Dumb Comment of the Week honors go to Wayne.
Wayne contributed to the comment section of our facebook page.
To Wayne: Thank you for your submission. Your efforts in this regard were unmatched. Your comment had a special mixture of ignorance and arrogance. That is rare - even in today’s low IQ FB comment section. You stood out. Be proud of your achievement.
Wayne does not understand Qualified Immunity. And, that in itself, is no crime.
There are many things that I do not have any knowledge of. I cannot tell you anything about cars, golf, baking, or the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow. The difference is - I would never comment on the social media page of a master mechanic and tell him/her that they are installing a carburetor incorrectly. That would be idiotic. But, because people like Wayne have been able to watch NYPD Blue reruns for the last twenty years - they think that they know more about policing than they actually do. Watching Training Day for the 47th time is not equivalent to making it through a hiring process, police academy, and actually responding to calls for service.
So, let’s help out Wayne here.
Qualified Immunity
In short - Qualified immunity (QI) is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right.1
But, let’s talk about this concept as it relates to police officers. As no one reading this article gives a fuck about a city bus driver who gets sued for running over a cat.
So, QI only protects police officers if they do not violate “clearly established” rights. So, all of the (arguably) bad cases that we know of: George Floyd, Tyre Nichols, Walter Scott, etc… Are examples where police did violate “clearly established” rights - so these officers would not be afforded QI protection. Essentially, in these cases - QI is a moot issue - cops who commit crimes are not given protection under QI.
QI does not protect police officers from:
Internal investigations, discipline, suspension, or termination of employment.
Prosecution for violations of state law.
Prosecution for violations of federal law.
The state “revoking” a law enforcement certification.
A pension board denying benefits.
The only thing that QI protects police officers from is civil lawsuits filed against them personally. And, again, only in cases where police did not violate “clearly established” rights.
Wayne’s World
Now, I am not going to pretend that I don’t know what Wayne’s point was. He was trying to make the common uneducated argument that - if police officers were punished for their bad acts with expensive civil lawsuits, then there would be less bad police behavior.
I get it. But, as I already stated, if a cop commits a crime or otherwise violates “clearly established” rights - they are not afforded protection by QI anyway. So, that argument make absolutely zero sense.
Abolish QI?
We can have a debate on whether or not to abolish QI. I am happy to have that discussion. But, that discussion must come after the question of - what do you hope that abolishing QI will do? We need to know that answer. What are you hoping to accomplish by getting rid of QI? I already debunked most of the common myths and misconceptions about what QI actually does - in the above paragraphs. I believe that the majority of people who post “abolish QI” in comment sections really have no idea what QI does and what QI doesn’t do.
Police Misconduct Insurance
So, here’s my take on what will happen when/if QI is abolished on the state or federal level. And, not much would change. That’s essentially by main point. Abolishing QI does nothing to fix, stop, or discourage bad police behavior.
We already have mechanisms in place to deal with cops who commit crimes or violate department policy. Cops can be investigated, disciplined, terminated, prosecuted, lose their state certification, and have their pension benefits revoked. All of this can occur and QI does NOT protect police officers from any of it.
If QI was abolished - then police unions would just contract with insurance companies to cover officers against lawsuits2. These would be group policies, where all members pay the same premium - as no insurance company would be able to dictate who is insured or not insured. No police officer would be “uninsurable”.
Since law enforcement agencies across the country are having a difficult time recruiting and retaining police officers - the competitive departments would either: cover the cost of the insurance premiums or give pay raises to officers with the cost of the premium in mind.
So, even under this scenario:
Police officers are not paying lawsuits - the insurance company is.
Police officers are not paying insurance premiums - the taxpayers are.
Finally
If you were a police officer who committed a crime or made an honest mistake - what system would you want?
A judge to determine whether or not you were afforded QI protection.
An insurance company that was contractually obligated to pay any damages and there was zero risk of ever having to personally pay a dime.
The answer is obvious. Abolishing QI would do zero to increase “police accountability” and would actually create a more beneficial environment for police who engage in misconduct. Sound good, Wayne?
From Cornell law school
These negotiations are already occurring.
This is probably my favorite piece that you've done. You've explained it very succinctly and also showing the world that Wayne is ignorant of what qualified immunity actually means and how it works. Sadly, this world is full of Wayne's.
While Wayne might be a lay person, I've heard people who should know better including attorneys and people in our government say the same thing, espouse the same ignorant rhetoric that Wayne apparently did. I've argued this point with people until I'm blue in the face and they still don't understand how qualified immunity works.
I think that we can add Wayne to that list that describes people who are ignorant but are not afraid of speaking out and letting their ignorance show, making Wayne the male version of a karen.
Unfortunately there are law professors who hate policing who’ve decided to deliberately misconstrue its intent and application to the public. Now we literally have thousands of Wayne’s spouting nonsense.