[imback]

there was a scotus case lately about this. pretty sure the police were covered under qualified immunity. my google fu is weak but it was in the past year.

E: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2020/05/13/should-c...

cops (allegedly) stole $225000 but QI had them covered in the 9th circuit. scotus declined to pick up the case. for some background, the courts have declined to do anything about QI. they say it's legislator's job to fix it. odds are slim anything will happen.

[ncallaway]

> they say it's legislator's job to fix it.

This response from the courts is maddening to me, since the courts invented QI. It’s your damn problem, clean it up yourself!

I mean, at this point I’ll take anyone who will clean it up, but it’s such a shameful passing of the buck.

[imback]

it's funny, there is no prior legal framework for this and the judiciary isn't supposed to magic things out of their dignified assholes, but there it is. legislation really needs to lay down the law here, if anywhere. a no-knock warrant on one of our congress-critters ending in execution-by-cop might fix it.

yes i am angry.

[relaxing]

The Supreme Court doesn’t actually see it as a problem. It’s entirely consistent with their conservative ideology.

[Forlien]

Forgive me if this is a dumb question, since I'm not that well educated about this. Why can't they sue the police department or some similar body instead of the individuals? My understanding is that QI protects the individuals, but not the government itself from being sued; however, I don't see any discussion of that route when this defense is brought up.