• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Citizens referendum to abolish Qualified Immunity in Ohio clears major hurdle. (1 Viewer)

Minerva

Of the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Messages
4,888
Reaction score
8,098
Location
Directly Over the Center of the Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal

An citizens effort to abolish QI in Ohio has been derailed eight times by the State Attorney General, David Yost, who has blocked the petition from gathering signature by claiming the language of the petition was not clear and balanced a total of eight time. The State Supreme Court declined to review the District court ruling that the petition be allowed to proceed, despite Yost's objections.

I think QI should be abolished and replaced with some system of performance bond, similar to what an accountant, attorney, physician carries.

Bonds could be issued by insurance groups or law enforcement agencies could self insure.

One way would be for the agencies to self insure up to "X" amount, dependent upon their tax base. After that amount the agencies could purchase a bond for every officer to "Y" amount. The company issuing the bond would have access to officers performance files and be able to review any complaints brought against the individual officer.

If an officer is deemed to be an at risk person, they could require further training, higher bonding, etc. If additional bonding is required those payments could be made by the individual officer or perhaps their union could decide a special membership be paid to cover those additional bond. If going the Union pay method perhaps the rank and file or leadership can decide whether or not to cover the additional expenses. This way an officer that was seen as unjustly assessed could have the Union pay his additional fee, while an officer that his cohorts felt had it coming could pay it out himself. This could help bring peer pressure to bear for cops with aggressive tendencies. It may also help with gypsy cops that due to their conduct change agencies a lot. The Union could have a vote whether or not an officer is hired.
Most cops know who the bad apples are in other departments.

I would have to vote in favor of abolishing QI.
 
What is QI?
 
noonereal said:
What is QI?
Click to expand...
As Lutherf described above.

The problem, as I see it, with QI is that LEO's will strongly violate a citizens civil rights, even ones that are commonly known, know that any financial judgment against them will be paid for by the taxpayer more often than not. To get an officers QI removed you must go to federal district court. If the court finds the offense grievous enough they can then remove the QI for that officer in that case. However a ruling in one district court does not apply to any other district, although it can be referenced in arguments.

It is my belief that if officers are aware that gross violations of a citizens civil rights could directly impact them, they will less likely violate those rights. If other officers have to cover the costs of over zealous officers then hopefully peer group pressure will cause them to self police.

Some of the common violations are demanding identification in instances where there is to Reasonable Articulate Suspension (RAS) to ask for ID. Such as when you are the passenger of a car that is pulled over for speeding. Unless there is RAS of a crime the officer cannot demand the passenger's ID. He may request it, but it can be declined with no repurcussions.
 
Lutherf said:
Right, because all cops are criminals.
Click to expand...
Just say "NO" to hyperbolic victimhood

Why do you assume all cops are criminals?

Are you trying to use a straw man?
it's not a very good one.


See if you can follow this super-duper nuanced, intricate, complex, and twisted logic of mine:
​
If someone is NOT a criminal, then they have no crimes.​
​
If they have no crimes, they cannot face the consequences of their crimes ( because the crimes are non-existent ).​
​
Therefore, ​
a statement about criminals facing consequences for their crimes​
is NOT a statement about people who have NOT committed crimes facing the non-existent consequences of the crimes they did NOT commit.​


Lutherf said:
I get EXACTLY where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
I believe you believe that despite all evidence to the contrary
 
Lutherf said:
Right, because all cops are criminals. I get EXACTLY where you're coming from.
Click to expand...
Help me decide.

Is this a "Hasty Generalization Fallacy" or a "Strawman Fallacy"?

No, not all cops are criminal, no one claims that.
Let's use the logic a lot of cops use that is framed with, "If you have nothing illegal in your vehicle, then why are you opposed to a simple search?"

The police could be told, "If you are a non criminal officer, whey would you oppose removing QI?".
 

So if a cop stops you for driving 115mph in a school zone and ASSUMES that you committed a crime after you bail out of the car and run into the coffee shop screaming that they're going to kill you for no reason and then further assumes that you're carrying a weapon because you keep rummaging around in your backpack and then, based on those ASSUMPTIONS, pulls a gun on you and orders you to get on the ground you're not going to claim that it was an unjustified stop and an abuse of power that traumatized you for life and is worth $100m in pain and suffering? Come on, I've seen how you people and how the courts operate.
 
lol wut?
 

This again is a strawman, but let's play along.
What specific civil rights violations would the citizen claim?
 
Minerva said:
This again is a strawman, but let's play along.
What specific civil rights violations would the citizen claim?
Click to expand...
Threat of summary execution by a government official. It’s probably worth $250m but you’re a good person and I’m sure you’d show restraint in your prosecution.
 
Qualified Immunity is just a subset of a bigger issue. The issue is: If you hire someone to do something, and in that process of working for you he does illegal acts or damages stuff. Are you as the person who hired him responsible? As the OP pointed out this is the reason why you only hire legitimate bonded people. The issue with the government is complex because we don't hire them, we elect them. Maybe we don't elect the police officer but we elect the people that ultimately hire them. I should also point out the police misbehaving is tiny compared to mishaps in social services where our state has paid out 100s of millions in lawsuits & settlements.
 
dmpi said:
I should also point out the police misbehaving is tiny compared to mishaps in social services where our state has paid out 100s of millions in lawsuits & settlements.
Click to expand...

Since QI makes it more difficult to sue and win against police

is it that meaningful to compare how much money has been won in lawsuits?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Since QI makes it more difficult to sue and win against police

is it that meaningful to compare how much money has been won in lawsuits?
Click to expand...
The only way to stop QI is to sue the state for EVERY police interaction. The police, violent terrorists that they are, MUST be stopped. Our neighborhoods will never be safe until the murderers, drug dealers and rapists are fully protected from police violence.
 
Lutherf said:
Threat of summary execution by a government official. It’s probably worth $250m but you’re a good person and I’m sure you’d show restraint in your prosecution.
Click to expand...
So you're claiming a 4th Amendment violation, correct?

Do you also want to consider a 14th Amendment violation?

I guess I have to do both sides of this debate to make any progress.
 
No, you can do like Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada have done and Ohio is voting on, eliminate it through legislation.
 
Minerva said:
So you're claiming a 4th Amendment violation, correct?

Do you also want to consider a 14th Amendment violation?

I guess I have to do both sides of this debate to make any progress.
Click to expand...
What do you want? What if all that was going on is that you were late for your therapy appointment and stopping for kids in a crosswalk was going to cost you a $25 fee for being late? The cops can't pull you over for that! Besides, they never pull white people over for stuff like that.
 
Minerva said:
No, you can do like Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Nevada have done and Ohio is voting on, eliminate it through legislation.
Click to expand...
Right....isn't the whole purpose of eliminating QI so that we can sue the cops for everything they do? I mean, seriously, if we can get enough cases against enough cops then the economic benefit of even having a police force will be destroyed and we can be free from their terrorism!
 

your victimhood is noted
 
Far as I know, the four states listed still have effective law enforcement. Your claim is just balderdash.
 
I'm against eliminating QI.

Being a cop you get to deal with the worst society has to offer, people at their most irrational moment, often violent and armed, and are forced to make split second decisions in life threatening situations.

It is unreasonable to expect that humans are always going to make the same decision in those circumstances as those arrived at from the arm chairs in the cheap seats under no duress or stress.

QI is a means to give cops in a most difficult job a break they deserve to have simply for the fact of being human beings.
Sure, there are people who shouldn't be cops.
I'd be more inclined to strengthen the processes which identifies them, and removes them from the job.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…