• 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.

Seems we agree that removing/limiting QI is a positive change in our laws. Just for different reasons. Cool.
 
Lutherf said:
Victimhood?
Click to expand...

dictionary.cambridge.org

victimhood

1. the condition of having been hurt, damaged, or made to suffer, especially…
dictionary.cambridge.org dictionary.cambridge.org



Lutherf said:
I'm helping with your plan to get rid of the police and install gang members as the legitimate guardians of American society!
Click to expand...

You're pretending you're a victim of the things you make up about other people
 

I'm in agreement with that statement.
 
Abolishing qualified immunity should be a no brainer for anyone who is for freedom and limited, accountable government.

Because most right wingers are not actually for these things, they will side with the cops on this one.
 
noonereal said:
What is QI?
Click to expand...

It is a Pass for cops that you see constantly violating peoples rights falsely arresting them and when they are told they are gonna get sued they say, "that is fine with me" kinda smuggery because they know they will just get off. It allows cops to violate citizens and face no consequences.
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...

Cops that lie, plant evidence, falsely arrest people, get in violate rights, do a no knock at the wrong house, etc etc crash into people, etc deserve to be punished.

 
Bodi said:
Cops that lie, plant evidence, falsely arrest people, get in violate rights, do a no knock at the wrong house, etc etc crash into people, etc deserve to be punished.
Click to expand...
No argument from me.

Curios as to why you quote only 1/2 of my post. The full post is:
Specifically you cut off this part:
"I'd be more inclined to strengthen the processes which identifies them, and removes them from the job."

Hence, no argument from me in what you posted, which I quoted, in full, here.
 
eohrnberger said:
No argument from me.

Curios as to why you quote only 1/2 of my post. The full post is:
Click to expand...

I trim quotes to fit the part that I am responding to, in general. It also illustrates it to readers who might not be following our conversation and that don't hit 'expand all' to read the rest.

Like that...

eohrnberger said:
Specifically you cut off this part:
"I'd be more inclined to strengthen the processes which identifies them, and removes them from the job."

Hence, no argument from me in what you posted, which I quoted, in full, here.
Click to expand...
 
Bodi said:
Cops that lie, plant evidence, falsely arrest people, get in violate rights, do a no knock at the wrong house, etc etc crash into people, etc deserve to be punished.
Click to expand...
Committing an unlawful act while exercising official duties obviates qualified immunity anyway.
 
Lutherf said:
Committing an unlawful act while exercising official duties obviates qualified immunity anyway.
Click to expand...

Yet we see cops violate the law all the time and nothing happens to them because Captains and Departments have Q.I.
 
Bodi said:
Yet we see cops violate the law all the time and nothing happens to them because Captains and Departments have Q.I.
Click to expand...
Not really, at least not as far as I've seen. Stuff like planting drugs on a suspect is WAY out of line and when that kind of thing is caught (usually during the criminal proceedings) that opens the door for HUGE civil actions against the offending entity. Where I tend to see the QI issue come up more often is with matters such as a questionable apprehension or, perhaps, the cops raid the wrong house and stuff like that. Those matters are MUCH harder to prove that they are unlawful as opposed to a legitimate mistake or even negligent. Usually such an issue would have to rise to the level of recklessness before they get litigated.
 
Bodi said:
I trim quotes to fit the part that I am responding to, in general. It also illustrates it to readers who might not be following our conversation and that don't hit 'expand all' to read the rest.

Like that...
Click to expand...
I'm more inclined to think that you're just always looking to pick a fight.
 
Lutherf said:
Qualified Immunity. It's the principle that certain government officials can not be prosecuted for actions that fall within their specific and lawful functions of their office.
Click to expand...
The article refers to lawsuits, not prosecutions. What QI does is protect individual government employees (mostly cops) from being sued by the general public. If it’s removed I can see a lot of cops not responding to calls, or not taking action in a lot of cases to avoid being sued.
 
Bodi said:
Maybe... but you approached me regarding this.


.
Click to expand...
True. Agreeing with some of what you posted, and disagreeing with other parts of what you posted.

In whole, about 50 / 50.
 
Rather than getting rid of qualified immunity entirely, the solution should be that lawsuits for police misconduct get paid from police pension funds.

If the problem really is the supposedly small number of "bad cops", then that would result in the supposed "good cops" making sure their problematic brethren would get drummed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.