Qualified Immunity and you: it’s a confusing failure – Everything Law and Order Blog

In this video I explain what Qualified Immunity and why it fails at life. In case you actually care to understand what Qualified Immunity is. It is a defense to civil (I.e., not criminal) civil rights lawsuits against government officers (mostly police). It’s a work of legislation from the bench by the SCOTUS first issued in 1967. But in reality it’s a confusing failure which nobody understands.

A recent Yale Law Journal study found that out of 1,183 lawsuits against police officers over a period of 2 years in 5 different federal courts, found that the defense was only raised 37% of the time, and even then only ended in dismissal of the case in 3.6% of those cases.

Almost none of the rest of the 1,183 cases resulted in any police officer even having to contribute to awards against them, even where the officer was fired or prosecuted.

Ironically, much of the country is debating whether Qualified Immunity is the problem. It’s a problem in that it’s a pointless, confusing and failed example of judicial activism. It should be addressed, but it has absolutely zero to do with George Floyd.

READ MORE: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2020/06/22/what-is-qualified-immunity-and-why-does-it-fail-at-life/

thecivilrightslawyer.com

source

By elboriyorker

HOSTING BY PHILLYFINESTSERVERSTAT | ANGELHOUSE © 2009 - 2024 | ALL YOUTUBE VIDEOS IS A REGISTERED TRADEMARK OF GOOGLE INC. THE YOUTUBE CHANNELS AND BLOG FEEDS IS MANAGED BY THERE RIGHTFUL OWNERS. POST QUESTION OR INQUIRIES SEND ME AN EMAIL TO elboriyorkeratgmailcom (www.phillyfinest369.com)

11 thoughts on “Qualified Immunity and you: it’s a confusing failure”
  1. The largest problem you have as an attourney are indoctrinated conservatives which will almost always side with law enforcement. Conservatives are often just as blinded by indoctrination as liberals. That it why I call myself a constitutionalist. I defend the rights of the people against an overbearing government. I use facts and critical thinking to determine what is tight and what is wrong. I am also a huge proponent for jury nullification.

  2. Thanks for the explanation of qualified immunity. I somewhat ,got something understood about it ,but still tax payers have to pay for mistakes (or not mistakes) of a police officer.

  3. Thanks for the video… Sometimes…Perhaps often…People complain about qualified immunity because they don’t have a very good claim in the first place. It’s easy to say…”The Officer did something illegal but he had qualified immunity”. Many times people point to the more outrageous examples but ignore the many cases where an officer didn’t have qualified immunity. Sometimes the officer will have immunity for one part of a claim and not for others (Turner v. Driver is an example).
    A week to explain qualified immunity… I’ll jump out on a limb and say that one could study QI for years and still have gaps…otherwise lower courts wouldn’t be reversed in QI cases.

Comments are closed.