Comments

  • What a mess.

    "Defenders of qualified immunity often claim that it’s necessary to protect officers from financial ruin. To assuage those concerns, the Act will require law enforcement agencies to indemnify their officers, meaning that they won't have to worry about being on the hook for potentially expensive legal bills.
    Officers would be personally liable only in cases where they “did not act upon a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful” or were criminally convicted for conduct that triggered the civil rights lawsuit. But even in cases where officers acted unreasonably or in bad faith they would only be responsible for paying 5% of the judgement or $25,000, whichever is less. In addition, officers who successfully defend themselves against “frivolous” lawsuits may recover attorney’s fees."
  • "But even in cases where officers acted unreasonably or in bad faith they would only be responsible for paying 5% of the judgement or $25,000, whichever is less."

    So who the fuck pays the rest? The police department... err... taxpayers?

    What does this really solve? Nothing????
  • edited June 22
    "What does this really solve? Nothing????"

    It solves a legislator's problem in responding to the question "what have you done?".

    When the flood of civil suits hit the courts, and/or fewer people seek LEO positions and costs increase, this will be seen as unworkable and repealed.
  • Zed, that second one deserves praise.
Sign In or Register to comment.