Should l.e.o.'s be immune to prosecution/lawsuits?

[sfb92]

Does anyone else think that l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

You have cases like the Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo shootings where the police were acting in good faith but things went wrong.

In the Sean Bell case the officers were taking action to stop Bell's party because one of his friends called for someone to get his gun. They only shot at the car because Bell, a drunk driver, accelerated at them and hit a police vehicle.

In the Diallo shooting the officers shot him when he disobeyed their commands and reached for something, what they thought was a weapon.

You also have the Gilmer Hernandez case. Hernandez, a deputy, fired at a car that almost hit him. One of his rounds injured an illegal being transported. He was cleared of any wrong doing. However the feds reopened the case and he was convicted and sentenced to jail.

In all of these cases the officer's were acting in good faith, but still had to go through the courts.

Also officers can face civil action due to what they do as an officer.

While there are bad officers out there, do you think l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

[Piggy]

Sure, but I think to figure out something was in good faith, you'll have to go through some kind of court hearing anyway.

[BJJVad]

Does anyone else think that l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

You have cases like the Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo shootings where the police were acting in good faith but things went wrong.

In the Sean Bell case the officers were taking action to stop Bell's party because one of his friends called for someone to get his gun. They only shot at the car because Bell, a drunk driver, accelerated at them and hit a police vehicle.

In the Diallo shooting the officers shot him when he disobeyed their commands and reached for something, what they thought was a weapon.

You also have the Gilmer Hernandez case. Hernandez, a deputy, fired at a car that almost hit him. One of his rounds injured an illegal being transported. He was cleared of any wrong doing. However the feds reopened the case and he was convicted and sentenced to jail.

In all of these cases the officer's were acting in good faith, but still had to go through the courts.

Also officers can face civil action due to what they do as an officer.

While there are bad officers out there, do you think l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

You also forget, LEO's are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the media.

On the real side, there are cases where ruling's have been in favor for Officer's acting in good faith.

http://www.pe.com/digitalextra/metro...9.3ffad56.html

[phantasm]

Does anyone else think that l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

You have cases like the Sean Bell and Amadou Diallo shootings where the police were acting in good faith but things went wrong.

In the Sean Bell case the officers were taking action to stop Bell's party because one of his friends called for someone to get his gun. They only shot at the car because Bell, a drunk driver, accelerated at them and hit a police vehicle.

In the Diallo shooting the officers shot him when he disobeyed their commands and reached for something, what they thought was a weapon.

You also have the Gilmer Hernandez case. Hernandez, a deputy, fired at a car that almost hit him. One of his rounds injured an illegal being transported. He was cleared of any wrong doing. However the feds reopened the case and he was convicted and sentenced to jail.

In all of these cases the officer's were acting in good faith, but still had to go through the courts.

Also officers can face civil action due to what they do as an officer.

While there are bad officers out there, do you think l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

If a cop is found to be within the law and other guidelines, then the department pays any lawsuits. Its called indemnification.

I won't comment on Sean Bell as there are still aspects of that case that are ongoing.

Diallo, the city and cops were sued, but the city covered all judgements because it was found that the cops were within the law.

[Grift]

Does anyone else think that l.e.o.'s should be immune to prosecution and civil action when acting in good faith in their official capacity?

That's basically how it is already. It's called qualified immunity. They have to act with good faith, probable cause, and in the scope of their authority.

Other government officials get even more personal immunity for their official acts, probably because they're more likely to be redressable by money damages.

[DeltaV]

You also have the Gilmer Hernandez case. Hernandez, a deputy, fired at a car that almost hit him. One of his rounds injured an illegal being transported. He was cleared of any wrong doing. However the feds reopened the case and he was convicted and sentenced to jail.

I'll comment on this one since it's one I know the most about.

It's true that Hernandez fired on a car that almost hit him--or attempted to run him over. Such a shooting is perfectly justified as long as the vehicle is presenting a threat to the officer, however Hernandez kept shooting at the vehicle after the danger had passed. In essence, he was shooting at a fleeing felon--something that was prohibited under Tennessee v. Garner. Once the vehicle missed him, it continued in an attempt to flee. There was nothing Hernandez knew to lead him to believe the occupant(s) of the vehicle presented an immediate threat to the citizenry, so shooting at a fleeing felon in that situation wasn't the best decision.

In order to be acting in good faith you need to actually be acting in good faith. Good faith means acting within the scope of their authority. An officer needs to know that they cannot shoot at a fleeing felon except only in egregious circumstances. In this case, the government decided that he was not acting in good faith because he should have known that he can't shoot at a fleeing felon who is not presenting a threat. He was more than welcome to argue in court that they WERE presenting an immediate threat and justified the use of force, however neither the AUSA nor the jury believed that.

Now I'm not going to defend their decision to try Hernandez, but that's the reasoning that they used. Good faith only applies if you're operating within the scope of Constitutional requirements that are COMMONLY known. That doesn't mean officers need to know every little snippet of case law, however it means that they need to know the landmark cases and do their job within the limits set by those cases. If they don't, they're not covered under qualified immunity.

[dinarguy]

You also forget, LEO's are guilty until proven innocent in the eyes of the media.

On the real side, there are cases where ruling's have been in favor for Officer's acting in good faith.

http://www.pe.com/digitalextra/metro...9.3ffad56.html

You must be forgetting that mostly EVERYONE nowadays is guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are innocent, not just LEOs.

[Johninaustin]

Heck, I'd just settle for being immune to IHOP chow.

[davidh304]

You must be forgetting that mostly EVERYONE nowadays is guilty until proven beyond a reasonable doubt that they are innocent, not just LEOs.

But the brass can't figure out why morale is low