[jMyles]

The goalposts are jumping all over the field here.

First, the claim was that "It's also not legal for a random citizen to execute or arrest people."

Then, when challenged, the claim became that the amount of lawful force when effecting arrest varies between police and other citizens on a state-by-state basis.

Now you've given a SCOTUS decision (binding across the US obviously, not state-by-state) about qualified immunity (not statutory authority) in the legal context of protecting bystanders (ie, not naked arrest power).

If this is the best argument, then I think that I'm correct in my assertion that police do not have any additional authority to use force in different states to effect an arrest than anyone else.

[Retric]

Qualified immunity is what allows members of the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal for regular people. It's directly the mechanism and law you are asking for. Police officers are given qualified immunity when using force as part of their duties including acts such as arresting people. But, one of the limits is what local procedures are, so doing a 120 MPH care chase is not universally ok.

Police chases are directly part of the arrest process and use of force. In this case it's mostly one of discretion, where police are allowed to both make the call and actually act.

More specifically, in most states only police are allowed to use blue lights on top of their cars with a few state specific exceptions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_vehicle_lighting#Uni... Further, trying to escape after those lights are on is illegal, so again they are given access to tools and techniques including use of force that are not available to regular people.

I am not sure what specifically you want, and suspect the issue is you don't really understand how our legal system works in practice.

[jMyles]

I think I have a good understanding of our legal system. I have a pre-law degree, and I have studied this particular topic extensively.

> Qualified immunity is what allows members of the government to do things that would otherwise be illegal for regular people

Holy shit. Are you serious? That's your summary of qualified immunity?

You are just completely, absurdly, absolutely incorrect here. The "qualified" in qualified immunity means that the conduct in question doesn't violate clearly established law. So you have it exactly backwards.

And even if you were right, qualified immunity is a civil concept. It is wholly unrelated to the matter of the amount of force that otherwise constitutes a criminal violation when effecting an arrest.

It is also not "a law" (you have said it's "the law" that I'm looking for), it's a legal doctrine regarding the confines of liability under section 1983.

> I am not sure what specifically you want

It's exceedingly simple. I want an example of a state which, on a statutory basis, permits different levels of force for the purpose of effecting an arrest for police in contrast to other citizens. That's what GP said existed. I don't think it does exist. So that's what I'm asking for.

[Retric]

You just described Cops having legal protection beyond ordinary citizens which is exactly what you asked for. At no point did you separate civil and criminal protection.

In practice prosecutors don't try cops for using reasonable force in arrests. So they don't need protection for that.

What they need protection from is everyone and their brother suing them out of malice for arresting them. And they get that from qualified immunity.

PS: You can think of civil and criminal law as independent, but that's really not how are system operates.

[jMyles]

Well, now it seems like we agree in full.

My point all along was that police don't have any statutory authority to use force in any greater measure than anyone else, and yet they seem to get away with it - as you point out, free from both criminal and civil liability.

Shit man, I don't support qualified immunity at all. It has always been a bit of charlatan law IMO.

I understood (and still understand) the original comment as taking the position that this discrimination is somehow based in statute, when, as far as I can tell, it isn't.