inb4, "we don't want to defund the police, we want police reform but not like that" https://pix11.com/news/local-news/city-council-votes-to-end-qualified-immunity-for-nypd-officers/ City Council votes to end qualified immunity for NYPD officers LOWER MANHATTAN — New York City Council voted to pass a resolution effectively ending qualified immunity for police officers accused of civil rights violations, lawmakers announced Thursday. The rule is meant “to ensure that officers who violate Constitutional rights in the course of a search and seizure or by the use of excessive force are not entitled to qualified immunity,” legislators said. The council created a new local civil right providing protections against unreasonable search and seizure and excessive force. The resolution was passed along with several major police reforms outlined in a March 5 report from the city, first announced by the mayor. Part two was released on March 12. The qualified immunity statute was not part of the NYC Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative plan, but the mayor supports the resolution’s passage, he said. “Today we provide the people of New York City an important tool for accountability when law enforcement violates their rights,” said Council Member Stephen Levin, who sponsored the resolution. “This legislation is simple—it creates a set of civil rights here in New York City, mirroring those conferred by the 4th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, so that people in New York City can hold officers accountable if those officers violate their civil rights. It eliminates the shield of Qualified Immunity to allow victims the opportunity to seek justice.” Council Speaker Corey Johnson said New York City is now the first city in the nation to end qualified immunity. “Qualified immunity was established in 1967 in Mississippi to prevent Freedom Riders from holding public officials liable even when they broke the law,” he said in a tweet. “Rooted in our nation’s history of systemic racism, qualified immunity denied Freedom Riders justice and has been used to deny justice to victims of police abuse for decades. It should never have been allowed, but I’m proud that we took action today to end it here in NYC.” The Legal Aid Society applauded the move, but said more needs to be done. “The culture of impunity that has been allowed to exist and fester within the New York City Police Department is in part due to the doctrine of qualified immunity, which shields even the worst officers from legal liability and prevents victims of police abuse from getting justice in court,” said Robert Quackenbush, Staff Attorney with the Prisoners’ Rights Project at The Legal Aid Society. “This introduction is long overdue and a solid first step, but it should not supplant the need for statewide legislation, specifically A4331/S1991, a bill that would provide comprehensive relief to victims of police and corrections officer misconduct. The Legal Aid Society urges Albany lawmakers to enact this critical measure now.” The resolutions passed by the council build on the proposals from the Police Reform and Reinvention Collaborative plan introduced by the mayor, the mayor’s office said. “These reforms will confront centuries of overpolicing in communities of color and strengthen the bonds between police and community,” said Mayor Bill de Blasio. “I’m grateful to our co-sponsors—Jennifer Jones Austin, Wes Moore, and Arva Rice—for their vision and leadership throughout this process, as well as Speaker Johnson and Chair Adams. Together, we’ll make our city safer and fairer for generations to come.” The police reform resolution has five goals: The Decriminalization of Poverty. Recognition and Continual Examination of Historical and Modern-Day Racialized Policing in New York City. Transparency and Accountability to the People of New York City. Community Representation and Partnership. A Diverse, Resilient, and Supported NYPD. Police reform plans were required to be submitted this spring by the governor; they’re due from local governments on April 1.
Well -- let's roll back the "qualified immunity" laws all the way then. Cities used to be financially liable when uncontrolled riots burned & looted businesses and homes. These laws were also undone in the 60s -- let's get them back on the books. If BLM & ANTIFA burn & loot my business because the city does not control the riot then the city should pay for my store.
you're welcome to sue the city and make the argument. Source that says citizens can't bring a successful lawsuit against the city for failure to protect their private property during a riot?
Imagine thinking a force funded by our tax dollars to serve and protect overreaching and killing said employers is the same as street hooligans committing petty crime and vandalism? These cons asking the standard for cops to be the same of criminals don't help their case.
Until the 1960s -- financial liability for violent riots were defined by Sovereign Immunity laws which are part of Eminent Domain regulations . Some states/cities had Sovereign immunity laws related to cities being financially liable for riot damage; others did not. There are also state/city riot act statues which define financial liability for violent riots that are not controlled by a city. In the late 60s and early 70s there were debates on both sides of this issue; some advocates demanding financially liability laws be instituted everywhere and others demanding the existing laws be discontinued. Many states/cities in the 1960s eliminated laws holding cities financially responsible for violent riot damage because they were scared of the possible huge financial cost for the race riots in the 60s/70s. As of 1968 15 states still had laws holding cities financially liable for violent riot damage. Municipal Liability for Riot Damage https://www.jstor.org/stable/1339512?seq=1 Legal paper about the issue from the earlier 1970s. Municipal Liability For Riot Damage Under Eminent Domain https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.ed....com/&httpsredir=1&article=3209&context=wlulr Some cities and states still have riot act statutes -- and lawsuits are being filed from business owners to hold cities liable for recent riots. Baltimore businesses destroyed during riots sue city officials for failing to prevent violence Jun 21, 2017 https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/crime/bs-md-ci-rioting-lawsuit-20170621-story.html Dozens of Baltimore business owners are suing city officials, including the police department and former Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, saying they mishandled the city's response to the rioting in 2015. In a nearly 700-page complaint filed in federal court this week, more than 60 plaintiffs say city officials failed to prevent the looting and rioting that erupted after the arrest and death of Freddie Gray in April 2015, despite warnings the city would experience violence. More than 380 businesses, including many located south of North Avenue in West Baltimore, were damaged or destroyed. Property losses were estimated at nearly $13 million. The plaintiffs are suing under the Maryland riot act statute, which allows parties to bring a claim against the city for property damage during civil unrest. They name Rawlings-Blake and former Police Commissioner Anthony Batts, who were in office at the time of the riots, current Mayor Catherine Pugh, the City Council, city police and the state as defendants. They are seeking an unspecified amount in damages. (More at above url)
As a home owner and a business owner I am paying the city taxes for services. This includes garbage collection, fire department service, and police protection. If the city fails to uphold its responsibility to provide the police and fire protection services that I am paying for -- then I should certainly have the right to sue for damages. If I knew the city was not going to live up to their agreement to provide these services then I would have spent my tax money on private measures to provide my home and business with with security and fire protection. Eminent Domain cuts both ways -- to have any authority the city must provide the services they promised.