|
|
|
|
|
|
by Retric
2949 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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.