Governor Polis signed into law a bill that addresses police reforms.
From where I sit it looks like a good bill.
From where I sit it looks like a good bill.
Colorado
- Thread starter Spartans9312
- Start date
The most interesting aspect of this to me is that the law enforcement lobby didn't fight it. The bill apparently goes beyond previous attempts that have suffered quick deaths, in part because police adamantly opposed them. So if the police recognize that change is overdue, that says something.
If what I'm reading is correct, it looks like it ends qualified immunity for police. This would be a good thing.
Pressley and Amash introduced a bill in the House to end qualified immunity. It's time for The House to pass this bill.
Last edited:
The Colorado act creates a statutory civil claim for a police officer depravation of a right guaranteed in the Colorado bill of rights. The legislation provides that principles of qualified immunity doesn't apply to such a claim. (Federal law is not affected by this statute). One of the first questions the Colorado Supreme Court will need to deal with is whether negligence claims will be covered under the new law. For example, under Colorado law, life, liberty, or property can't be deprived without due process of law. If a police officer rear-ends a driver while on patrol in is patrol vehicle, that would be taking property without due process. That claim is covered under existing law--with limits of liability. The newly created right does not have a limit of liability and is a fee shifting claim. Big difference.
Last year, a SWAT event substantially damaged a home where an armed fugitive was holed up using the occupants as hostages. The federal court said there was no federal claim, nor was there a state law claim due to the exigent circumstances of the event. Under the newly created claim, I believe the homeowner would have a claim for damages notwithstanding the exigent circumstances. I think this event is part of the reason for the legislation.
Qualified immunity under federal law essentially provides immunity unless the state actor (Police officer) intends to violate constitutional rights. That is why the constitutional right must be clearly established because an individual cannot be responsible for violating a right he would have no reason to know exists. I think qualified immunity serves a useful purpose and ought to be preserved. FWIW, qualified immunity does not provide a defense to excessive force cases. I know some who play lawyer on TV talk shows suggest qualified immunity is a problem in the George Floyd case. Rest assured that it is not.
It’s insane how Democrats create a problem and take zero accountability for it. You have a great state government CO🤣
Screaming about the bad bill will be their only alternative to taking blame for the mess they’ve made.
It’s incredible they can’t understand (or won’t admit) that this is a price you pay if you want to be a sanctuary city.
I think a lot of people are going to see right through this.
Progressives never understand consequences. Just all feelings idealism and heart
I’d add campaigning. All feelings, idealism, heart, and re-election. I see no other explanation for the bIpartisan immigration bill we discussed ad nauseam. The bill was all short term and made the long term asylum problem much worse. And that problem infects all elected officials, not just progressives.
I was thinking of posting this yesterday, but never got around to it. Mike Johnson’s solution was to beg the feds for more money, he never mentioned closing the border or terminating sanctuary status.
At least Martha’s Vineyard was honest about their sanctuary status. It was just for show and didn’t mean anything.
Need to delineate between those who associate with the movement and those politicians trying to represent it.
Damn crypto.
"eco-friendly" funeral services spent all the money on cars, trips and crypto.
