The ruling in Harlow v Fitzgerald was actually illegal according to the full text of the law as written and passed. SCOTUS was given an illegally amended copy of the law.
no that can’t be true, obviously a just and honorable institution like the supreme court would have caught a mistake in the time since and corrected it. are you trying to besmirch the supreme court’s honor? you know theyre the SUPREME court, right? how dare you
They’re not completely immune. If the action is egregious enough or unpopular enough with the public (which seems to be what they’re complaining about), police can be convicted of crimes. Derek Chauvin, for example.
also, cops are immune to prosecution, so the court of public opinion is like, all they have
The ruling in Harlow v Fitzgerald was actually illegal according to the full text of the law as written and passed. SCOTUS was given an illegally amended copy of the law.
http://web.archive.org/web/20230520080201/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/15/us/politics/qualified-immunity-supreme-court.html
Qualified Immunity is illegal.
no that can’t be true, obviously a just and honorable institution like the supreme court would have caught a mistake in the time since and corrected it. are you trying to besmirch the supreme court’s honor? you know theyre the SUPREME court, right? how dare you
Sorry Sque
They’re not completely immune. If the action is egregious enough or unpopular enough with the public (which seems to be what they’re complaining about), police can be convicted of crimes. Derek Chauvin, for example.
It took me way too long to realise it’s the immunity that’s qualified, not the officer.