Federal Judge Makes Radical Move to End Qualified Immunity for Bad Cops, Nationally

 Cities quite literally burned over the anger that has been boiling up over decades as cops kill people - who are often innocent, unarmed, and even children - and obtain away with it.

To strike the basis of the matter , we'd like bad cops held accountable.

One major thanks to do that is by ending Qualified Immunity.

This month, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves filed a 72-page opinion blasting qualified immunity which has given countless bad cops a pass all supported a severely flawed doctrine.

In Jamison v. McClendon, U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves recently concluded that Officer Nick McClendon violated Clarence Jamison's Fourth Amendment rights when he subjected Jamison to an almost two-hour ordeal that included badgering, pressuring, lying and intrusively searching his car.

The judge's hands were tied by the qualified immunity doctrine so he was forced to deny Jamison's legal claim.

Reeves, an African American man, traced the event of the law and therefore the institutional racism and police brutality that still plague our society.

Jamison was entirely innocent, but police lied, manipulated, and violated his rights during a futile look for non-existent drugs.

Thanks to the doctrine of qualified immunity, Jamison was told to kick rocks.

Reeves was legally sure to rule against Jamison due to the qualified immunity defense.

"[J]udges have invented a legal doctrine to guard enforcement officers from having to face any consequences for wrongdoing," Reeves wrote.

"The doctrine is named 'qualified immunity.' In real world it operates like absolute immunity." However, he added, "[i]mmunity isn't exoneration.

Now, Reeves has made it's personal mission to abolish this tyrannical doctrine.

"Through their efforts we become ever more perfect." Reeves cited Congressman John Lewis, who "Stared down the racists of his era when he marched over the Edmund Pettus Bridge." He mentioned the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which abolished the doctrine of "Separate but equal." Reeves wrote, "The question of today is whether or not the Supreme Court will rise to the occasion and do an equivalent with qualified immunity."

Truthout explains that since qualified immunity may be a court-made rule, the courts could abolish it.

Although the Supreme Court declined to review the doctrine within the last term, the abolition of qualified immunity in Colorado state courts, along side Reeves's comprehensive condemnation of it, could lead the supreme court to reconsider the endurance of qualified immunity in its next term.

'Do we would like to measure during a society whereby enforcement officials can completely violate an individual's constitutional rights and obtain away with it?' For our society to be free, the solution thereto question must be a powerful , powerful, unwavering, 'Hell No!'. Unfortunately this is often the case most of the time because of enforcement personnel's use and abuse of Qualified Immunity.

The Supreme Court created qualified immunity in 1982.

With that novel invention, the court granted all officialdom immunity for violating constitutional and civil rights unless the victims of these violations can show that the rights were "Clearly established."

It requires a victim to spot an earlier decision by the Supreme Court, or a federal appellate court within the same jurisdiction holding that precisely an equivalent conduct under an equivalent circumstances is against the law or unconstitutional.

Because there has never been a "Clearly established" case of a cop kneeling on a man's neck until he dies being declared unconstitutional, a judge in Minnesota could easily dismiss their case.

It is essentially a get out of jail free card for cops and it perpetuates the matter of police violence by giving bad cops a free pass.

Steps like this in Mississippi are essential to reining within the terror of bad cops.

This is why everyone must call their representatives and tell them to support the bill proposed by Libertarian Congressman Justin Amash, H.R. 7085 which can end Qualified Immunity on a national level.

"Qualified immunity protects police and other officials from consequences even for horrific rights abuses," said Amash.

"It prevents accountability for the 'bad apples' and undermines the public's faith in enforcement . It's at odds with the text of the law and therefore the intent of Congress, and it ultimately leaves Americans' rights without appropriate protection. Members of Congress have a requirement to make sure officialdom are often held in charge of violating Americans' rights, and ending qualified immunity may be a crucial a part of that."

If you're curious about the opposite paradigm shifting solutions into quelling police brutality and Americans' deprivation of rights, we propose five major solutions, including Qualified Immunity, which will have drastic changes.