The term “qualified immunity” is often used in cases relating to police brutality in the United States. This term is important when looking at these cases because it clarifies if and when a police officer (or other government official) must be held accountable for the violation of someone’s constitutional rights. Essentially, the goal of qualified immunity is “[to] balance two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably,” according to Cornell Law’s website. In short, police officers must be able to do their jobs without worry of unfair repercussions.
While the distinction between these two interests is necessary when disciplining police officers, it is, in many instances, too vague to allow for punishment of officers at all, considering the ambiguity of the word “reasonable.” Being an officer of the law is a difficult job. The police are asked to handle a multitude of tasks, ranging from the mundane of giving tickets to the more serious of investigating a homicide or handling a shooting. However, this should not allow them to be above the law in any situation. Often, the difficulty of the job and the stress of dangerous circumstances are used as excuses for excessive or lethal force. Due to qualified immunity, as well as the allowance of deadly force in life threatening situations, many officers are given the benefit of the doubt in “gray area” situations. The assumption is that any reasonable officer would have acted in the same way.
My issue with this justification revolves around the extremity of many cases of lethal force by an officer in which the act was not morally justifiable. In terms of the law, if the officer is afraid for either their life or the lives of others, they are entirely within their rights to use any force necessary. However, the precedent that has been set for an officer being afraid for their life is incredibly low. In 2014, the murder of Eric Garner left a lasting impression on me and many others. Garner was selling cigarettes on the street when an NYPD officer confronted him about the illegality of this action. Garner maintained that he had not done anything and was subsequently set upon by at least five NYPD officers, one of which put him in a chokehold that ended his life. While this officer was fired from the NYPD, his case was dismissed at a federal level five years after the event. The reasoning behind this verdict was that the court could not prove that the officer had willingly used excessive force to violate the rights of Eric Garner.
Frankly, this sickens me. The man was unarmed and surrounded by officers. The use of a chokehold to restrain him was clearly unnecessary and excessive, especially given Garner’s final repetitions of “I can’t breathe.” However, because of qualified immunity, the officer was deemed to be in the right because he “could not have known he was violating his rights.” This is not the only case in which an officer was able to walk away from a heinous act with no legal repercussions, and for that reason police reform is a necessity. If an officer is able to blatantly murder somebody, and it is viewed as legally just, then the system is broken and must be changed.
Sources:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/10/1047.7
