SubmarineDoorGunner

QI only protects police and others from being personally liable.

What do you hope to actually obtain from these potential defendants? They will generally have nothing you can take from them.

Wouldn’t it just make more sense for respondent superior to be valid against entities in 1983 claims?

I am an attorney who used to represent a large government entity in civil suits that was explicitly exempt from most governmental immunity statutes.

We continually made successful arguments that employees had left their scope of employment. Especially when it came to physical altercations, drug and alcohol use, etc.

And those arguments hinged on the fact that their instructions and employee training told them not to do that. Seems pretty common sense.

And while your ‘research’ indicates that indemnification applies now, how will that change with the removal of immunity? Will government entities continue with the same indemnification agreements when employees no longer have basic protections and they can be held liable for all of their employees transgressions? You don’t need to be Ms. Cleo to see a drastic swing there.

The point being, that a lot of these ‘police reform’ movements don’t see the second and third order harm they are going to cause. And not just in the court room.

They are, now, but at the time they were committed, no court had determined that they were, so for effectiveness of the law, they weren’t.

And yes, it is exactly how it is supposed to work, the Constitution does not allow ex post facto laws. You can’t be held to a standard that didn’t exist.

Yes they are. The point of the courts ruling is that no court has determined that any of those things are a violation of a persons rights. Courts are the final authority, so until a court has made that determination, QI stands.

Your examples are all grave misunderstanding of the legal mechanisms of the decisions being made.