I am more worried about - no liability for pharma and qualified immunity for public health officials approving and pushing their products - than I am about qualified immunity for police officers.
I don't think you fully understand the concept of Qualified Immunity. It only covers civil liability in much the same way that the Good Samaritan doctrine protects any bystander attempting to help an injured person. Qualified Immunity is not a defense against any crime committed by Law Enforcement Personnel, nor does it protect against civil liability if a crime is committed.
I think the only real protection it provides is against those who may try to cash in for any perceived hurtful reaction to law enforcement or any other government agent.Once you understand how hostile Qualified Immunity is towards the average person, perhaps you'd understand why I consider the concept extremely disrespectful
In the absence of Qualified Immunity I find it hard to imagine any sane person willing to risk everything they and their families own or ever hope to own in order to perform a public service function.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
No. I've known about qualified immunity for some time. It is not new to me. Rob
Yes, I'm aware of that bit of political theater, Colorado is another state which successfully eliminated qualified immunity. There were perhaps a dozen or so other states who, like NM and CO, attempted the elimination as they were getting caught up in the overall defund the police effort, but as far as I know only those two and perhaps CT and strangely enough New York City succeeded in one form or another.
Just like the defund movement has started biting individual cities in the ass recently, I'm guessing this qualified immunity stunt will be re-thought soon in every jurisdiction it's implemented.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)