This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Worthless? No. Courts deny qualified immunity all the time. See this study finding that it is relatively rarely successful. Which is not to say that it is not nevertheless successful too often.
But it is almost certainly true that the bad cases in which QI is granted get plenty of press, but unless you follow Short Circuit, you never hear about the cases in which QI is denied.
I don't think "relatively rarely successful" is an accurate summary, as much as the lead-in might want to play otherwise. The surprisingly low 'success' rate of QI it highlights in the header comes from taking a list of 1983 claims in five jurisdictions "brought by civilians, alleging constitutional violations by state and local law enforcement agencies and their employees" that reached the trial phase where QI could have been brought, and then counting only those where it was brought and resulted in a complete dismissal of all claims on QI-specific nexuses.
((Also, its procedures are 'did Bloomberg specifically catch a QI motion', which... likely undercounts.))
If you're actually interested in how often QI motions are brought and completely denied, the study gives a number closer to 30-40%. Which is still higher than I'd expect! (I don't think it breaks out those denied on "not clear) But still much larger than "relatively rarely successful", or the 3.6%/3.9% it brings in the earlier summary. There are some valid reasons to include cases dismissed for other reasons in the denominator, or where QI 'only' eliminated most counts, or where the defense did not bring QI (and maybe some cases where the LEOs were not acting under official duties?); there are valid reasons to exclude non-LEO cases. But it limits the study heavily, as does its inability to break out why those denials occurred.
Nevertheless, a 30-40% rate is a far cry from "worthless." And this Reuters data looking at appellate court decisions on excessive force shows them letting cops off on QI in a minority of cases, though 1) it varies by circuit; and 2) it is nevertheless too high, probably.
That's more accurate, though I'd still nitpick that the Reuters data is looking solely at excessive force claims against law enforcement. Reasonable for Reuters since that's what most people care about, but going to necessarily involve a very constrained set of cases compared to the behavior here.
It's a relevant and useful link in the sense that there are cases where this "clearly established rights" are legitimately found, and I appreciate you providing it. At the same time, looking through a handful of these denials of QI show a lot of places where there were very long-established federal court cases precisely on-point with the police behavior in the case at hand, rather than many counterparts to cases like Baxter, which is probably closer to what cjet's thinking about.
Yes, QI is certainly granted too often, esp because of a lack of clarity re what it means for a right to be clearly established. Of course that is particularly problematic re police misconduct, since those cases my their nature are so fact-specific.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link