enforcement, having no duty to do or for this or that, and that officers may lie with impunity to citizens, when ordinary citizens may be prosecuted for the same, etc. Anyway, none of this can work out well unless we have righteous people of integrity and caring in these positions of power. I know this rant doesn't really help or clarify the issues or dilemma, but at least someone might respond with some helpful input that could help me see it more clearly.
Without qualified immunity, police officers will be sued into the stratosphere. Every action they take will not only be the basis for a lawsuit, but they will be on their own in a legal sense. The employing agency will not furnish legal aid.
Do you know many LEOs who can afford to keep an attorney on retainer, because I don’t. Cops don’t make enough to have every single action played out in court—even with their second jobs because most work a second job to help pay the bills.
So loss of qualified immunity will equal officers who won’t do much of anything because why would they risk everything for the hours and pay they get?
You should just call a social worker next time you’re assaulted or robbed. Cops can’t afford to actually police without qualified immunity. And that is the bottom line.
Really great article! Sorry I missed the X Spaces. I need to make the next one.
We plan to host more.
Roland,
Your impact and focus on this profession, the issues and solutions in the second chapter is having a real impact on the LE community, Thank You!
This is a tough issue for me. I have significant appreciation to both perspectives. I see problematic issues and examples that do resonate from each direction, and admittedly, I am wary of concentrations of power and authority. I am also quite unappreciative of some judicial decisions with findings that are antithetical with serious public safety and 'equal treatment or application under the law (or Constitution), in findings of 'the State's interests'..., and "the State, or law enforcement, having no duty to do or for this or that, and that officers may lie with impunity to citizens, when ordinary citizens may be prosecuted for the same, etc. Anyway, none of this can work out well unless we have righteous people of integrity and caring in these positions of power. I know this rant doesn't really help or clarify the issues or dilemma, but at least someone might respond with some helpful input that could help me see it more clearly.
Without qualified immunity, police officers will be sued into the stratosphere. Every action they take will not only be the basis for a lawsuit, but they will be on their own in a legal sense. The employing agency will not furnish legal aid.
Do you know many LEOs who can afford to keep an attorney on retainer, because I don’t. Cops don’t make enough to have every single action played out in court—even with their second jobs because most work a second job to help pay the bills.
So loss of qualified immunity will equal officers who won’t do much of anything because why would they risk everything for the hours and pay they get?
You should just call a social worker next time you’re assaulted or robbed. Cops can’t afford to actually police without qualified immunity. And that is the bottom line.
You're a rock star, Roland! Thank you!!!