Qualified immunity is a defense that police officers cannot be sued for misconduct if they were unaware at the time that their conduct was illegal and if there is no previous legal case with similar facts that ruled that officers may not engage in that conduct. Proponents argue that more intense criticism of police will disincentivize officers from doing their jobs resulting in crime rates going up. Opponents argue that police officers should be held more accountable for misconduct.
@ISIDEWITH2yrs
No, and increase the personal liability for misconduct
@ISIDEWITH2yrs
Yes, and provide more training and education for police officers
@ISIDEWITH2yrs
Yes, but only for officers that have a clean record of no complaints
@David-Cooper-KY2 days
Records should be kept on all officers of all complaints AND compliments on a national level. This would help weed out bad cops who try to leave one department/city and transfer or apply somewhere else.
@@Jason20243 days
Yes, provide more training and education for police officers but only for officers that have a clean record of no complaints. Also, do increase the personal liability for misconduct and allow other police officers to call out colleagues for misbehavior online toward suspects; I support free speech 100% in this case scenario.
@97YPD5N5 days
Yes, if everyone else has the same opportunity. They should be treated the same as other citizens.
@97YM3CRConstitution6 days
No, ignorance is not a justification for committing a crime. Immunity violates the rule of law
@97YKG8ZRepublican6 days
i do support for certain cercomstances
@97YGR4T6 days
depends on the case if its needed yes if not then no
@97YG6FZIndependent6 days
Yes, only to officers that have a clean record of no complaints, but they should also provide more training and education to officers as well.
@97Y7LMN6 days
Yes but I only if they did something not that illegal or violent
@97XXBJB7 days
I don’t think so, but this is what I would want to see in police forces: -honesty -right intentions -service and equality -sacrifice
No, if your job is enforcing the law (which it is thanks to the Supreme Court for police), then you have a fiduciary responsibility to know what the law is.
The police joined the force under the impression that they must serve the public by setting a precedent, being a role model, and essentially striving to be a perfect citizen. There shouldn't be immunity, I don't think. It should be situational, case by case.
@97X9P6H1wk
Yes, but only for officers wearing and leaving on their body cams during all interactions with the public
I'm okay with qualified immunity, assuming we cut down the number of police, and require a much more higher standard of police that we higher. Including requirements fir education on safety for themselves and others, and education on the neighborhoods they serve, the people in them, and the history of their neighborhoods. Aswell as live in the neighborhoods they protect.
Yes, but they should be afforded adequate liability insurance (taken from their pension fund or a hybrid fund) that allows them to perform their duties and make the occasional mistake
@gklewis831wk
No, police officers have a difficult time making the right decision sometimes, but people who commit involuntary manslaughter often face consequences far worse than police officers who commit misconduct.
@97WFG8D1wk
Yes, but only for officers that have a clean record & no complaints. Also, provide more training & education for officers & increase the personal liability for misconduct.
@97VRQ322wks
No, government officials should be held to a higher standard than the general population
@97SZ2QN2wks
The police joined the force under the impression that they must serve the public by setting a precedent, being a role model, striving for a perfect citizen. If they fail, they failed entirely.
@97SH8L22wks
only to the most educated police officers
Define qualified. depends look at body cam fotage.
@97S6KBQ2wks
No, not immunity, but a minimized liability
@cluskillz2wks
No, and force police officers to carry their own insurance.
@97RZND42wks
It depends on the situation given.
@97RXYLT2wks
yes, but only if they did there job to perfection and there was no other way.
Yes, but weaken qualified immunity
@97RVPRR2wks
Yes, but there should be restrictions
@97RGTYS2wks
No, and increase personal liability for misconduct with more training and education for officers.
@97RD9S42wks
depends on the misconduct that took place
@97RD9RV2wks
Yes, depending on how severe the misconduct was.
@97QDRZK2wks
No, police departments and police officers should both have liability and liability insurance
It depends on the situation, but they shouldn't have ultimate immunity.
@97PX3442wks
Both provide more training and education and for clean record officers with no complaints.
@97PV8P62wks
I have literally no idea what this means
@97P965H2wks
don’t know what this means
If there is a proper cause, I think it's okay, but without a proper cause, I don't believe so.
@97NW9VC3wks
People should be treated equally for misconduct it should not depend on their job or status.
@97NQGYJ3wks
Yes, under strict scrutiny of the officer and situation
@97NMV983wks
No, educate officers about the laws and rules of misconduct.
@97NG2TW3wks
Nobody is above the law, so they shouldn't be above the people, but they should still have authority and better training and education.
@97NCTKJ3wks
No, but if that officer previsouly had a clean record of no complanints, then yes. Training and education should be provided more frequently anyways.
@97MYWFL3wks
Yes, but make juriesdetermine reasonableness.
Do not apply qualified immunity in cases where it should have been obvious that what the police officer did was wrong.
The historical activity of users engaging with this question.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
