Search Results: moving forward

I frequently hear calls to end qualified immunity, but due to the context in which I frequently hear these calls, I suspect those calling for it to end don't know what qualified immunity is.

For instance, I've seen in videos of controversial shootings where people in the comments called to end qualified immunity. This demonstrated that they don't know what qualified immunity is.

In simple terms, qualified immunity requires that the plaintiff is able to articulate how the officer violated their constitutional rights as well as clearly established laws before a lawsuit can move forward against the arresting officer.

I have yet to see someone call for an end to qualified immunity who can answer the question correctly as to what it is and it appears that they're assuming what it is by how it sounds and granted, the name does sound overreaching.

Qualified immunity does not in any way protect officers from being investigated for misconduct, facing criminal charges if necessary, nor does it stop people from moving forward with a lawsuit against the department, rather it only protects officers from civil lawsuits where the plaintiff can't articulate that their rights were violated.

Everyone should have this in my opinion as nobody should be able to punish someone by making them lawyer up and remain in limbo for however many years it takes for the lawsuit to settle if the plaintiff is unable to articulate that the defendant violated their constitutional rights in any way.

Do you support qualified immunity?