So you’re saying that qualified immunity makes it easier to get away with things. I 100% agree.
But there are still absolutely doctors and teachers (just sticking with my original examples but this applies to every profession) who get away with terrible things for years and years, often with a blind eye from their coworkers. Morally I just don’t see any difference. The actions done by these doctors and teachers are just as destructive to society, and so are the consequences of their coworkers not coming forward.
And you can’t blame police in general for qualified immunity. That’s just a legal concept derived from the US constitution. Yeah, corrupt officers and corrupt departments will absolutely exploit them as much as they can but I don’t see what it has to do with ACAB.
Interesting read. But even if the article is correct, all that means is that there was a clerical error over a hundred years ago. The Supreme Court ruled on the law as it has been documented ever since. They didn’t make anything up.
So you’re saying that qualified immunity makes it easier to get away with things. I 100% agree.
But there are still absolutely doctors and teachers (just sticking with my original examples but this applies to every profession) who get away with terrible things for years and years, often with a blind eye from their coworkers. Morally I just don’t see any difference. The actions done by these doctors and teachers are just as destructive to society, and so are the consequences of their coworkers not coming forward.
And you can’t blame police in general for qualified immunity. That’s just a legal concept derived from the US constitution. Yeah, corrupt officers and corrupt departments will absolutely exploit them as much as they can but I don’t see what it has to do with ACAB.
And doctors and teachers one exposed will never work in their choose profession again
Qualified Immunity is against the law.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
The 1982 SCOTUS made it up to protect cops
Interesting read. But even if the article is correct, all that means is that there was a clerical error over a hundred years ago. The Supreme Court ruled on the law as it has been documented ever since. They didn’t make anything up.
I think you raise a very good point here.