Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Rep. Clyburn says the most important facet of police reform isn't necessary for police reform   (cnn.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Democracy, United States Senate, Police, Voting, United States Congress, Democratic Party, United States Constitution, Democratic Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri  
•       •       •

1977 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 May 2021 at 9:53 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



65 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-05-09 6:52:51 PM  
I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.
 
2021-05-09 8:46:52 PM  

blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.


Never let the moderately acceptable be the enemy of good.

A moderately "acceptable" bill consists solely of feel good measures like banning choke holds and giving the cops more money to create some sort of non-cop division for non-violent-crime situations. It might even demilitarize police departments and create a database of bad cops (though the former will never happen and the latter will never get used).

A good bill would include legislation on qualified immunity, make blanket restrictions on "less lethal" weapons like banning tear gas, pepper spray, and restricting use of blast balls and rubber bullets.

A better bill would include blanket restrictions on police unions and guilds and dedicated money to a non-police related agency whose sole job is to root out deplorables. It would also ban states from using private prisons and ban usage of war weapons by local police.
 
2021-05-09 8:51:48 PM  
Jim Clyburn (illustrated)

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-09 9:00:33 PM  
Here I thought you started waaaaaay out where you want to be and then negotiate towards a compromise.
 
2021-05-09 9:56:29 PM  

blender61: We strive for the perfect


[citation needed]
 
2021-05-09 9:58:25 PM  
#AbolishThePolice!
#ACAB!
#NoMoreCops!!
 
2021-05-09 9:58:25 PM  

misanthropicsob: A moderately "acceptable" bill consists solely of feel good measures like banning choke holds and giving the cops more money to create some sort of non-cop division for non-violent-crime situations.


You forgot paying cops to take a class on how to identify hate crimes.
Like the ones they commit.
 
2021-05-09 10:01:17 PM  

blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.


I am all for being pragmatic, but this is a fundamental issue.

Qualified immunity for law enforcement as it has been established in practice through the courts is a travesty and needs to be gutted.
 
2021-05-09 10:04:11 PM  
While perfect is the enemy of good....calls to do studies, tests and incremental changes may not be entirely genuine....
 
2021-05-09 10:04:17 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Here I thought you started waaaaaay out where you want to be and then negotiate towards a compromise.


Nope.  You talk with Manchin and figure out how much progress he'll allow and then go with that.  Compromise only works when there's something both sides want.  Manchin is happy with what we have now.  The alternative to making progress is to do nothing at all and sadly, there are many many people here who feel that way.  I guess you could call them anti-progressives
 
2021-05-09 10:05:22 PM  

blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.


I ran as a pragmatic Dem and I do party work with a LOT of pragmatic realism.
Police reform begins with qualified immunity.  Without that no reform will be effective.
 
2021-05-09 10:06:31 PM  

dywed88: blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.

I am all for being pragmatic, but this is a fundamental issue.

Qualified immunity for law enforcement as it has been established in practice through the courts is a travesty and needs to be gutted.


Absolutely, but it probably should be done in a more nuanced manner than "cops don't get QI anymore." A better definition of clearly established rights would do the trick.

/not that I'd be opposed to "cops don't get QI anymore."
 
2021-05-09 10:08:47 PM  
Since most police are municipal or county officers, anything Congress has to say about it is pretty much symbolic at this point.

Even ending qualified immunity is only going to matter for a 1983 suit, and those are not as common as city suits.
 
2021-05-09 10:10:57 PM  
Qualified immunity = a brutal segment of the population can get away with anything. Absolutely anything.

This is our chance at an actual bill. Actual policy change. A massive change. Half-measures will kick the real can down the road for a generation or more.
 
2021-05-09 10:13:18 PM  
Clyburn and folks of his generation were taught to take what wins they could get as far as civil rights go. We can no longer settle for half measures that wont solve the problem and will have us back here again in 20 years. So sit this out Jim because youve missed the mark.
 
2021-05-09 10:18:26 PM  

Persnickety: Nadie_AZ: Here I thought you started waaaaaay out where you want to be and then negotiate towards a compromise.

Nope.  You talk with Manchin and figure out how much progress he'll allow and then go with that.  Compromise only works when there's something both sides want.  Manchin is happy with what we have now.  The alternative to making progress is to do nothing at all and sadly, there are many many people here who feel that way.  I guess you could call them anti-progressives


When you say see how far Manchin is willing to go in one sentence and then say how happy he is with things the way they currently are, then you already have your answer.

/Primary him.
 
2021-05-09 10:19:29 PM  
I guess what's frustrating about this, among many things, is that it was the one so-called "red-line" for the GOP -- like, what would be the big f***ing deal if they were p***ed off for a hot minute?

They're p***ed off about every single thing, anyways. So, instead, you give them a victory on the one thing that reallymattered.
 
2021-05-09 10:20:46 PM  
It's like that time I could have met Mr. T at the mall.
 
2021-05-09 10:24:24 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: Qualified immunity = a brutal segment of the population can get away with anything. Absolutely anything.

This is our chance at an actual bill. Actual policy change. A massive change. Half-measures will kick the real can down the road for a generation or more.


That isn't what it means.

"Qualified immunity, established by the Supreme Court in 1967, effectively protects state and local officials, including police officers, from personal liability unless they are determined to have violated what the court defines as an individual's "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights." The doctrine can be used only in civil cases, not criminal, and allows victims to sue officials for damages only under those circumstances."

What it means in practice is that "qualified immunity" has been left up to the courts to decide what "statutory or constitutional rights" are, and nobody has ever bothered to set any bright-line rules about what it is. The courts have been more or less on autopilot ever since.

""For decades, everyone just accepted that qualified immunity was a given because it was unlikely to change on the federal level," said Alexander Reinert, a professor at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Which is true. I mean, I'm as for ending qualified immunity as everyone else; but let's be real here. The law was passed 50+ years ago, and the states--which were acknowledged as early as that to have a role in how it played out--just kicked the decision up to the federal level. We're reaping the end result of half a century of buck passing.

If outrage is what gets you out of bed and to the polls, that's fine; but don't pretend that this is something that only just happened because bad cops wanted it to in the last year or so. It's been building, like everything else we're seeing lately, for a very very long time.
 
2021-05-09 10:25:07 PM  
I'm not a fan of QI in any way, but I don't think you can reasonably get any movement on it. Best solution I can think of is to find a way to make the entire department/union pay for it when somebody gets out of line. Right now, there's no impetus for them to police their own, so they don't.
 
2021-05-09 10:27:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Since most police are municipal or county officers, anything Congress has to say about it is pretty much symbolic at this point.

Even ending qualified immunity is only going to matter for a 1983 suit, and those are not as common as city suits.


Federal database for cops, participation is required to purchase federal surplus.  Computerize the gun tracing database.  Neither of those is nearly impactful as a federal ending of QI.  Counties and cities will still have plenty of individual work to do, but take QI off their to-do list.
 
2021-05-09 10:28:51 PM  
Fine. It's pragmatic that they cannot end QI. F'course, that just means folks will keep rioting so long as the state keeps enacting violence upon them. It's only pragmatic.
 
2021-05-09 10:30:31 PM  

palelizard: I'm not a fan of QI in any way, but I don't think you can reasonably get any movement on it. Best solution I can think of is to find a way to make the entire department/union pay for it when somebody gets out of line. Right now, there's no impetus for them to police their own, so they don't.


That is a great step, but it has to be done by thousands of jurisdictions individually.  Ending QI can be done at the federal level, renegotiating police contacts can't.
 
2021-05-09 10:31:46 PM  
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
 
2021-05-09 10:34:22 PM  
This thread is gonna need more popcorn.
 
2021-05-09 10:40:08 PM  
Cops are blue collar workers. Suing them personally accomplishes nothing - it's squeezing water from a stone. It's the police departments and state/count/municipal government that need to pay when they put a bloodthirsty maniac into a position where someone gets hurt killed. Ideally heads roll, from chiefs and HR execs all the way down. And yes, this is on top of the murderers ending up in prison.

I don't see qualified immunity as a dealbreaker, and I generally veer towards ACAB.
 
2021-05-09 10:40:08 PM  

Summoner101: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.


The problem is that good is barely good enough, because we've learned that Reno 911 was basically a documentary and we're taking baby steps to fix it because some people still like FOX's Cops.
 
2021-05-09 10:41:02 PM  
What do we want??
Pragmatic incrementalism!
When do we want it??
Whoa, slow down there, buddy!
 
2021-05-09 11:08:25 PM  

MattytheMouse: Summoner101: Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

The problem is that good is barely good enough, because we've learned that Reno 911 was basically a documentary and we're taking baby steps to fix it because some people still like FOX's Cops.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-05-09 11:18:15 PM  
Maybe the Senate should originate relevant legislation since "what can get a Senate floor vote?" is the controlling issue. It's not a spending bill, right?
 
2021-05-09 11:21:35 PM  

DayeOfJustice: Clyburn and folks of his generation were taught to take what wins they could get as far as civil rights go. We can no longer settle for half measures that wont solve the problem and will have us back here again in 20 years. So sit this out Jim because youve missed the mark.


memegenerator.netView Full Size
 
2021-05-09 11:25:45 PM  

Shaggy_C: Cops are blue collar workers. Suing them personally accomplishes nothing - it's squeezing water from a stone. It's the police departments and state/count/municipal government that need to pay when they put a bloodthirsty maniac into a position where someone gets hurt killed. Ideally heads roll, from chiefs and HR execs all the way down. And yes, this is on top of the murderers ending up in prison.

I don't see qualified immunity as a dealbreaker, and I generally veer towards ACAB.


Am I missing something...don't all wrongful death, etc. civil payouts come from the city/county/etc. already? Isn't that the problem, that our tax dollars are being used to fund these chuckleheads' death squad adventures?  Isn't ending QI about making the officer in question personally liable for their actions, rather than being able to hide as a budget line item for the entire government structure under which they are employed?  Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.
 
2021-05-09 11:30:37 PM  
By far not the most important factor.

Qualified immunity doesn't let bad cops keep their jobs.

Qualified immunity doesn't keep criminal cops out of jail.
 
2021-05-09 11:31:36 PM  

roc6783: Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.


You're not wrong. The point is suing a person who makes $40k per year for millions of dollars is pointless. They'll never be able to pay, so they'll just declare bankruptcy and start over. The plaintiffs get nothing, and the murderer gets a ding on their credit score.

No, I think civil liability is a waste of time. If there's a killer cop out there, they should face the criminal justice system. The civil case should be there to get restitution for the family of the murdered person - and the cost should be so high that those in power above the cop should be held to account. What I want to see is a system where a Derik Chauvin incident ends up with the police commissioner and the mayor having to resign because they created a bureaucracy where such a person was allowed to serve.
 
2021-05-09 11:38:57 PM  

Shaggy_C: roc6783: Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.

You're not wrong. The point is suing a person who makes $40k per year for millions of dollars is pointless. They'll never be able to pay, so they'll just declare bankruptcy and start over. The plaintiffs get nothing, and the murderer gets a ding on their credit score.

No, I think civil liability is a waste of time. If there's a killer cop out there, they should face the criminal justice system. The civil case should be there to get restitution for the family of the murdered person - and the cost should be so high that those in power above the cop should be held to account. What I want to see is a system where a Derik Chauvin incident ends up with the police commissioner and the mayor having to resign because they created a bureaucracy where such a person was allowed to serve.


Qualified immunity also protects the governmental agency that employs the police.  The employer's liability is derivative of the liability of the employee.  So if the employee is immune, so is the employer, and the plaintiff/victim gets nothing.

Ending QI still not the most important thing for police reform.
 
2021-05-09 11:39:56 PM  

blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.


There is no such thing as "police reform" until qualified immunity is gone. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Qualified immunity literally renders all other reforms meaningless.
 
2021-05-09 11:40:29 PM  

cendojr: palelizard: I'm not a fan of QI in any way, but I don't think you can reasonably get any movement on it. Best solution I can think of is to find a way to make the entire department/union pay for it when somebody gets out of line. Right now, there's no impetus for them to police their own, so they don't.

That is a great step, but it has to be done by thousands of jurisdictions individually.  Ending QI can be done at the federal level, renegotiating police contacts can't.


The federal government could also pass a law regulating police unions.  This would NOT need to be done jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction.
 
2021-05-09 11:42:14 PM  

Shaggy_C: roc6783: Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.

You're not wrong. The point is suing a person who makes $40k per year for millions of dollars is pointless. They'll never be able to pay, so they'll just declare bankruptcy and start over. The plaintiffs get nothing, and the murderer gets a ding on their credit score.

No, I think civil liability is a waste of time. If there's a killer cop out there, they should face the criminal justice system. The civil case should be there to get restitution for the family of the murdered person - and the cost should be so high that those in power above the cop should be held to account. What I want to see is a system where a Derik Chauvin incident ends up with the police commissioner and the mayor having to resign because they created a bureaucracy where such a person was allowed to serve.


How do you codify something like that into law, though? Wouldn't that have to be done at the municipal level? Forcing cops to carry professional insurance, and not being able to employ uninsurable cops would be a pretty quick way to end the argument.
 
2021-05-09 11:48:04 PM  
Now *that's* the guy who fully backed Joe Biden!
 
2021-05-09 11:54:45 PM  
I'm so pragmatic that I'll continue to offer up my own people on a platter, because something about the enemy of the gourd.
 
2021-05-09 11:57:23 PM  

roc6783: Shaggy_C: roc6783: Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.

You're not wrong. The point is suing a person who makes $40k per year for millions of dollars is pointless. They'll never be able to pay, so they'll just declare bankruptcy and start over. The plaintiffs get nothing, and the murderer gets a ding on their credit score.

No, I think civil liability is a waste of time. If there's a killer cop out there, they should face the criminal justice system. The civil case should be there to get restitution for the family of the murdered person - and the cost should be so high that those in power above the cop should be held to account. What I want to see is a system where a Derik Chauvin incident ends up with the police commissioner and the mayor having to resign because they created a bureaucracy where such a person was allowed to serve.

How do you codify something like that into law, though? Wouldn't that have to be done at the municipal level? Forcing cops to carry professional insurance, and not being able to employ uninsurable cops would be a pretty quick way to end the argument.


Honestly, the idea of forcing each individual officer to carry their own professional/liability insurance isn't a bad one. Police Departments themselves already either carry that for the officers or self insure coverage. That's where all the big settlement payments come from.

However if you put each officer in charge of their own professional/liability for their actions taken while under the department, making sure each insurance policy meets a general minimum requirement, give each officer a monthly stipend to offset the "anticipated cost" then let the insurance agencies do the rest. "Good" cops then get rewards with lower premiums and would actively seek training that would lower their premiums and keep it low because it lowers the insurance companies risk (same reason privately insured PD get discounts for putting officers through training intended to lower the risk of liability exposure) and the bad cops would find themselves uninsurable and out on their ass pretty fast after that.

Honestly it's not a bad idea IMO.
 
2021-05-09 11:58:12 PM  

emtwo: blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.

There is no such thing as "police reform" until qualified immunity is gone. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Qualified immunity literally renders all other reforms meaningless.


I doubt you actually know what QI does
 
2021-05-10 12:00:04 AM  
Persnickety:

The alternative to making progress is to do nothing at all and sadly, there are many many people here who feel that way.  I guess you could call them

Moderates.  The word you're looking for is "moderates", though to be technically accurate it would be "self-described moderates" since there is nothing moderate about any of the positions they promote.
 
2021-05-10 12:00:58 AM  

IndyJohn: emtwo: blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.

There is no such thing as "police reform" until qualified immunity is gone. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Qualified immunity literally renders all other reforms meaningless.

I doubt you actually know what QI does


That's not an argument.
 
2021-05-10 12:03:08 AM  

emtwo: IndyJohn: emtwo: blender61: I would not call that a facepalm, but more a matter of political pragmatism. Any talk of ending qualified immunity is DOA.
There is also a general misunderstand of what qualified immunity is, means and who exactly is covered by it.


We strive for the perfect, fight like hell for the best, and accept the good in the belief that a step forward is better than no step.

There is no such thing as "police reform" until qualified immunity is gone. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Qualified immunity literally renders all other reforms meaningless.

I doubt you actually know what QI does

That's not an argument.


Cool

Because neither was your post
 
2021-05-10 12:16:43 AM  
James Clyburn is the Diane Feinstein of Joe Manchins.
 
2021-05-10 12:18:33 AM  

palelizard: I'm not a fan of QI in any way, but I don't think you can reasonably get any movement on it. Best solution I can think of is to find a way to make the entire department/union pay for it when somebody gets out of line. Right now, there's no impetus for them to police their own, so they don't.


Making the entire department pay is actually a good plan. Nothing like a threatening to the donut fund to get 'em to turn on each other.
 
2021-05-10 12:20:52 AM  

keldaria: roc6783: Shaggy_C: roc6783: Again, I may be wrong so please correct me if I am.

You're not wrong. The point is suing a person who makes $40k per year for millions of dollars is pointless. They'll never be able to pay, so they'll just declare bankruptcy and start over. The plaintiffs get nothing, and the murderer gets a ding on their credit score.

No, I think civil liability is a waste of time. If there's a killer cop out there, they should face the criminal justice system. The civil case should be there to get restitution for the family of the murdered person - and the cost should be so high that those in power above the cop should be held to account. What I want to see is a system where a Derik Chauvin incident ends up with the police commissioner and the mayor having to resign because they created a bureaucracy where such a person was allowed to serve.

How do you codify something like that into law, though? Wouldn't that have to be done at the municipal level? Forcing cops to carry professional insurance, and not being able to employ uninsurable cops would be a pretty quick way to end the argument.

Honestly, the idea of forcing each individual officer to carry their own professional/liability insurance isn't a bad one. Police Departments themselves already either carry that for the officers or self insure coverage. That's where all the big settlement payments come from.

However if you put each officer in charge of their own professional/liability for their actions taken while under the department, making sure each insurance policy meets a general minimum requirement, give each officer a monthly stipend to offset the "anticipated cost" then let the insurance agencies do the rest. "Good" cops then get rewards with lower premiums and would actively seek training that would lower their premiums and keep it low because it lowers the insurance companies risk (same reason privately insured PD get discounts for putting officers through training intended to lower the risk of liability exposure) and the bad cops would find themselves uninsurable and out on their ass pretty fast after that.

Honestly it's not a bad idea IMO.


Yup. That's pretty much my thought too. You don't see too many doctors at Mayo Clinic that can't get malpractice insurance.
 
2021-05-10 12:47:12 AM  

DarkSoulNoHope: Persnickety: Nadie_AZ: Here I thought you started waaaaaay out where you want to be and then negotiate towards a compromise.

Nope.  You talk with Manchin and figure out how much progress he'll allow and then go with that.  Compromise only works when there's something both sides want.  Manchin is happy with what we have now.  The alternative to making progress is to do nothing at all and sadly, there are many many people here who feel that way.  I guess you could call them anti-progressives

When you say see how far Manchin is willing to go in one sentence and then say how happy he is with things the way they currently are, then you already have your answer.

/Primary him.


If you replace people like him with hard-lefters in primaries, you're going to get more Republicans elected, because most of the Joe Manchins were about as left-wing as their voters would tolerate. So, yes, good idea, primary him and all like him.
 
2021-05-10 1:06:30 AM  
police reform. what a novel idea! i'm sure it will work this time
 
Displayed 50 of 65 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.