Comment by hellbannedguy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hellbannedguy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

When I was younger (Actually I was pulled over about a year ago for no reason.). I was pulled over for basically an old car, and hair below my ears. I didn't want to say anything, but knew if didn't kiss their badge, I might get pricy ticket.

The one time I didn't answer their rediculious questions, like, "Where you are going. What are you buying at Safeway. It seems strange you are buying dinner at 10 pm". These were the actual questions.

She walked around my car looking for something to ticket, and then said I was speeding. A $350 ticket.

Yea, I tried to fight it, but she actually showed up in court, and the judge sided with the Police Officer.

(In California their was a bill that would essentially legalize jaywalking. It was drafted because cops were using jaywalking violations to harass, and intimidate citizens. Basically, I have nothing on you, but I could site you for jaywalking.

Governor Neusome vetoed the bill. I get where he was comming from, but still disappointed.

I don't know the solution other than every cop, including undercover cops, should have a camera on every minute of their shift. Only using a bathroom could the cop flip the cover on the camera.

Those tapes should be allowed to be retrieved in an easy fashion by anyone. If cops resist, their are many people in line for that job.)

The start of a solution is to remove the USSC-created fiction of government immunity. A few money judgments against individuals and they will all shape up.

Note that a private person doesn't have their civil lawsuit attorney file a motion to dismiss because of immunity. Giving government bad actors immunity causes behaviors that are harmful. Black Lives Matter would do well to look at this, if they are interested in the causes of government misconduct.

No, they will all just quit. There is no job on Earth that you could fill, from teacher to plumber to police officer, that literally anyone would do if they were held personally responsible for doing their job wrong on the job.

It's insane that people want to strip this worker protection away from workers.

There has to be some kind of balance against the overwhelming power law enforcement wields over citizens. Maybe totally removing qualified immunity isn't the answer. But something needs to change to curtail abuse. I have no idea what that might be - even stepping up internal enforcement of policy and proper procedure might have the unintended consequence of law enforcement becoming reluctant to do their jobs.

There is a big difference between an honest mistake and willful actions that sabotage the job. For the latter normal employees are being held personally responsible. There is no reason prosecutors / police / similar should be the exception. They've committed criminal acts. Let the fuckers suffer the same fate they've imposed on their victims at taxpayers expense.

Your argument makes no sense because qualified immunity doesn't even protect against CRIMINAL acts, even today.

So I take it then that willfully ignoring a law and withholding an exculpatory evidence is not a crime then. Nice. Basically license to screw one's life without any consequences.

> There is a big difference between an honest mistake and willful actions that sabotage the job

Willful sabotage is not protected by QI.

> They've committed criminal acts.

Criminal liability isn't affected by QI (it is affected by absolute immunity, but that only applies to things that are mandatory, not discretionary, parts of the job.)

>"Willful sabotage is not protected by QI."

Then please explain please how withholding exculpatory evidence contrary to the law is not a willful sabotage?

You never heard of a doctor sued for malpractice? Or a writer sued for libel?

> There is no job on Earth that you could fill, from teacher to plumber to police officer, that literally anyone would do if they were held personally responsible for doing their job wrong on the job.

Most private jobs have no immunity from liability for workers for torts done on the job; in most the employer is also liable and often a more attractive litigation target—more money, more motivation to settle, more likely to pay a judgement it settlement. But the worker isn't immune, and it's regularly sued when the employer is.

And yet, people work all kinds of jobs with neither absolute nor qualified immunity.

When I was a bartender I had strict liability for:

- mistakes I made over-serving customers

- non uniformly applying dress code rules in ways that would be racist

- results of using violence as necessary to remove overly drunk patrons from the bar property (regardless of whether they drank anything at my bar)

And I got paid $2.65/hr for that privilege in 2008. But at least it was a job during a recession.

You literally just argued against the whole concept of liability

A DoD Information Assurance Vulnerability Management professional is required to sign a document that says they will be personally responsible if a breach occurs on their watch due to error on their part. An IAVM protects intellectual property. A cop protects lives. I consider lives more important than intellectual property - so why shouldn't a cop have to sign the same type of document?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com