Police Abuse

The Fear That Abolishing Qualified Immunity Would Expose Cops to Ruinous Personal Liability Is a Big Fat Red Herring

A study of civil rights cases found that "police officers are virtually always indemnified" by their employers.

|

A year after George Floyd's death, Congress is still mulling reforms that could help prevent such horrifying abuses of police power. A major sticking point is restricting or abolishing qualified immunity, the court-invented doctrine that shields police officers from liability when the rights they are accused of violating were not "clearly established" at the time. The debate about qualified immunity has been dominated by Republican warnings that the threat of ruinous personal liability would have a chilling effect on legitimate policing. But that concern, it turns out, is a big fat red herring, because cops almost never pay a dime in damages even when courts rule against them.

In a 2014 study of civil rights cases that covered "forty-four of the largest law enforcement agencies across the country," UCLA law professor Joanna Schwartz found that "police officers are virtually always indemnified." That means they are not responsible for settlement payments or jury-awarded damages arising from allegations of police abuse. From 2006 to 2011, Schwartz reported in the New York University Law Review, "governments paid approximately 99.98% of the dollars that plaintiffs recovered in lawsuits alleging civil rights violations by law enforcement."

During that period, Schwartz writes, "officers financially contributed to settlements and judgments in just .41% of the approximately 9225 civil rights damages actions resolved in plaintiffs' favor, and their contributions amounted to just .02% of the over $730 million spent by cities, counties, and states in these cases." She notes that "officers did not pay a dime of the over $3.9 million awarded in punitive damages," and "governments satisfied settlements and judgments in full even when officers were disciplined or terminated by the department or criminally prosecuted for their conduct."

What about legal fees? "Although my public records requests did not seek information about who bears the cost of defense counsel," Schwartz says, "several government employees and plaintiffs' attorneys noted in their responses that officers are almost always represented by the city's or county's attorneys, or by attorneys hired by union representatives."

Despite this reality, defenders of qualified immunity insist it is necessary to protect cops from the financially devastating consequences of good-faith decisions that are later deemed illegal. In response to that chimerical concern, Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) has proposed a compromise that would allow federal civil rights claims against police departments instead of their employees. The New York Times reports that Scott "has suggested that the legal burden could be shifted from individual officers to police departments, potentially passing on financial liability to municipal governments while satisfying powerful police unions." But that is already what happens in practice.

State legislators are likewise keen to allay a fear that has no real basis. Since Floyd's death, Colorado, Connecticut, and New Mexico have enacted laws that allow victims of police abuse to seek damages in state court without having to overcome the formidable obstacle of qualified immunity, which frequently bars federal claims even in cases involving outrageous conduct. All three laws require indemnification of police officers in all or nearly all cases.

Colorado's law requires indemnification unless "the peace officer's employer determines that the officer did not act on a good faith and reasonable belief that the action was lawful." Connecticut requires municipalities to cover all defendant expenses unless an officer's misconduct was "deliberate, willful or committed with reckless indifference." New Mexico's law goes even further, ruling out individual liability in any circumstances.

Schwartz's research suggests that such protections are redundant. "My findings of widespread indemnification undermine assumptions of financial responsibility relied upon in civil rights doctrine," she writes. "Although the [Supreme] Court's stringent qualified immunity standard rests in part on the concern that individual officers will be overdeterred by the threat of financial liability, actual practice suggests that these officers have nothing reasonably to fear, at least where payouts are concerned."

NEXT: Phoenix Authorities Used 'ACAB' Slogan To Designate Protesters as a Gang

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The Fear That Abolishing Qualified Immunity Would Expose Cops to Ruinous Personal Liability Is a Big Fat Red Herring

    S230 is different because of a free and fair press reporters and social media.

    1. That’s different!!1!!11!

      1. It’s so clearly different. They aren’t the govt. They aren’t killing and jailing people. Oh and rightwing speech is everywhere. You aren’t being silenced. Y’all literally make up fake shit because you have nothing.

        1. Evil right wing speech is everywhere so people don’t have a right to redress of greivances. You care juset enough about the problem to actively misportray it so that your preferred groups get the government protections. Zero shits given about free speech, equality under the law, or liberty in general. We got it.

          1. Making money online more than $15k just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little GTq child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info on this page………..JOBS APP

            1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are DSFE much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
              on this page…..VISIT HERE

          2. For all of dads and moms that love to stay home to take care of their loved ones,
            or rest of people on the search for an opportunity to pull in some extra income for their family
            month after month let me share a remarkable opportunity to explore. >>>> JOBS APP

    2. S230 and qualified immunity are not even in the same league. What happened to just calling balls and strikes. Qualified immunity needs to go. Liberals have a point on that one.

      S230 is good for US ALL. The fact you would want it removed either means you are braindead following talking points, a bot or truly misguided. The only people that WANT S230 repealed are NON internet users or Mega Corporations. If you think holding companies liable for the speech on their platform is going to INCREASE free speech you are SORELY mistaken. If you or I could sue a company because someone say something hateful and acts on it and it’s not moderated we can hold the Social Media company liable.

      The more apt comparison is Holding Gun Manufacturers liable for Gun crime. That is LITERALLY THE MOST APT comparison.

      1. Agree on everything except for the lack of the Oxford Comma.

        “The fact you would want it removed either means you are braindead following talking points, a bot[comma here] or truly misguided.”

        1. I was never okay with that superfluous comma.

          1. It’s only superfluous when it is obvious enough that the missing comma doesn’t cause confusion.

            Also, yo’ momma’s superfluous. 🙂

            1. My favorite Yo Mamma joke: “Yo mamma’s so big her butt looks like two pigs fighting over a milk dud.

      2. S230 is something that most of you leftists don’t understand. If repealed it only makes them liable if they start policing speech because by lack of elimination they decide what gets printed and what does not, making them on legal par with the NYT.

        1. No it doesn’t. Christs sake S230 changes the liability scheme. What made the internet the internet wouldn’t have existed if hosts and websites were responsible for the user’s actions and words in the comment section. The difference between Reason and the NYT is the comment section isn’t being broadcasted as reason’s content. If you repeal 230 your comment and my comment are now considered Reason’s responsibility. You think reason or whatever site you like to visit isn’t going to police their comment section even harder after they no longer have legal protection to say “we don’t control the writings and rantings of our readers”? If you truly believe that A I have an offer where you can work from home and make a ton of money, just give me 100k and I’ll share the secret with you B) you are an idiot, C) You are delusional D) You are following braindead talking points.

          You are wanting Reasons’ comment section to be on part with The NYT editorials and news articles. Seriously there’s something majorly wrong with that type of thinking.

          1. Christs sake S230 changes the liability scheme. What made the internet the internet wouldn’t have existed if hosts and websites were responsible for the user’s actions and words in the comment section.

            Yup. Cubby sued Compuserve over speech they hosted but didn’t moderate. Compuserve was found not to be liable. Cox/Wyden passed the CDA because they felt that Compuserve should be held liable.

            Though, considering the depth at which you read and understood the 1A below, I may as well have just tied a cinder block around your neck and tossed you in the ocean.

      3. S230 and qualified immunity are not even in the same league.

        Violations of the 1A by Congress aren’t Major League? Violations of the 1A are OK as long as they’re strictly Bush League?

        The more apt comparison is Holding Gun Manufacturers liable for Gun crime. That is LITERALLY THE MOST APT comparison.

        So, you’re saying that shooting someone in violation of the law is in the same league as violating free speech?

        1. What does S230 have to do with the Congress infringing on 1A rights?

          I don’t know if you know this or not but your 1A ONLY apply to the Government stopping your speech. Private companies, Private properties can and do restrict what you can wear, how you act, whether or not you can enter.

          No, Again I’m saying S230 maintains the protection sites like Reason have currently. Without it they’d have to heavily moderate and/or discontinue their commenting.

          1. I don’t know if you know this or not but your 1A ONLY apply to the Government stopping your speech.

            Just because your copy of the 1A has the word ‘government’ in it and stops at free speech, doesn’t mean everybody else doesn’t know what the actual 1A says.

  2. Oh, so the public gets to pay for police misconduct, twice.

    1. The public hired them and set the rules of engagement. If they aren’t responsible, who is?

    1. The point is that politician can say that he abolished qualified immunity without actually changing anything about the system.

      1. It’s fucking ridiculous that police unions and bootlicking politicians claim it’s unreasonable to expect police officers to carry personal liability insurance. Doctors, lawyers and countless other professions do it.

        This would be the quickest way to weed out the so called bad apples. If you’re a goddamned psycho who’s prone to excessive force you won’t be insurable for long. In turn, you won’t be employable. This would result in police forces that don’t have maniacs among their ranks who are protected by police unions. This should be a win for everyone, but somehow this is thought of as crazy…

    2. The point of eliminating QI is primarily insuring compensation for the victims of police abuse.

      Secondary is it will have a economic impact on the budgets of PDs and municipalities and also on their insurers. The hope is that this would pressure them towards reforms.

  3. “The Fear That Abolishing Qualified Immunity Would Expose Cops to Ruinous Personal Liability Is a Big Fat Red Herring”

    There is a legitimate concern that cops will become more reluctant to engage with potentially violent criminals if they can lose any trial by a simple majority of the jurors and by a preponderance of the evidence–ultimately causing an increase in violent crime.

    And if the cops being indemnified is supposed to suggest that they aren’t likely to alter their behavior regardless of whether they have qualified immunity, what’s your objective in getting rid of qualified immunity? Aren’t you hoping that will change their behavior?

    1. There is still Absolute Immunity available to them.

      As I have explained numerous times – QI only protects you from your mistakes, negligence, incompetence, and openly criminal acts.

      Absolute Immunity still applies to things you do in the line of duty.

      Prosecutors don’t have QI – yet they’re still not inundated with a ruinous number of civil law suits. Because they’re protected by AI.

      1. “QI only protects you from your mistakes, negligence, incompetence, and openly criminal acts.”

        In the absence of QI, whether it was one of these things you listed, that is still determined by a simple majority of jurors and by a preponderance of the evidence, right?

          1. Because, just like right now, it would be reviewed – and dismissed, before it got to a jury.

            A judge would review the case and decide if you would be allowed to sue the government ( in the person of the cop) or if AI blocks that.

      2. The difference I see is that when a prosecutor makes a simple mistake, it doesn’t end someone’s life right then and there. When a cop makes a mistake that is a real possibility.

        I agree that QI needs to be reigned back, but AI may be too far

      3. Prosecutors don’t have QI – yet they’re still not inundated with a ruinous number of civil law suits. Because they’re protected by AI.

        Even then there’s a well-known/documented de rigueur QI. The public is(was) generally reluctant to prosecute cops, especially if his testimony is supported by other cops. Analogously, what moron of the street is gonna sue a DA?

    2. “There is a legitimate concern that cops will become more reluctant to engage with potentially violent criminals if they can lose any trial by a simple majority of the jurors and by a preponderance of the evidence–ultimately causing an increase in violent crime.”

      Civil cases in federal courts (where the vast majority of Section 1983 cases are filed) require unanimous verdicts, not a bare majority. Even California civil cases require three-fourths of the jury to agree, not just a bare majority.

      And, of course, qualified immunity does not affect either of those considerations.

      “And if the cops being indemnified is supposed to suggest that they aren’t likely to alter their behavior regardless of whether they have qualified immunity, what’s your objective in getting rid of qualified immunity? Aren’t you hoping that will change their behavior?”

      The first purpose of Section 1983 is to give victims of state agents remedy when their rights are violated. Qualified immunity interferes with that purpose quite directly. Compensating victims is better than not compensating victims.

      Qualified immunity also shields municipalities from liability, because if the individual officer isn’t liable they probably won’t be either because it’s really hard to prove a Monell claim. One of the reforms Tim Scott has proposed is to legislatively overrule Monell and make municipalities directly liable. Because of the near-universal indemnification, however, you can also do that simply by getting rid of qualified immunity. With municipalities responsible for the financial costs of more of their employees misbehavior, they have increased incentive to limit that misbehavior. Institutional incentives matter as well, and it’s simply not the case that every police department is as bad as every other one. Eliminating qualified immunity increases the incentives on municipalities to police their own.

      1. “The first purpose of Section 1983 is to give victims of state agents remedy when their rights are violated.”

        Surely, the argument for getting rid of qualified immunity has something to do with the hope that the police will be more reluctant to engage in certain behaviors if they fear being held accountable in civil court. For goodness’ sake, rational companies, organizations, and individuals avoid doing certain things for fear of liability, and it is highly unlikely that raising the potential costs of misbehavior will have no impact on the way the police behave.

        1. Which is why I added a second paragraph discussing how eliminating qualified immunity would increase the incentives of state and local governments to police the behavior of their employees. Hopefully that will include better training (perhaps by looking at other departments with better track records), supervision, and getting rid of bad actors once they are identified.

          Even with the individual officers indemnified by their employer eliminating qualified immunity does provide a small incentive for the officers to behave properly. The process is part of the punishment, even if its not as big a part as the damages. Being a party to a lawsuit is usually time consuming and stressful. Qualified immunity lets officers get out of cases early, before they have to spend much time on the lawsuit itself.

  4. Yeah sure as soon as you get indemnification every scumbag ambulance chaser is going after every cop that writes a ticket.

    Net result is cost to cities rising blowing out their budgets, again.

    Lawyers get rich everyone else gets fucked.

    1. If the cops are ticketing legally and in accordance with procedures – then they’re protected by absolute immunity.

      And let’s not forget that QI didn’t exist before 1967 – and really wasn’t in force until the early 1980’s (after Bivens). Yet cops were able to issue tickets just fine.

    2. If the cops can control themselves and not violate someone’s rights in the course of their duties, that wouldn’t be a problem. I would add to all of this the requirement that to be a police officer, you should have to pass a basic test of what your fellow citizens rights are.

      But power attracts assholes, and what’s more powerful than being able to do whatever the fuck you want under color of law?

    3. I agree with buckleup here.

      Changes do need to be made but lets don’t make it where the lawyers win, then we all lose.

      Remember, the nanny state partly a product of liability lawsuits. We have to do stupid shit, and read stupid things all in the name helping someone from being sued. This is why the left would love to remove liability protections from firearms makers. They have failed to put a dent in the issue so far by legislative means so they think lawsuits are the way to put them out of business.

  5. The Fear That Abolishing Qualified Immunity Would Expose Cops to Ruinous Personal Liability Is a Big Fat Red Herring

    Is it?

    Because I thought that was the point of ending QI – to allow these cops to be personally responsible for their screwups and crimes.

    1. First and foremost is that the injured party has someone to sue and possible recover damages from. At present, they are screwed. Cops destroy your home because they can’t get the address right, shoot your dog, harass your family; tough luck.

      Cops can get personal liability protection just like I do. Health care has a stable equilibrium in this regard with only a tiny percent of total revenue going toward insurance premiums; for me about 2% of billed revenue. My neurosurgeon colleagues might see something closer to 10%. Point is, avoiding individual financial ruin one must have insurance. Cop unions will negotiate that this is covered by their employer. But now there is a third party involved, the insurer, which will write the policy according to actual cost incurred. Some cops will become uninsurable, just like some docs become uninsurable.

  6. A study of civil rights cases found that “police officers are virtually always indemnified” by their employers.

    This is correct. So if the goal is to get government officials to temper their behavior through the mechanism of accountability due to threat of lawsuit…what is the ultimate point here?

    1. 1. Compensate victims of government abuse.

      2. Increase institutional incentives to police the conduct of their employees.

      1. amen to both points

      2. victims of governmental abuse can already sue the departments and cities, and have successfully, and qualified immunity doesn’t* come into play.

        So what’s the ultimate point here?

        *there was the recent case where somehow the city was given qualified immunity, which is the first I’d heard of that. I suspect that may get overturned by a higher court.

        1. “victims of governmental abuse can already sue the departments and cities, and have successfully, and qualified immunity doesn’t* come into play.”

          You keep saying this, but it’s really not true.

          When you hear about a municipality settling a case with a plaintiff, they are almost always resolving all of the claims, including the claims against the individual officer (municipalities are generally required to defend and pay any judgment against the individual officer by the collective bargaining agreement).

          Despite all you’ve read about the horrors of qualified immunity, and they are true, it’s still generally easier to prevail on the claim against the individual officer than it is against the city. There is no respondeat superior doctrine for municipalities making them liable for the constitutional violations of their employees. Instead, the plaintiff has to prove that the constitutional violation resulted from the (1) formal policy of the municipality, (2) an informal custom promulgated by the municipality that is essentially equivalent to a formal policy, or (3) a failure to train its employees to the extent that it demonstrates a deliberate indifference. It is very difficult to tie the actions of an individual officer to any of these categories. The city almost certainly does not have a policy directing officers to shoot tear gas canisters at people’s faces, and probably has one saying not to. One recent plaintiff was able to do so when the municipality’s (Euclid, the same city that recently received the benefit of qualified immunity in a different case) training manual included cartoons joking about constitutional violations, but that kind of evidence rarely exists. This is a summary of the Monell doctrine for municipal liability, which is actually more hopeful than most, but make sure not to ignore the end about how it works in practice.
          https://www.lawfareblog.com/municipal-liability-police-misconduct-lawsuits

          Even if the Monell claim survives a motion for summary judgment, it’s a different claim than an excessive force claim against an individual officer. In a Monell claim against the City, the jury could decide in favor of the plaintiff that the officers used excessive force in violation of the plaintiff’s constitutional rights but still decide that the City is not liable because there was no official policy in place that led to the violation.

  7. Oh no!! Personal liability!! The horror!!

  8. Well as they say. Better a Big Fat Red Herring than a Big Fat Greek Wedding

    1. I haven’t had a good piece of herring in quite a while. There used to be this Russian place where I lived that had some great smoked fish.

      There was this Greek girl back in the day.

  9. I hope you realize you don’t get to play the slippery slope when QI was first ruled in favor of by SCOTUS because of…

    Wait for it…

    Ruinous personal liability.

  10. The Fear That Abolishing Qualified Immunity Would Expose Cops to Ruinous Personal Liability just like every other citizen who doesn’t have QI to hide behind.

    FTFY.

    Where’s my QI? When do we want it? NOW! Or some equally childish fist pumping chant which actually rhymes and simpletons can actually remember.

    1. Agreed.

      Cops should not be privileged above the rest of us.

      In fact, the Park doctrine should apply to them.

  11. A year after George Floyd’s death, Congress is still mulling reforms that could help prevent such horrifying abuses of police power.

    Let’s be clear. They’re not mulling shit, they’re not doing shit, and they’re not going to do shit. They live in fear of the unions that represent the people with the guns.

    We civilians are completely fucked on this issue, and we’re gonna stay fucked until something truly catastrophic causes an immediate ban of public sector unions.

    No QI
    No unions
    No records secrecy

    1. So basically Judge Dredd is our reality until politicians grow a spine? But that will never happen.

      Oh…

  12. The biggest problem with QI is that courts can grant QI and then dismiss the underlying case without setting any precent for future QI cases. I think if courts were forced to issue a ruling and thus set a precedent would see an improvement immediately.

    lFailing that, Sen Braun’s (R-IN) bill from the last congress that would invert the burden in QI cases, requiring the cop to show precedent that he had immunity, as opposed to the plaintiff showing he doesn’t, would also provide a better scenario. Albeit with the risk of courts always finding in favor of the cops, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it (along with the same bridge in my earlier scenario)

  13. As right-wing clingers lose their grip on competitiveness in America’s public debates, these lousy cop succors — and their Immoral, judge-made qualified immunity — will be among the casualties.

    Carry on, clingers . . . But only so far as your betters permit.

    1. My better? That sumb*tch ain’t been born yet.

      And If losing QI makes cops reluctant to engage…. works for when you try to claim otherwise. I’m next door; the cops are 10 minutes away.

  14. “A study of civil rights cases found that “police officers are virtually always indemnified” by their employers.”

    This is why eliminating QI must be just the first necessary step. Until cops feel the pain personally, like their victims, and their fellows cops see them suffer; the deterrent will be woefully insufficient to reduce their widespread abuses. Cops live for their extravagant, early, and defined benefit pensions, making these act in lieu of a bond for their respect of citizens and their civil and property rights should be the next step.

    Cops are all bad apples, even the purported best of them;

    “Officer of the Year Confesses to Child Rape Ring, Names Fellow Cops, Then Kills Himself”

    https://thefreethoughtproject.com/officer-of-the-year-confessed-police-child-rape-ring/

    and only very vigilant, independent oversight with quick and harsh consequences can reduce their abuses and crimes.

    A.C.A.B.
    All
    Cops
    Are
    Bureaucrats

    “Bureaucracy is a giant mechanism operated by pygmies.” ~ Honore de Balzac

  15. It has been suggested that the legal burden should be transferred from individual police officers to the police department. It is possible to transfer financial responsibilities to the municipal government while also satisfying the powerful police union. “But this has already happened in practice
    https://www.mydresshut.com/

  16. Is the problem that individual cops are protected from liability and that federal law protects the municipalities from liability? And therefore there’s nobody to hold accountable for egregious civil rights violations?

    If that’s the case I think I support Tim Scott’s proposal to make municipalities responsible for the actions of their employees. If the goal is to change the behavior of some cops, vigorous employer oversight will do that more effectively than the occasional civil settlement against an individual cop. How many cops are there with enough assets that it would even be worth suing?

    I don’t think it’s good for anyone to have cops fearful of doing their jobs because they might lose whatever equity they might have in their house or the meager savings in their 403b.

    Municipalities have to do a better job of selecting, training and supervising their employees. And when they don’t, the municipality (and by extension the tax payer) should have the liability.

  17. This is such bullshit. I hate a bad cop as much as the next guy but all this hoopla over some dirt bag nigger dying of a drug overdose in police custody has catapulted America into a serious cognitive dissonance epidemic. And btw, when I read that any “Schwartz” has an opinion I automatically know it’s deceptive and morally bankrupt.

    1. As long as bad cops are tolerated there are no good cops.

      1. To paraphrase Frank Serpico, It will not change until the bad cop fears the good cop, not the other way around.

  18. There is a perfectly good free market solution here, liability insurance. Police officer would get the insurance, likely through their unions and covered as part of work expense. The insurance companies would assess risk, identify problem areas and charge accordingly. Police departments and unions could seek ways to reduce liability risk, adjust to reduce risk, and contain costs.

  19. Qualified Immunity should not be extended to anyone. Not Judges, Politicians, Government Employees, Military, Police or Citizens. Nobody, zip-nada.

  20. I’ve never seen more a fear of accountability. Heaven forbid we hold police to the same standards we hold everyone else.

  21. Authoritarian, bigoted right-wing cop succors are among my favorite culture war casualties. That these clingers seem to figure they can protect qualified immunity much longer, as the liberal-libertarian mainstream continues to shape our national progress against conservative wishes and efforts, is silly.

  22. Why shouldn’t a bad cop be ruined financially? Citizens doing the exact same are “toast”. No badge? You’re guilty, until proven innocent. Badge? Take a paid vacation while your boys in blue do a through investigation and conclude you acted “within policy”. Was it immoral, inhuman, brutally unconstitutional? No matter. All that matters is “policy”, and don’t ask for a definition or you might get an attitude adjustment.

  23. This is why tinkering with civil liability won’t effect police behavior—the taxpayers are still on the hook for the settlements and the violent and destructive cops don’t suffer for their atrocities. Police will not respect citizen rights until they start going to prison for egregiously violating them, like anyone else would.

  24. The case for ending QI is seriously harmed by the existence of BLM and the Democrats’ general aversion to integrity. Society is breaking down at a basic level, and now the only question is who will be imposing on us.

    I’ll take the police over antifa.

  25. Cops are the enforcers of the legislative branch. Quit trying to create a society where everything is a crime.

  26. According to this logic, we should just do away with tort reform and all liability protection on corporations as long local governments pay out settlement and damages. Some may argue that ultimately comes out of OUR pockets, but oh well.

    Sullum’s naive position assumes that (1) people will sue police responsibly when liability protection ends (2) there will be ZERO financial loss for officers in the face of increasing lawsuits (3) cities will continue to settle with accusers if lawsuits double or triple.

    If the government tries to discourage certain behavior by facilitating lawsuits, companies will either abandon the entire field or drop anything that can invite lawsuits. That’s market principle 101. So again, libertarians drop their own principles when it comes to their anti cop agenda.

    Homicide has gone up significantly post Floyd, so we’re already seeing this in effect. This isn’t theoretical. Libertarians will clap like trained seals at the thought of cops not making traffic stops, but in reality, it would result in more deaths, accidents, and theft, often involving nonwhite people. Someone took off the catalytic converter off my car this year, and I’ve never been carjacked in my life. Cars lined up on red zones outside my apartment and two cars got into accidents getting out because they likely couldn’t see oncoming traffic.

    If parents were able to sue the government for illegal aliens harming their children, we could see dozens of cases a month. Grieving mothers would testify how a thrice deported illegal murdered and raped her daughter. Reason would be forced to retreat to their “immigrants aren’t dangerous” position. Well, guess what, most cops aren’t dangerous. They shot 15 unarmed black people in 2019. The country is 40% nonwhite, and cops hardly abuse most demo outside of the crime ridden black community.

    I’m not flaming leftist, I don’t care what Reason’s staff is 99% white. But remember, it’s not white people who will suffer the most when cops don’t do their jobs. It’ll be blacks and eventually immigrants, as we’re already witnessing among Asians. America has 300 million people, if .01% of them got more violent, that could add up to 100 more murders a year.

  27. I was surprised when all the cops abandoned their station to be burned, looted. I wonder what their strategy could be.
    It was to give Antifa plenty of rope to discredit itself and scare the populace into accepting the false choice of “law/police/order or chaos”. We watched as MSM showed middle-class businesses destroyed by rioters, over and over, relentlessly, as if no other scenario were possible. Not once did MSM show untouched stores that were protected privately, except where that failed. How many succeeded? We might never learn. MSM won’t cover them. Why? MSM exists to brainwash, to propagandize.
    During the Watt’s riots, no stores were touched when the owner stood in front with a rifle. Self-defense gets no press. My father-law has a warning sign on the front of his house: “I don’t call 911” with a picture of a pistol. It’s worked for a half century. Criminals are cowards.

  28. I was a government official (not a police officer) for over 35 years before I retired. I had a certain level of qualified immunity due to State law and was covered by my employer’s liability insurance. I frequently interacted with unhappy members of the public who would yell or scream at me. In all of those cases if I had decided the amount of disrespect I was being showed allowed to beat the s**** out of the person yelling at me, I would have been justifiably fired. Qualified immunity is less of an issue than police union contracts that allow bad actors to keep their jobs. If police chiefs were allowed to fire bad cops it would keep the cops accountable. If the chiefs didn’t do that the city or county councils could fire them and demand accountability from the next chief. Easier said than done but that would be the quickest way to reform the police. Then each city/county would get the policing it wanted thru its elected officials.

  29. Chemistry in Drug Design
    https://www.profacgen.com/Quantum-Mechanics-Chemistry-in-Drug-Design.htm
    The process of drug discovery involves the identification of molecular candidates, synthesis and test of chemical compounds for their pharmaceutical efficacy.

Please to post comments