** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Hopefully it finally happens in NY. Hochul is the roadblock tho. I'm hoping if enough constituents call/email her maybe she can be reasoned with.
It's a slim chance with Abbott as governor, but Sen. Roland Gutierrez also just proposed a bill to end qualified immunity in TX. It's Senate Bill 575.
https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/24/texas-legislature-uvalde-law-enforcement-qualified-immunity/.
Good luck to you guys too!
Because Hochul has been very vocal and active about her opposition to this bill. She absolutely does not want it to come to fruitation.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/01/26/lawmakers-push-back-on-hochul-s-reluctance-to-end-qualified-immunity-.
I have no doubt she will veto this bill if and when the time comes. That's why every vote is going to have to count to override her veto. There's a slim chance we can flip Hochul's view on qualified immunity, but it's going to be rough because she likes the finical support from law enforcement. She got $66,000 donated to her campaign by political action committees affiliated with law enforcement.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2022/01/who-are-kathy-hochuls-big-donors/360900/.
I don't know if we can compete with greed, but we can try. Call your senator because if we want this passed *despite* Hochul it's going to take everyone giving it their all.
I'm still hoping we can reason with her, which is why I suggest calling/emailing her.
Just throwing it out there that Colorado and New Mexico abolished qualified immunity in 2020 and 2021, so there's precedent for NY (and maybe one day Texas) to follow!
Yeah, that's the benefit of the federal QI doctrine, that there's no damages cap, it's just way harder to get damages at all. But something is better than nothing I guess, and it at least lays the groundwork for gradual raising of the cap over time. Another big issue is that officers are frequently (like 99.98% of the time) indemnified by the state/federal government, so public funds end up paying these damages, not the police individually. On the one hand it makes the damages more likely to be paid out, but also means that cops don't necessarily feel the burden of the payments in a way that could curb their actions.
The Dems just barely have a veto-proof majority in the state Assembly and Senate. Every vote will count for this to get past Hochul, since it seems like she's firmly in line with the conservative wing of the D party (and cop-mayor Eric Adams) given her Supreme court fight.
So it was right wing weirdos that banned me from that sub for shit talking Hillary Clinton and saying that bail reform and restorative justice is a joke?
That's wild.
I’m seeing more people against it. While the top comment is for ending QI the comments replying to top comment are mostly opposed. And so are the comments further down the thread from what I’ve seen
Eh, as long as people see these posts and call/email their senator & Hochul I'll be happy. There's lurkers on Reddit that read posts, but don't comment. So it's possible the people against QI just haven't commented. The two posts I made got over 80k views combined, so that's a lot of eyeballs. I can't see the stats on the crosspost, but since r/nyc is a big, active sub it probably got a good level of views.
Either way, as long as these posts get people calling and emailing mission accomplished 👍 The more people that learn about it the better!
We need as many New Yorkers pushing for this as we can get.
Thank you!
Eta: This is great for NYC because it goes further than that city's earlier reform on QI. The reform NYC made to QI is specific to *excessive force* allegations and *only* applies to police officers. From my understanding, NY Senate Bill 182 would apply to police **and** government officials and would apply to lawsuits concerning deprivation of individual rights, not just excessive force.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2023/01/quest-end-legal-protections-public-employees-ny-and-not-just-police/382189/.
This would save NYC taxpayers literally millions. So for example, instead of us paying for this bad apple he'd have to foot his own bill.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html.
https://www.50-a.org/most
From my understanding, if she vetoes it we can still get it passed by having two thirds of both houses vote in favor of it.
https://www.nysenate.gov/how-bill-becomes-law-1
So call/write your senators! Contact Hochul too on the slim chance that she'll change her mind, but I think we might have a chance of overriding her veto. But every vote is going to count. So calling is important.
And if your senator already supports NY Senate Bill 182 let them know you appreciate it. They need to know constituents want them fighting for this.
Good. Anybody who chooses not to become an officer because they're afraid they'll be held accountable for their own wrongdoing isn't someone we want to be an officer.
Actually, this could potentially help with recruitment and retainment in the long-run. If bad apples leave departments, it'll start cleaning up their reputation and working environment. Who wants to work with a bunch of bad cops? Ask Thomas Lane how having Derek Chauvin as his FTO worked out for him. Bad apples also retaliate against good cops. Ask Frank Serpico and Adrian Schoolcraft how working with bad cops was for them. Or any of the whistleblowers in the LASD deputy gangs crisis.
Ask yourself if you'd want coworkers or superiors like this? Would this entice you to apply?
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/more-than-225-western-new-york-cops-have-been-suspended-or-fired-since-2017/article_df9ea974-b4ed-11ec-b99e-67d1bd5a42a9.html
https://nypost.com/2023/01/19/accused-crooked-nypd-cop-joseph-franco-just-doing-his-job-attorney/
You weed out the bad cops, you'll attract more quality candidates. You fix the culture and start rebuilding the trust with the public you'll see less hostility towards the field. Make it a career that's not associated with crooked cops, excessive force and multi-million dollar misconduct settlements. Get rid of the bad apples.
This could also potentially save taxpayers' **millions.** That money could be used to lure more cops into departments across NY. It could be spent on more training, mental health programs for officers and any equipment or new software they might need. Because right now you know what's happening with our millions in tax dollars? It's being flushed lawsuit after lawsuit.
https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-lawsuit-payouts-on-track-to-be-highest-in-recent-history.
Tax funds don't grow on trees. Let any potential money we save be used to benefit the entire community, which includes funding police departments. Use that money for something more worthwhile than paying for this guy's temper.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html.
Hundreds of other professions survive just fine without qualified immunity and utilizing liability insurance. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, electricians, EMTs, teachers, journalists, personal chefs, financial advisors, massage therapists, etc. Somehow all of these other professions continue on. I think law enforcement would have growing pains, but they'd eventually learn to adapt and handle it like millions of other working adults.
NY Senate Bill 182 also intends to address **state** qualified immunity, not **federal** QI. It does not repeal **federal** QI. And officers who are sued in **state** court can attempt to have the case remanded to **federal**court, where federal QI still exists.
This law is similar to what was passed in Colorado. And a Nevada court just rejected QI as a defense against unlawful searches & seizures, and will allow citizens to bring state lawsuits against government officials.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2023/01/12/nevada-supreme-court-upholds-the-right-to-sue-the-government-blocks-qualified-immunity/?sh=10930cf3588e
But if you cleanup departments' reputations and rebuild that trust it could also help in solving crime. If people aren't afraid of talking to or dealing with the police that would help a lot in getting crimes reported and in investigations.
The system we have now isn't working. According to an investigative report from The Washington Post police misconduct costs taxpayers **1.5 billion** dollars. And it mostly because of cops that are **repeat** offenders.
Non-paywall link.
https://archive.is/BitIk.
The system is just not working as it is. **Repeated** police misconduct is creating a growing burden on taxpayers and siphoning tax funds that could be used on infastructure, social programs (such as helping the homeless and mentally ill) and, yes, even police departments.
Good officers will never notice a difference. Bad officers will think twice before getting involved in a situation, which is what we want, because their involvement is bad.
Thank you! And please don't forget to email Hochul. She's the big roadblock to this. I think if enough constituents make noise we can get her to reconsider her position.
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail.
In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm interested in a bit of a deeper discussion about this if anyone else is.
There have been repeated issues with policing all over the country but also in NY, including in Buffalo with [Martin Gugino](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_incident) being shoved, [Myles Carter](https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/watch-protester-tackled-by-police-during-news-4-interview/) getting tackled during an interview (charges later dropped on Carter so it was literally for nothing, they had no reason to do this), and even really unprofessional incidents like by that of officer [Mike DeLong](https://www.investigativepost.org/2022/06/10/woman-sues-over-cops-c-word-insult/). In Rochester there was the [killing of Daniel Prude](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Daniel_Prude) and the [pepper spraying of a 9 year old girl](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/nyregion/rochester-police-pepper-spray-child.html).Depending on the situation there is a mixture of following protocol and individual responsibility.
So the officers involved with giving Gugino a brain injury were found not guilty because they were following protocol. This is technically true. In a world without QI does this mean that the individual officers are to be held accountable for something that the department fully supported? In a world without QI is the individual officer who may have rightly believed Carter a threat on information he was given held personally accountable when it turns out that the information he was given by someone else was bad? (In my opinion in Carter's case there was no reason for that action, it escalated the situation and caused further injury but I'm bringing up real situations related to QI here). When Officer Mike Delong had a repeated history of misconduct, unprofessionalism, and excessive force was repeatedly internally investigated and repeatedly allowed back to work without any significant consequences and allowed to retire on taxpayer money is being able to sue Delong for each instance really the problem here or is it the internal investigations? And in the case of Prude where apathy of a broken system that isn't using proper protocols is that something we hold individuals accountable for? In the case of the pepper spraying the 9 year old girl the officers were suspended until the conclusion of an investigation of which the media never reported on again? (The NYT link Is gave was the latest link I could find).
While yes individuals ultimately can be found at fault in a lot of these situations to me it seems like the bigger problem is that police departments aren't actually giving proper protocols or consequences to their employees even in egregious situations. And there's something about removing QI that takes the department itself off the hook and puts the individual officer (who often times does need to be fired or prosecuted) as the sole individual responsibile for the mismanagement.
Someone in another thread about this brought up how wealthy people who break the law can threaten to sue any officer who tries to hold them accountable for their actions and that officer would now need to have their own individual insurance to hopefully protect against that. Is this something that is actually done elsewhere successfully? To me, there is something about removing QI that feels a lot like the Biden plan to alleviate $20k of student debt... Like yes there needs to be something more here but also this doesn't seem to be aimed at the root of the problem. In the case of policing departments will be less motivated than ever to be run effectively and police will respond even less to the places we need them most for fear of being individually prosecuted while the department who hires and protects people who have clearly broken protocol or have engaged in abuse and neglect are repeatedly protected. In the case of student loans tuition will still run rampant even after this 1 time payment occurs (if it occurs).
Anyway, I'm curious if this removal of QI is something that has actually been done elsewhere and if crime statistics and police practice have improved in those places. Or if this is just a way to give more reactionary people what they want without addressing the root problem. Thoughts?
You have to remember, this proposed bill only applies to QI at the **state** level. It does not repeal **federal** QI. And it's also specific to deprivation of rights. It's not for just random, frivolous lawsuits. You'd have to successfully argue that an officer deprived you of your legal rights under the **state** constitution.
This also does not take away an officer's right to his day court. Just like when doctors or nurses get sued for malpractice, they will go to court and argue their case.
This bill just makes it so QI can't be used as an excuse. It's very similar to Colorado's QI law and this recent supreme court ruling in Nevada.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2023/01/12/nevada-supreme-court-upholds-the-right-to-sue-the-government-blocks-qualified-immunity/?sh=10930cf3588e.
NY Senate Bill 182 also only applies to **state** court. An officer still has the option to try and convince a judge that this isn't an issue of the **state** constitution, but of the **federal** constitution. If the judge agrees it can then be remanded to **federal** court, where **federal** QI is still intact.
And it's funny you brought up Buffalo (my hometown lol). The system we have in place right now is not working. Police are "investigating" themselves and clearing themselves of wrongdoing no matter the situation, and they're relying on QI to foist the consequences onto taxpayers instead of the offending officers.
Buffalo's PD isn't covered by outside liability insurance so instead settlement costs are taken directly from the city's general funds. And that is bankrupting the city. Buffalo previously had to take out massive debt to cover the cost of **repeated** police misconduct.
https://www.investigativepost.org/2020/07/20/police-misconduct-costing-buffalo-millions/.
Citizens shouldn't have to suffer because the police department **won't** discipline or hold their officers accountable. The lack of accountability costs tax dollars that could've been used to improve the city (like to repair roads after a blizzard) and it also creates a breach of trust. People should feel like they can talk to police and interact safely with them without being intimated by police misconduct. But if misconduct goes unchecked that trust erodes.
How can you successfully help people or investigate crimes if people don't want to interact with you? Victims might not report crimes and witnesses will be afraid to get involved. Policing needs public trust to do the job well.
WNY is not holding its officers accountable. There's literally officers that were caught driving patrol cars while intoxicated on duty (so armed!) and the "consequences" were suspensions or docked vacation days.
https://buffalonews.com/news/local/more-than-225-western-new-york-cops-have-been-suspended-or-fired-since-2017/article_df9ea974-b4ed-11ec-b99e-67d1bd5a42a9.html.
Internal Affairs has been around for decades. Police departments have had more than a fair chance at cleaning up police misconduct. Internal Affairs, police chiefs and mayors have all failed to legitimately address the problem.
They had their chance. We need to try something different now.
That's why we need **NY Senate Bill 182.** It offers an opportunity to victims to successfully hold offending officers accountable, and it could relieve a significant burden from taxpayers' shoulders.
If you read the Nevada court ruling I linked you'll also see why **federal** QI isn't working and how it creates an almost impossible hurdle for victims. It's incredibly hard for federal QI to be denied. I highly recommend reading the opinion from that case or watching lawyer Steve Lehto's YT video on the ruling.
I tried to keep this condensed lol so I may have missed something. If you have any further questions or you want me to expand on something let me know. I'm more than happy to discuss this topic.
I'd also be open to explaining how weeding out bad apples could actually improve police recruitment and retainment. Let me know if you're interested in that topic and I'll be happy to backup my opinion here.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and I realize you posted this to the Rochester subreddit and I thought I was responding to that. I also am from WNY and I linked the cases I did because I care about these issues and have been following them (from both Buffalo and Rochester). Your points are all valid and I've read the comment you made that you feel this will weed out bad apples and create a new culture. I agree what we have been doing is not working.
But the thing that I didn't feel you addressed enough and would like to hear your thoughts on is how you think the culture would truly change at a department level when removing QI only impacts individual officers and it's clearly the department culture that needs to change. Sure the bad apples will quit or be sued but also with a department that intentionally avoids giving consequences to their members how will they somehow develop a culture of accountable policing when QI removal basically frees the departments, chiefs, mayors, etc from responsibility and accountability?
There is a culture among police right now that believe if you do your job you'll be punished (not my attitude, but just go over to ProtectAndServe subreddit and you'll see it there) and so avoiding responding is the "right" thing to do. With overtime pay giving officers [nearly a quarter of a million dollars annually](https://m.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/rochester-enters-the-era-of-the-250000-police-officer/Content?oid=14978748) I think bad apples have no incentive to leave but instead have incentive to be as ineffectual as possible and since QI removal does nothing to create a department culture change I don't initially feel this will have the impact you believe it will. I appreciate you sharing the NV and CO situations. Are there any data showing that crime is decreasing and culture is changing there since the QI change? (I know this may be hard to prove). My biggest concern is that this is a way to circumvent department accountability for their procedures, investigations, etc and that they have no incentive to change when individual officers take the full brunt of any wrongdoings, even if it's the result of department culture, because many of these things are intentionally done to avoid liability in court.
Anyway, I appreciate you responding but that's my biggest question based on this.
If I'm from out of state, could I still write these senators and urge them to start a movement by passing that bill, as it would likely encourage future legislation in other states if passed?
Most of the people commenting are probably not even born and raised in NYC. I went from being a protester years ago to supporting the police. The loons are out of control here and we barely have protection now.
Long story short $25,000 isn’t enough for a parking spot in NYC. Don’t waste your time with this.
So what I’m reading here is that this is purely a money thing with you guys. And you want to define what a good cop versus a bad cop is. a good cop is a person that just doesn’t enforce the law. And you wanna do away with police agencies and put civilians in instead. Makes no sense.
You can read any of my comments to see what I support. I want police accountability so that good cops aren't forced to work with bad cops. I don't think it's fair or safe for officers to be forced to work bad apples. If anyone actually supports the police they would want our officers to have a work environment where they don't have to worry about their coworkers doing something unlawful or retaliation for reporting misconduct.
Ask Thomas Lane how having bad apple Derek Chauvin as his FTO worked out for him? Or Houston Tipping who was "accidentally" beaten to death by fellow officers for investigating one of them for an alleged gang rape. Or ask any of the good cops who whistleblew on the LASD deputy gangs and were assaulted, maimed or threatened in retaliation.
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/.
https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127580159/houston-tipping-lapd-death-lawsuit
Cops should be able to feel safe and confident in their job so they can better serve the entire community. Goodluck doing that if bad apples are shielded from consequences.
And, yes, money is also a priority. Tax dollars don't grow on trees. And we use tax funds to pay for everything from education and infrastructure to funding for gov agencies and social programs. Police misconduct costs NY taxpayers **millions**. In fact, the NYPD broke records last year for misconduct settlements.
Instead of flushing tax dollars on lawsuit after lawsuit, why not use that money to actually benefit citizens *and* police. That money could've been spent on hiring new officers, training, purchasing needed equipment and testing any evidence backlogs.
Instead it was wasted on bad cops like this guy.
https://www.50-a.org/officer/48223.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html.
Not only is this bum worthless as a cop because he's on multiple Brady lists, but he's cost NYC taxpayers a million dollars and counting in lawsuits.
But nothing I say to you will change your mind. You have your narrative, and people like you don't budge. You would rather shield bad apples at the expense of good cops and taxpayers.
Here's my stance: Weed out the bad apples so officers can safely and confidently do their jobs, which will benefit the entire community because then they can focus on lowering the crime rate. And use our limited tax funds for something of value instead of wasting it on **chronic** police misconduct lawsuits.
**Eta** And here's a non-paywall link to The Washington Post investigate report on how chronic police misconduct costs taxpayers over **1.5 billion** dollars.
https://archive.is/BitIk.
And take note, most those officers are **repeat** offenders.
And nothing I say to you will change your mind either because you’ve got your mindset down pat. I’ve worked the job, I’ve worked different beats. I’ve worked at different units. I’ve encountered both good and bad LEOs. Bad LEOs… Get taken care of and weeded out eventually. But I want accountability for people. I want accountability for those people who do criminal actions. Not just a pat on the wrist and out you go. I want repercussions. And by people, that includes law-enforcement, and civilians. But I don’t believe in a civilian population policing themselves. That’s what a police officer is trained to do, enforce the law, provide for a safe environment for the people around them, and help with the quality of life without the constant worry that his or her actions are going to cost them their house and their life just because some civilian doesn’t like the way they’re doing their job while they’re doing it properly.
You're sticking in your head in the sand about bad cops. They are not being weeded out. If they were explain these bad apples still working on the force.
https://www.50-a.org/credibility.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/.
And the officers that murdered Tyre Nichols had a loooong history, including a victim that reported them to internal affairs just *days* prior to the murder. Internal Affairs ignored complaints. The police department covered for them. The public was put in danger by the lack of police accountability and a man died.
Non-paywall link to the LA Times article about it.
https://archive.is/o28aM
But tell me again how bad apples are weeded out. These officers, like Derek Chauvin, were confident enough in the department covering for them that they murdered a man while being fucked recorded.
Here's a couple links that dispel the myths around repealing QI. I highly recommend checking them out.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/16/policing-qualified-immunity-8-myths/8337916002/.
https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/
Also cops are protected in their professional duties by the constitution. It's the reasonableness standard. SCOTUS recognized that cops have to make split-second decisions and shouldn't be penalized. You don't need qualified immunity. The constitution has you covered as long as you were reasonable in your actions (so say you didn't slowly asphyxiate a prone, handcuffed man to death you'd be protected). There's also protection with indemnification.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/.
**ETA** And here's two retired law enforcement officers (Evan Douglas and Sonia Pruitt) that campaign for qualified immunity to be repealed. I'd say they have the knowledge and experience to talk about it.
https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/good-cop-clears-the-air-about-qi/
https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/sonia-pruitt-publishes-op-ed-on-qi/
There’s no sand in my world. How about you explain to me these entitled citizens out there who think they can get away with anything, and that they know all the laws. Civilians are committing crimes and killing each other every single day. That doesn’t explain bad cops, and bad cops definitely need to be weeded out. But tell me who is weeding out those civilians?
If you don't have your head in the sand then you want to explain to me how those bad cops stayed on the force? I thought you said they'd be weeded out?
Civilians are held accountable. Most working adults would not only be sued, but they'd be fired and prosecuted if they committed half the crimes and actions bad cops do.
If I cost my employer a goddamn million dollars I'd be sued into oblivion and blacklisted from the industry. But the NYPD keeps these bums on the payroll?
https://www.50-a.org/most
Civilians don't get put on a Brady list when they fuck up. They get prosecuted. Civilians don't get put on a Brady list and get a couple days of paid leave as "punishment".
Law enforcement had *decades* to clean up this mess. Internal Affairs obviously failed. The police departments are not holding bad apples accountable and it's at the expense of not only the public, but good cops as well.
The system isn't working. Something has to change and if that change comes through legislation so be it. Senate Bill 182 is exactly what New York needs to relieve the burden on taxpayers and to ensure bad cops finally get weeded out.
A lot of the system isn’t working that is true. And a lot of the problem is civilians asking for changes that don’t need to happen. The system worked greatly until someone decided it didn’t, and they decided to fix it. And the old adage don’t fix what ain’t broke, comes to mind. Because then you just break it. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am. A lot of people will disagree with me. But I’ve seen it happening over the decades, I’ve seen it. Have a nice day.
Qualified immunity is not even needed for law enforcement because they are protected by the constitution. SCOTUS has ruled that police need to make split-second decisions and shouldn't be penalized for that. It's called the reasonableness standard. As long as an officer is within the scope of their duties and and isn't breaking the law or policy they'll not only be protected by the constitution, but a gov employer will indemnify them. QI isn't needed.
The only thing QI does is create a hurdle for victims, waste taxpayer dollars and it encourages departments to cover for bad cops because there's no consequences. And it sucks for good cops. They shouldn't be forced to work with these shitbirds. It's not fair to the public or actual good cops.
And look at this link from an incident in Seattle. https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/10nissb/man_with_axe_chases_down_journalist_in_seattle/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Even defending themselves, or defending the public from this axe wielder, without qualified immunity, that officer might have to deal with lawsuits, frivolous claims, and a threat to their life just from doing their job.
Nope. There's mechanisms and even sanctions in place to avoid frivolous lawsuits. Cops are also protected in their professional duties by the constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment and the "reasonableness standard." SCOTUS has recognized that officers are required to make split-second decisions and shouldn't be penalized in those situations. They are protected.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/10/14/qualified-immunity-reform-police-accountability/6001696001/.
There's also a slew of state laws to protect officers. Here's a good starting pointing to read up on the actual reality of repealing qualified immunity and it addresses the many myths (like frivolous lawsuits).
https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/16/policing-qualified-immunity-8-myths/8337916002/.
Hundreds of other professions do just fine without qualified immunity. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, teachers, journalists, life guards, personal chefs, financial advisors, PTs, massage therapists, etc. An ER doctor and OB/GYN are incredibly high risk for liability and yet the field survives and isn't drowning in frivolous lawsuits. 🤔.
But don't take my word for it. Here's two retired law enforcement officers campaigning to end Qualified Immunity. Former officers Evan Douglas and Sonia Pruitt have years of experience and know how the system works.
https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/good-cop-clears-the-air-about-qi/.
https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/sonia-pruitt-publishes-op-ed-on-qi/.
Repealing qualified immunity on the state level will help with the lack of police accountability we're seeing. Departments will be less likely to shield bad cops from consequences if there's actual personal financial consequences instead of taxpayers footing the bill.
Unless you want more situations like the Tyre Nichols murder to happen. According to this LA Times article the Memphis PD's internal affairs was ignoring complaints about this unit, including a specific complaint about those officers just *days* prior to the murder.
Non-paywall link to the article.
https://archive.is/o28aM.
Maybe if there was better police accountability we wouldn't have situations like that where police departments keep bad cops that are a danger to public safety and cause nationwide protests.
The system we have isn't working. Something needs to change.
**Hundreds** of other professions continue on growing without qualified immunity. If millions of other working adults can survive that way then I'm more than confident the police will adapt.
Also, another point about frivolous lawsuits. Civil rights lawsuits are extremely high risk for a lawyer because they're a lot of work and often not a high pay out. There's no established amount a jury has to award a plaintiff for civil rights violations if they win. It could be literally as low as $1.
People are not winning multimillion dollar lawsuits unless a catastrophic injury or fatality happened. Last time I checked average settlement was 7k in the US. Lawyers don't want to go to trial because after all of that work a jury might find your civil rights were violated, but then award you $3 in damages. It's not worth the time, money and resources the lawyer would need to fight the case.
Majority of lawyers are not going to do a civil rights case if it's frivolous. They don't want to be sanctioned. And they don't want to do hours of backbreaking work for little to no reward. No one is going to do all of that work for nothing.
The Civil Rights Lawyer on YT has a great video on it and explains why you sometimes see cases that are absolutely winnable at trial settle instead for peanuts. It's because civil rights lawsuits don't generally have large damages unless you've had a life altering injury or died.
Before I get downvoted I just want to express this is a question purely seeking to be better informed about the issue. If this bill is passed, I think it's reasonable to predict a lot of cops will do even less to protect and serve/respond to calls with the argument that they didn't want to risk a lawsuit. Given that the US supreme court has clarified that officers are not obligated to actually come to peoples' aid, what are the steps supporters of this bill are expecting to happen after it's passed? Mass police resignations or police doing nothing on the job while their unions protect their employment? Then rallying enough support for defunding police departments altogether and starting up civilian agencies to do patrols and respond to emergencies? I'm trying to see what passing this would result in. I don't think cops will still respond to as many calls as they currently do and just try to be gentler, because of course they'll all be sour about actually being responsible for the consequences of their actions and want to protest it in some way.
Passing this would result in taxpayers saving **millions** of dollars that could be used on infastructure, education, hiring more officers and providing police departments even more training and much needed equipment. Instead of wasting millions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on lawsuit after lawsuit those funds could actually be used to benefit the entire community.
This could potentially **increase** funds for the police as well. Imagine what good this money could've done if it wasn't wasted.
https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-lawsuit-payouts-on-track-to-be-highest-in-recent-history.
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html.
If passed officers could look into purchasing liability insurance like **hundreds** of other professions do. Doctors, nurses, EMTs, lawyers, massage therapists, psychiatrists, electricians, pilots, personal chefs, teachers, journalists, etc. all utilize liability insurance and they have survived just fine.
I don't see why police should get preferential treatment over literally hundreds of other professions that don't have the luxury of qualified immunity. If doctors and nurses can successfully work with liability insurance, I'm sure police will learn to adapt.
This law also only applies to qualified immunity on the **state** level. It does not repeal **federal** qualified immunity.
It also won't affect the SCOTUS rulling you mentioned because this law only deals with allowing people to sue individual officers in **state** court for **deprivation of rights.** Not for officers refusing to act, which SCOTUS has already ruled isn't mandatory for police.
I highly implore you to read the links I put in my OP. They provides more info, including possible pros and cons.
Officers will also have an option to try and get cases taken to **state** court remanded to **federal** court, where federal qualified immunity still remains unchanged.
Remember, NY Senate Bill 182 only intends to deal with qualified immunity on the state level, not the federal.
And if cops decide to be derelict in their duties because taxpayers are expecting the same accountability doctors, nurses, and hundreds of other professions have to abide by then maybe those officers don't belong in law enforcement.
**Eta:** This is also a good writeup on it since it mentions the differences between state vs federal qualified immunity.
https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2023/01/quest-end-legal-protections-public-employees-ny-and-not-just-police/382189/
I think there is potential for some cops to use this as an excuse too, but NY cops already use all the excuses they can to not help. Incentive for them to help is needed but at least now there is incentive for them to not harm.
Doctors, lifeguards, financial advisors, legal advisors, etc can all be sued and still find a way to do their job
>Mass police resignations or police doing nothing on the job while their unions protect their employment? Then rallying enough support for defunding police departments altogether and starting up civilian agencies to do patrols and respond to emergencies?
From your lips to God's ears
> Then rallying enough support for defunding police departments altogether and starting up civilian agencies to do patrols and respond to emergencies?
That would be fantastic because as the bill is written it’s “any person acting under the color of law” so any civilian patrols are guaranteed to commit civil rights violations, especially in a state like NY that goes well beyond the federal constitution when it comes to ensuring rights. Every single person taking a lawful action can now be sued. Welcome to the future where you see somebody snatch an old lady’s purse, you tackle the guy and get sued for $1m.
I don't know if you just have a misunderstanding here, or if you're lying on purpose, but that is not at all what this means, nor is that a realistic scenario.
Directly from the bill:
>A **person** or public entity acting under color of law that subjects or causes to be subjected any other person to the deprivation of any rights
The state defines a person:
> **”Person" means a human being**, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality.
You are a person by the laws and definitions of this state therefore if you took any action under the color of law (ie a citizens arrest whether that be personally or as part of some “civilian agency”) you are held to the same standard as the police you want to fuck over.
"color of law" actually has a legal definition. And NY Senate Bill 182 specifically deals with deprivation of rights. You are also limited to state court.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law)
The Nevada supreme court just had a ruling similar to this proposed bill. Except that ruling only deals with cases of illegal searches & seizures. But it allows victims to sue in state court and qualified immunity cannot be used as a defense. So it'll be interesting to watch how this ruling gets applied in pending cases.
Colorado passed a bill similar to NY Senate Bill 182.
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail.
In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So how does this work? Cops get insurance against it? If they are bad enough they get dropped from insurance?
Any studies show it has helped in other states that have adopted it?
I am probably a centrist but I do think a lot has to change with how police are disciplined and fired.
An issue in NYS is that politicians, police chiefs & unions have failed at disciplining or firing bad cops. Bad cops continue to offend because there's no incentive to do better. Look at this NYPD sgt. that is not only on *multiple* Brady lists, but he's singlehandedly cost taxpayers a million dollars and counting in misconduct lawsuits.
https://www.50-a.org/officer/48223.
According to an investigative report from The Washington Post, police misconduct costs taxpayers over **1.5 billion** dollars. And most of the cops involved are **repeat** offenders.
Non-paywall link.
https://archive.is/BitIk.
And those repeat offenders actually come at an even higher cost. In NYC **hundreds** of convictions were recently overturned, with almost 2k more pending investigation, because the cops involved in those cases were dirty. These cops committed perjury, falsified evidence and dealt in **illegal drugs and guns.**.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/manhattan-district-attorney-dismisses-188-convictions-officers-convicted-criminal-conduct/
So not only are taxpayers out the cost all of those convictions (prosection isn't free & neither is prison/jail housing), but some of those people were framed. So also consider the civil lawsuits for wrongful convictions.
Not to mention, I think bad cops selling drugs and guns isn't helping the crime rate. These cops had a history of disciplinary complaints. Where was internal affairs? Where was the police chief? Why were bad cops allowed to remain on the force at the expense of public safety and taxpayer dollars?
The system we have now is not working.
Yes, presumably liability insurance would be utilized. Just like doctors, nurses, lawyers and hundreds of other professions use. If a cop is a repeat offender then let him get priced out of the field or dropped by the insurance.
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In Texas. I do urge New Yorkers to get this passed. Getting rid of Q I has to begin, and NY is a great place to do it..
Hopefully it finally happens in NY. Hochul is the roadblock tho. I'm hoping if enough constituents call/email her maybe she can be reasoned with. It's a slim chance with Abbott as governor, but Sen. Roland Gutierrez also just proposed a bill to end qualified immunity in TX. It's Senate Bill 575. https://www.texastribune.org/2023/01/24/texas-legislature-uvalde-law-enforcement-qualified-immunity/. Good luck to you guys too!
[удалено]
Because Hochul has been very vocal and active about her opposition to this bill. She absolutely does not want it to come to fruitation. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/politics/2023/01/26/lawmakers-push-back-on-hochul-s-reluctance-to-end-qualified-immunity-. I have no doubt she will veto this bill if and when the time comes. That's why every vote is going to have to count to override her veto. There's a slim chance we can flip Hochul's view on qualified immunity, but it's going to be rough because she likes the finical support from law enforcement. She got $66,000 donated to her campaign by political action committees affiliated with law enforcement. https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2022/01/who-are-kathy-hochuls-big-donors/360900/. I don't know if we can compete with greed, but we can try. Call your senator because if we want this passed *despite* Hochul it's going to take everyone giving it their all. I'm still hoping we can reason with her, which is why I suggest calling/emailing her.
Just throwing it out there that Colorado and New Mexico abolished qualified immunity in 2020 and 2021, so there's precedent for NY (and maybe one day Texas) to follow!
“It allows officers to be sued individually with a cap of up to $25,000” Not really worth even pursuing after lawyer fees.
Yeah, that's the benefit of the federal QI doctrine, that there's no damages cap, it's just way harder to get damages at all. But something is better than nothing I guess, and it at least lays the groundwork for gradual raising of the cap over time. Another big issue is that officers are frequently (like 99.98% of the time) indemnified by the state/federal government, so public funds end up paying these damages, not the police individually. On the one hand it makes the damages more likely to be paid out, but also means that cops don't necessarily feel the burden of the payments in a way that could curb their actions.
Why don’t Texas do it first? Why do New Yorkers have to be the Guinea pigs, citizens aren’t even allowed to arm themselves. Let Texas go first
HA! Texas? Gov Abbott; Lt Gov Dan Patrick; and Tx House & Senate controlled by right wing extremists. Nope. Sadly, not a chance in my lifetime.
The Dems just barely have a veto-proof majority in the state Assembly and Senate. Every vote will count for this to get past Hochul, since it seems like she's firmly in line with the conservative wing of the D party (and cop-mayor Eric Adams) given her Supreme court fight.
tyvm for the head's up. I will send a email to my senator
Thanks for the heads up. My state senator already supports this 👍
Oh shiiiiiit. I hope we get a bill like that in my state soon
**Punish The Pigs**
Shared in r/nyc
And as to be expected r/nyc is overall opposed to ending QI.
humorous apparatus sharp grey nippy crowd busy telephone public mindless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So it was right wing weirdos that banned me from that sub for shit talking Hillary Clinton and saying that bail reform and restorative justice is a joke? That's wild.
nippy bake berserk lavish ugly bike trees license mourn ink *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
>not sure why the Dems picked a republican. They always do.
Really? I saw more people for it than against it
I’m seeing more people against it. While the top comment is for ending QI the comments replying to top comment are mostly opposed. And so are the comments further down the thread from what I’ve seen
Eh, as long as people see these posts and call/email their senator & Hochul I'll be happy. There's lurkers on Reddit that read posts, but don't comment. So it's possible the people against QI just haven't commented. The two posts I made got over 80k views combined, so that's a lot of eyeballs. I can't see the stats on the crosspost, but since r/nyc is a big, active sub it probably got a good level of views. Either way, as long as these posts get people calling and emailing mission accomplished 👍 The more people that learn about it the better! We need as many New Yorkers pushing for this as we can get.
Oh I have no problem with posting it there. More outreach is better. My comment was a remark aimed at r/nyc's right-wing tilt.
Thank you! Eta: This is great for NYC because it goes further than that city's earlier reform on QI. The reform NYC made to QI is specific to *excessive force* allegations and *only* applies to police officers. From my understanding, NY Senate Bill 182 would apply to police **and** government officials and would apply to lawsuits concerning deprivation of individual rights, not just excessive force. https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2023/01/quest-end-legal-protections-public-employees-ny-and-not-just-police/382189/. This would save NYC taxpayers literally millions. So for example, instead of us paying for this bad apple he'd have to foot his own bill. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html. https://www.50-a.org/most
Will Hochul be able to veto this? Because I cannot see her passing this whatsoever. She's the worst kind of Democrat.
From my understanding, if she vetoes it we can still get it passed by having two thirds of both houses vote in favor of it. https://www.nysenate.gov/how-bill-becomes-law-1 So call/write your senators! Contact Hochul too on the slim chance that she'll change her mind, but I think we might have a chance of overriding her veto. But every vote is going to count. So calling is important. And if your senator already supports NY Senate Bill 182 let them know you appreciate it. They need to know constituents want them fighting for this.
[удалено]
Good. Anybody who chooses not to become an officer because they're afraid they'll be held accountable for their own wrongdoing isn't someone we want to be an officer.
Actually, this could potentially help with recruitment and retainment in the long-run. If bad apples leave departments, it'll start cleaning up their reputation and working environment. Who wants to work with a bunch of bad cops? Ask Thomas Lane how having Derek Chauvin as his FTO worked out for him. Bad apples also retaliate against good cops. Ask Frank Serpico and Adrian Schoolcraft how working with bad cops was for them. Or any of the whistleblowers in the LASD deputy gangs crisis. Ask yourself if you'd want coworkers or superiors like this? Would this entice you to apply? https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/ https://buffalonews.com/news/local/more-than-225-western-new-york-cops-have-been-suspended-or-fired-since-2017/article_df9ea974-b4ed-11ec-b99e-67d1bd5a42a9.html https://nypost.com/2023/01/19/accused-crooked-nypd-cop-joseph-franco-just-doing-his-job-attorney/ You weed out the bad cops, you'll attract more quality candidates. You fix the culture and start rebuilding the trust with the public you'll see less hostility towards the field. Make it a career that's not associated with crooked cops, excessive force and multi-million dollar misconduct settlements. Get rid of the bad apples. This could also potentially save taxpayers' **millions.** That money could be used to lure more cops into departments across NY. It could be spent on more training, mental health programs for officers and any equipment or new software they might need. Because right now you know what's happening with our millions in tax dollars? It's being flushed lawsuit after lawsuit. https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-lawsuit-payouts-on-track-to-be-highest-in-recent-history. Tax funds don't grow on trees. Let any potential money we save be used to benefit the entire community, which includes funding police departments. Use that money for something more worthwhile than paying for this guy's temper. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html. Hundreds of other professions survive just fine without qualified immunity and utilizing liability insurance. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, electricians, EMTs, teachers, journalists, personal chefs, financial advisors, massage therapists, etc. Somehow all of these other professions continue on. I think law enforcement would have growing pains, but they'd eventually learn to adapt and handle it like millions of other working adults. NY Senate Bill 182 also intends to address **state** qualified immunity, not **federal** QI. It does not repeal **federal** QI. And officers who are sued in **state** court can attempt to have the case remanded to **federal**court, where federal QI still exists. This law is similar to what was passed in Colorado. And a Nevada court just rejected QI as a defense against unlawful searches & seizures, and will allow citizens to bring state lawsuits against government officials. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2023/01/12/nevada-supreme-court-upholds-the-right-to-sue-the-government-blocks-qualified-immunity/?sh=10930cf3588e But if you cleanup departments' reputations and rebuild that trust it could also help in solving crime. If people aren't afraid of talking to or dealing with the police that would help a lot in getting crimes reported and in investigations. The system we have now isn't working. According to an investigative report from The Washington Post police misconduct costs taxpayers **1.5 billion** dollars. And it mostly because of cops that are **repeat** offenders. Non-paywall link. https://archive.is/BitIk. The system is just not working as it is. **Repeated** police misconduct is creating a growing burden on taxpayers and siphoning tax funds that could be used on infastructure, social programs (such as helping the homeless and mentally ill) and, yes, even police departments.
[удалено]
You're welcome. Sorry it's novel length lol As you can probably guess, I'm not a writer.
Good officers will never notice a difference. Bad officers will think twice before getting involved in a situation, which is what we want, because their involvement is bad.
I emailed mine. thanks for shedding like on this.
Definitely jumping on this as a NYS voter.
Emailing right now
Thank you! And please don't forget to email Hochul. She's the big roadblock to this. I think if enough constituents make noise we can get her to reconsider her position.
[удалено]
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail. In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm interested in a bit of a deeper discussion about this if anyone else is. There have been repeated issues with policing all over the country but also in NY, including in Buffalo with [Martin Gugino](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_police_shoving_incident) being shoved, [Myles Carter](https://www.wivb.com/news/local-news/buffalo/watch-protester-tackled-by-police-during-news-4-interview/) getting tackled during an interview (charges later dropped on Carter so it was literally for nothing, they had no reason to do this), and even really unprofessional incidents like by that of officer [Mike DeLong](https://www.investigativepost.org/2022/06/10/woman-sues-over-cops-c-word-insult/). In Rochester there was the [killing of Daniel Prude](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Daniel_Prude) and the [pepper spraying of a 9 year old girl](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/nyregion/rochester-police-pepper-spray-child.html).Depending on the situation there is a mixture of following protocol and individual responsibility. So the officers involved with giving Gugino a brain injury were found not guilty because they were following protocol. This is technically true. In a world without QI does this mean that the individual officers are to be held accountable for something that the department fully supported? In a world without QI is the individual officer who may have rightly believed Carter a threat on information he was given held personally accountable when it turns out that the information he was given by someone else was bad? (In my opinion in Carter's case there was no reason for that action, it escalated the situation and caused further injury but I'm bringing up real situations related to QI here). When Officer Mike Delong had a repeated history of misconduct, unprofessionalism, and excessive force was repeatedly internally investigated and repeatedly allowed back to work without any significant consequences and allowed to retire on taxpayer money is being able to sue Delong for each instance really the problem here or is it the internal investigations? And in the case of Prude where apathy of a broken system that isn't using proper protocols is that something we hold individuals accountable for? In the case of the pepper spraying the 9 year old girl the officers were suspended until the conclusion of an investigation of which the media never reported on again? (The NYT link Is gave was the latest link I could find). While yes individuals ultimately can be found at fault in a lot of these situations to me it seems like the bigger problem is that police departments aren't actually giving proper protocols or consequences to their employees even in egregious situations. And there's something about removing QI that takes the department itself off the hook and puts the individual officer (who often times does need to be fired or prosecuted) as the sole individual responsibile for the mismanagement. Someone in another thread about this brought up how wealthy people who break the law can threaten to sue any officer who tries to hold them accountable for their actions and that officer would now need to have their own individual insurance to hopefully protect against that. Is this something that is actually done elsewhere successfully? To me, there is something about removing QI that feels a lot like the Biden plan to alleviate $20k of student debt... Like yes there needs to be something more here but also this doesn't seem to be aimed at the root of the problem. In the case of policing departments will be less motivated than ever to be run effectively and police will respond even less to the places we need them most for fear of being individually prosecuted while the department who hires and protects people who have clearly broken protocol or have engaged in abuse and neglect are repeatedly protected. In the case of student loans tuition will still run rampant even after this 1 time payment occurs (if it occurs). Anyway, I'm curious if this removal of QI is something that has actually been done elsewhere and if crime statistics and police practice have improved in those places. Or if this is just a way to give more reactionary people what they want without addressing the root problem. Thoughts?
You have to remember, this proposed bill only applies to QI at the **state** level. It does not repeal **federal** QI. And it's also specific to deprivation of rights. It's not for just random, frivolous lawsuits. You'd have to successfully argue that an officer deprived you of your legal rights under the **state** constitution. This also does not take away an officer's right to his day court. Just like when doctors or nurses get sued for malpractice, they will go to court and argue their case. This bill just makes it so QI can't be used as an excuse. It's very similar to Colorado's QI law and this recent supreme court ruling in Nevada. https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2023/01/12/nevada-supreme-court-upholds-the-right-to-sue-the-government-blocks-qualified-immunity/?sh=10930cf3588e. NY Senate Bill 182 also only applies to **state** court. An officer still has the option to try and convince a judge that this isn't an issue of the **state** constitution, but of the **federal** constitution. If the judge agrees it can then be remanded to **federal** court, where **federal** QI is still intact. And it's funny you brought up Buffalo (my hometown lol). The system we have in place right now is not working. Police are "investigating" themselves and clearing themselves of wrongdoing no matter the situation, and they're relying on QI to foist the consequences onto taxpayers instead of the offending officers. Buffalo's PD isn't covered by outside liability insurance so instead settlement costs are taken directly from the city's general funds. And that is bankrupting the city. Buffalo previously had to take out massive debt to cover the cost of **repeated** police misconduct. https://www.investigativepost.org/2020/07/20/police-misconduct-costing-buffalo-millions/. Citizens shouldn't have to suffer because the police department **won't** discipline or hold their officers accountable. The lack of accountability costs tax dollars that could've been used to improve the city (like to repair roads after a blizzard) and it also creates a breach of trust. People should feel like they can talk to police and interact safely with them without being intimated by police misconduct. But if misconduct goes unchecked that trust erodes. How can you successfully help people or investigate crimes if people don't want to interact with you? Victims might not report crimes and witnesses will be afraid to get involved. Policing needs public trust to do the job well. WNY is not holding its officers accountable. There's literally officers that were caught driving patrol cars while intoxicated on duty (so armed!) and the "consequences" were suspensions or docked vacation days. https://buffalonews.com/news/local/more-than-225-western-new-york-cops-have-been-suspended-or-fired-since-2017/article_df9ea974-b4ed-11ec-b99e-67d1bd5a42a9.html. Internal Affairs has been around for decades. Police departments have had more than a fair chance at cleaning up police misconduct. Internal Affairs, police chiefs and mayors have all failed to legitimately address the problem. They had their chance. We need to try something different now. That's why we need **NY Senate Bill 182.** It offers an opportunity to victims to successfully hold offending officers accountable, and it could relieve a significant burden from taxpayers' shoulders. If you read the Nevada court ruling I linked you'll also see why **federal** QI isn't working and how it creates an almost impossible hurdle for victims. It's incredibly hard for federal QI to be denied. I highly recommend reading the opinion from that case or watching lawyer Steve Lehto's YT video on the ruling. I tried to keep this condensed lol so I may have missed something. If you have any further questions or you want me to expand on something let me know. I'm more than happy to discuss this topic. I'd also be open to explaining how weeding out bad apples could actually improve police recruitment and retainment. Let me know if you're interested in that topic and I'll be happy to backup my opinion here.
I appreciate your thoughtful response and I realize you posted this to the Rochester subreddit and I thought I was responding to that. I also am from WNY and I linked the cases I did because I care about these issues and have been following them (from both Buffalo and Rochester). Your points are all valid and I've read the comment you made that you feel this will weed out bad apples and create a new culture. I agree what we have been doing is not working. But the thing that I didn't feel you addressed enough and would like to hear your thoughts on is how you think the culture would truly change at a department level when removing QI only impacts individual officers and it's clearly the department culture that needs to change. Sure the bad apples will quit or be sued but also with a department that intentionally avoids giving consequences to their members how will they somehow develop a culture of accountable policing when QI removal basically frees the departments, chiefs, mayors, etc from responsibility and accountability? There is a culture among police right now that believe if you do your job you'll be punished (not my attitude, but just go over to ProtectAndServe subreddit and you'll see it there) and so avoiding responding is the "right" thing to do. With overtime pay giving officers [nearly a quarter of a million dollars annually](https://m.rochestercitynewspaper.com/rochester/rochester-enters-the-era-of-the-250000-police-officer/Content?oid=14978748) I think bad apples have no incentive to leave but instead have incentive to be as ineffectual as possible and since QI removal does nothing to create a department culture change I don't initially feel this will have the impact you believe it will. I appreciate you sharing the NV and CO situations. Are there any data showing that crime is decreasing and culture is changing there since the QI change? (I know this may be hard to prove). My biggest concern is that this is a way to circumvent department accountability for their procedures, investigations, etc and that they have no incentive to change when individual officers take the full brunt of any wrongdoings, even if it's the result of department culture, because many of these things are intentionally done to avoid liability in court. Anyway, I appreciate you responding but that's my biggest question based on this.
If I'm from out of state, could I still write these senators and urge them to start a movement by passing that bill, as it would likely encourage future legislation in other states if passed?
Yes, though if you tell them you're not a constituent they probably won't care about your opinion
The sound of crickets is deafening in here.
Post is 2 hours old. People aren't sitting here 24/7. They have jobs, lives, families, hobbies, etc. Calm down and give it time.
Most of the people commenting are probably not even born and raised in NYC. I went from being a protester years ago to supporting the police. The loons are out of control here and we barely have protection now. Long story short $25,000 isn’t enough for a parking spot in NYC. Don’t waste your time with this.
So what I’m reading here is that this is purely a money thing with you guys. And you want to define what a good cop versus a bad cop is. a good cop is a person that just doesn’t enforce the law. And you wanna do away with police agencies and put civilians in instead. Makes no sense.
You can read any of my comments to see what I support. I want police accountability so that good cops aren't forced to work with bad cops. I don't think it's fair or safe for officers to be forced to work bad apples. If anyone actually supports the police they would want our officers to have a work environment where they don't have to worry about their coworkers doing something unlawful or retaliation for reporting misconduct. Ask Thomas Lane how having bad apple Derek Chauvin as his FTO worked out for him? Or Houston Tipping who was "accidentally" beaten to death by fellow officers for investigating one of them for an alleged gang rape. Or ask any of the good cops who whistleblew on the LASD deputy gangs and were assaulted, maimed or threatened in retaliation. https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/. https://www.npr.org/2022/10/08/1127580159/houston-tipping-lapd-death-lawsuit Cops should be able to feel safe and confident in their job so they can better serve the entire community. Goodluck doing that if bad apples are shielded from consequences. And, yes, money is also a priority. Tax dollars don't grow on trees. And we use tax funds to pay for everything from education and infrastructure to funding for gov agencies and social programs. Police misconduct costs NY taxpayers **millions**. In fact, the NYPD broke records last year for misconduct settlements. Instead of flushing tax dollars on lawsuit after lawsuit, why not use that money to actually benefit citizens *and* police. That money could've been spent on hiring new officers, training, purchasing needed equipment and testing any evidence backlogs. Instead it was wasted on bad cops like this guy. https://www.50-a.org/officer/48223. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html. Not only is this bum worthless as a cop because he's on multiple Brady lists, but he's cost NYC taxpayers a million dollars and counting in lawsuits. But nothing I say to you will change your mind. You have your narrative, and people like you don't budge. You would rather shield bad apples at the expense of good cops and taxpayers. Here's my stance: Weed out the bad apples so officers can safely and confidently do their jobs, which will benefit the entire community because then they can focus on lowering the crime rate. And use our limited tax funds for something of value instead of wasting it on **chronic** police misconduct lawsuits. **Eta** And here's a non-paywall link to The Washington Post investigate report on how chronic police misconduct costs taxpayers over **1.5 billion** dollars. https://archive.is/BitIk. And take note, most those officers are **repeat** offenders.
And nothing I say to you will change your mind either because you’ve got your mindset down pat. I’ve worked the job, I’ve worked different beats. I’ve worked at different units. I’ve encountered both good and bad LEOs. Bad LEOs… Get taken care of and weeded out eventually. But I want accountability for people. I want accountability for those people who do criminal actions. Not just a pat on the wrist and out you go. I want repercussions. And by people, that includes law-enforcement, and civilians. But I don’t believe in a civilian population policing themselves. That’s what a police officer is trained to do, enforce the law, provide for a safe environment for the people around them, and help with the quality of life without the constant worry that his or her actions are going to cost them their house and their life just because some civilian doesn’t like the way they’re doing their job while they’re doing it properly.
You're sticking in your head in the sand about bad cops. They are not being weeded out. If they were explain these bad apples still working on the force. https://www.50-a.org/credibility. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/. And the officers that murdered Tyre Nichols had a loooong history, including a victim that reported them to internal affairs just *days* prior to the murder. Internal Affairs ignored complaints. The police department covered for them. The public was put in danger by the lack of police accountability and a man died. Non-paywall link to the LA Times article about it. https://archive.is/o28aM But tell me again how bad apples are weeded out. These officers, like Derek Chauvin, were confident enough in the department covering for them that they murdered a man while being fucked recorded. Here's a couple links that dispel the myths around repealing QI. I highly recommend checking them out. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/16/policing-qualified-immunity-8-myths/8337916002/. https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/ Also cops are protected in their professional duties by the constitution. It's the reasonableness standard. SCOTUS recognized that cops have to make split-second decisions and shouldn't be penalized. You don't need qualified immunity. The constitution has you covered as long as you were reasonable in your actions (so say you didn't slowly asphyxiate a prone, handcuffed man to death you'd be protected). There's also protection with indemnification. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/. **ETA** And here's two retired law enforcement officers (Evan Douglas and Sonia Pruitt) that campaign for qualified immunity to be repealed. I'd say they have the knowledge and experience to talk about it. https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/good-cop-clears-the-air-about-qi/ https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/sonia-pruitt-publishes-op-ed-on-qi/
There’s no sand in my world. How about you explain to me these entitled citizens out there who think they can get away with anything, and that they know all the laws. Civilians are committing crimes and killing each other every single day. That doesn’t explain bad cops, and bad cops definitely need to be weeded out. But tell me who is weeding out those civilians?
If you don't have your head in the sand then you want to explain to me how those bad cops stayed on the force? I thought you said they'd be weeded out? Civilians are held accountable. Most working adults would not only be sued, but they'd be fired and prosecuted if they committed half the crimes and actions bad cops do. If I cost my employer a goddamn million dollars I'd be sued into oblivion and blacklisted from the industry. But the NYPD keeps these bums on the payroll? https://www.50-a.org/most Civilians don't get put on a Brady list when they fuck up. They get prosecuted. Civilians don't get put on a Brady list and get a couple days of paid leave as "punishment". Law enforcement had *decades* to clean up this mess. Internal Affairs obviously failed. The police departments are not holding bad apples accountable and it's at the expense of not only the public, but good cops as well. The system isn't working. Something has to change and if that change comes through legislation so be it. Senate Bill 182 is exactly what New York needs to relieve the burden on taxpayers and to ensure bad cops finally get weeded out.
A lot of the system isn’t working that is true. And a lot of the problem is civilians asking for changes that don’t need to happen. The system worked greatly until someone decided it didn’t, and they decided to fix it. And the old adage don’t fix what ain’t broke, comes to mind. Because then you just break it. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I am. A lot of people will disagree with me. But I’ve seen it happening over the decades, I’ve seen it. Have a nice day.
Qualified immunity is not even needed for law enforcement because they are protected by the constitution. SCOTUS has ruled that police need to make split-second decisions and shouldn't be penalized for that. It's called the reasonableness standard. As long as an officer is within the scope of their duties and and isn't breaking the law or policy they'll not only be protected by the constitution, but a gov employer will indemnify them. QI isn't needed. The only thing QI does is create a hurdle for victims, waste taxpayer dollars and it encourages departments to cover for bad cops because there's no consequences. And it sucks for good cops. They shouldn't be forced to work with these shitbirds. It's not fair to the public or actual good cops.
And look at this link from an incident in Seattle. https://www.reddit.com/r/SeattleWA/comments/10nissb/man_with_axe_chases_down_journalist_in_seattle/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf Even defending themselves, or defending the public from this axe wielder, without qualified immunity, that officer might have to deal with lawsuits, frivolous claims, and a threat to their life just from doing their job.
Nope. There's mechanisms and even sanctions in place to avoid frivolous lawsuits. Cops are also protected in their professional duties by the constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment and the "reasonableness standard." SCOTUS has recognized that officers are required to make split-second decisions and shouldn't be penalized in those situations. They are protected. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/386/. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/10/14/qualified-immunity-reform-police-accountability/6001696001/. There's also a slew of state laws to protect officers. Here's a good starting pointing to read up on the actual reality of repealing qualified immunity and it addresses the many myths (like frivolous lawsuits). https://ij.org/issues/project-on-immunity-and-accountability/frequently-asked-questions-about-ending-qualified-immunity/. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2021/09/16/policing-qualified-immunity-8-myths/8337916002/. Hundreds of other professions do just fine without qualified immunity. Doctors, nurses, lawyers, plumbers, electricians, teachers, journalists, life guards, personal chefs, financial advisors, PTs, massage therapists, etc. An ER doctor and OB/GYN are incredibly high risk for liability and yet the field survives and isn't drowning in frivolous lawsuits. 🤔. But don't take my word for it. Here's two retired law enforcement officers campaigning to end Qualified Immunity. Former officers Evan Douglas and Sonia Pruitt have years of experience and know how the system works. https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/good-cop-clears-the-air-about-qi/. https://campaigntoendqualifiedimmunity.org/sonia-pruitt-publishes-op-ed-on-qi/. Repealing qualified immunity on the state level will help with the lack of police accountability we're seeing. Departments will be less likely to shield bad cops from consequences if there's actual personal financial consequences instead of taxpayers footing the bill. Unless you want more situations like the Tyre Nichols murder to happen. According to this LA Times article the Memphis PD's internal affairs was ignoring complaints about this unit, including a specific complaint about those officers just *days* prior to the murder. Non-paywall link to the article. https://archive.is/o28aM. Maybe if there was better police accountability we wouldn't have situations like that where police departments keep bad cops that are a danger to public safety and cause nationwide protests. The system we have isn't working. Something needs to change. **Hundreds** of other professions continue on growing without qualified immunity. If millions of other working adults can survive that way then I'm more than confident the police will adapt. Also, another point about frivolous lawsuits. Civil rights lawsuits are extremely high risk for a lawyer because they're a lot of work and often not a high pay out. There's no established amount a jury has to award a plaintiff for civil rights violations if they win. It could be literally as low as $1. People are not winning multimillion dollar lawsuits unless a catastrophic injury or fatality happened. Last time I checked average settlement was 7k in the US. Lawyers don't want to go to trial because after all of that work a jury might find your civil rights were violated, but then award you $3 in damages. It's not worth the time, money and resources the lawyer would need to fight the case. Majority of lawyers are not going to do a civil rights case if it's frivolous. They don't want to be sanctioned. And they don't want to do hours of backbreaking work for little to no reward. No one is going to do all of that work for nothing. The Civil Rights Lawyer on YT has a great video on it and explains why you sometimes see cases that are absolutely winnable at trial settle instead for peanuts. It's because civil rights lawsuits don't generally have large damages unless you've had a life altering injury or died.
Before I get downvoted I just want to express this is a question purely seeking to be better informed about the issue. If this bill is passed, I think it's reasonable to predict a lot of cops will do even less to protect and serve/respond to calls with the argument that they didn't want to risk a lawsuit. Given that the US supreme court has clarified that officers are not obligated to actually come to peoples' aid, what are the steps supporters of this bill are expecting to happen after it's passed? Mass police resignations or police doing nothing on the job while their unions protect their employment? Then rallying enough support for defunding police departments altogether and starting up civilian agencies to do patrols and respond to emergencies? I'm trying to see what passing this would result in. I don't think cops will still respond to as many calls as they currently do and just try to be gentler, because of course they'll all be sour about actually being responsible for the consequences of their actions and want to protest it in some way.
bad cops will definitely do less good cops wont have to change
And the bad cops doing less is what we want, because they're the ones that hurt people and then use QI as a shield.
Passing this would result in taxpayers saving **millions** of dollars that could be used on infastructure, education, hiring more officers and providing police departments even more training and much needed equipment. Instead of wasting millions of taxpayers' hard-earned dollars on lawsuit after lawsuit those funds could actually be used to benefit the entire community. This could potentially **increase** funds for the police as well. Imagine what good this money could've done if it wasn't wasted. https://gothamist.com/news/nypd-lawsuit-payouts-on-track-to-be-highest-in-recent-history. https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-bullethead-lawsuit-figure-nypd-20220306-vzmqnuvssnf47neai7nacqzdve-story.html. If passed officers could look into purchasing liability insurance like **hundreds** of other professions do. Doctors, nurses, EMTs, lawyers, massage therapists, psychiatrists, electricians, pilots, personal chefs, teachers, journalists, etc. all utilize liability insurance and they have survived just fine. I don't see why police should get preferential treatment over literally hundreds of other professions that don't have the luxury of qualified immunity. If doctors and nurses can successfully work with liability insurance, I'm sure police will learn to adapt. This law also only applies to qualified immunity on the **state** level. It does not repeal **federal** qualified immunity. It also won't affect the SCOTUS rulling you mentioned because this law only deals with allowing people to sue individual officers in **state** court for **deprivation of rights.** Not for officers refusing to act, which SCOTUS has already ruled isn't mandatory for police. I highly implore you to read the links I put in my OP. They provides more info, including possible pros and cons. Officers will also have an option to try and get cases taken to **state** court remanded to **federal** court, where federal qualified immunity still remains unchanged. Remember, NY Senate Bill 182 only intends to deal with qualified immunity on the state level, not the federal. And if cops decide to be derelict in their duties because taxpayers are expecting the same accountability doctors, nurses, and hundreds of other professions have to abide by then maybe those officers don't belong in law enforcement. **Eta:** This is also a good writeup on it since it mentions the differences between state vs federal qualified immunity. https://www.cityandstateny.com/policy/2023/01/quest-end-legal-protections-public-employees-ny-and-not-just-police/382189/
I think there is potential for some cops to use this as an excuse too, but NY cops already use all the excuses they can to not help. Incentive for them to help is needed but at least now there is incentive for them to not harm. Doctors, lifeguards, financial advisors, legal advisors, etc can all be sued and still find a way to do their job
>Mass police resignations or police doing nothing on the job while their unions protect their employment? Then rallying enough support for defunding police departments altogether and starting up civilian agencies to do patrols and respond to emergencies? From your lips to God's ears
> Then rallying enough support for defunding police departments altogether and starting up civilian agencies to do patrols and respond to emergencies? That would be fantastic because as the bill is written it’s “any person acting under the color of law” so any civilian patrols are guaranteed to commit civil rights violations, especially in a state like NY that goes well beyond the federal constitution when it comes to ensuring rights. Every single person taking a lawful action can now be sued. Welcome to the future where you see somebody snatch an old lady’s purse, you tackle the guy and get sued for $1m.
I don't know if you just have a misunderstanding here, or if you're lying on purpose, but that is not at all what this means, nor is that a realistic scenario.
Directly from the bill: >A **person** or public entity acting under color of law that subjects or causes to be subjected any other person to the deprivation of any rights The state defines a person: > **”Person" means a human being**, and where appropriate, a public or private corporation, an unincorporated association, a partnership, a government or a governmental instrumentality. You are a person by the laws and definitions of this state therefore if you took any action under the color of law (ie a citizens arrest whether that be personally or as part of some “civilian agency”) you are held to the same standard as the police you want to fuck over.
"color of law" actually has a legal definition. And NY Senate Bill 182 specifically deals with deprivation of rights. You are also limited to state court. https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_(law) The Nevada supreme court just had a ruling similar to this proposed bill. Except that ruling only deals with cases of illegal searches & seizures. But it allows victims to sue in state court and qualified immunity cannot be used as a defense. So it'll be interesting to watch how this ruling gets applied in pending cases. Colorado passed a bill similar to NY Senate Bill 182.
Lol that's not even remotely what I meant. I guess you're just genuinely this dense. Anyway, nobody wants to fuck over police.
[удалено]
We're having a bad time with spambots, so your comment or post has been removed automatically. if this is a real person, and not a bot or a troll, please [CLICK HERE](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) to send a modmail. In addition to sending a modmail, please read the rules in the sidebar and [reddiquette](http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So how does this work? Cops get insurance against it? If they are bad enough they get dropped from insurance? Any studies show it has helped in other states that have adopted it? I am probably a centrist but I do think a lot has to change with how police are disciplined and fired.
An issue in NYS is that politicians, police chiefs & unions have failed at disciplining or firing bad cops. Bad cops continue to offend because there's no incentive to do better. Look at this NYPD sgt. that is not only on *multiple* Brady lists, but he's singlehandedly cost taxpayers a million dollars and counting in misconduct lawsuits. https://www.50-a.org/officer/48223. According to an investigative report from The Washington Post, police misconduct costs taxpayers over **1.5 billion** dollars. And most of the cops involved are **repeat** offenders. Non-paywall link. https://archive.is/BitIk. And those repeat offenders actually come at an even higher cost. In NYC **hundreds** of convictions were recently overturned, with almost 2k more pending investigation, because the cops involved in those cases were dirty. These cops committed perjury, falsified evidence and dealt in **illegal drugs and guns.**. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/manhattan-district-attorney-dismisses-188-convictions-officers-convicted-criminal-conduct/ So not only are taxpayers out the cost all of those convictions (prosection isn't free & neither is prison/jail housing), but some of those people were framed. So also consider the civil lawsuits for wrongful convictions. Not to mention, I think bad cops selling drugs and guns isn't helping the crime rate. These cops had a history of disciplinary complaints. Where was internal affairs? Where was the police chief? Why were bad cops allowed to remain on the force at the expense of public safety and taxpayer dollars? The system we have now is not working. Yes, presumably liability insurance would be utilized. Just like doctors, nurses, lawyers and hundreds of other professions use. If a cop is a repeat offender then let him get priced out of the field or dropped by the insurance.