Even if he’s willing to forget about the whole “take qualified immunity away from police officers but leave it for other government officials” part of a police reform bill, will other Democrats do the same? Lots and lots of them have been showing their hatred for police for some time now (while protected by law enforcement, of course), and might not be willing to vote if doing away with QI is not part of a bill
Rep. Clyburn says qualified immunity doesn’t have to be part of policing reform bill
House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.) suggested Sunday that he would be willing to support policing reform legislation even if it did not end qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields individual officers from lawsuits.
“I will never sacrifice good on the altar of perfect. I just won’t do that,†Clyburn said on CNN’s “State of the Union.â€
“I know what the perfect bill will be. We have proposed that. I want to see good legislation. And I know that, sometimes, you have to compromise. … If we don’t get qualified immunity now, then we will come back and try to get it later. But I don’t want to see us throw out a good bill because we can’t get a perfect bill,†he said.
Clyburn’s remarks were a departure from members of his own party who, along with civil rights activists, have pushed for the doctrine to be eliminated or changed. Qualified immunity has become the biggest sticking point in negotiations on police reform legislation between Democrats and Republicans, who have proposed preserving qualified immunity for individual officers and instead holding local governments liable when officers harm people.
So, essentially, he figures they can ram through the current bill without QI, then force QI later, probably by jamming this into an unrelated bill, like lawmakers love to do, especially Democrats. Yet, Congress will still have QI, as will most other government workers. Just not the people tasked with protecting citizens and government employees and solving crimes against them, who are often put in bad situations.
“I have been saying from the beginning we have well-trained police officers. We have got to do a better job of recruiting police officers. We have got to get good people. No matter how good the training, if you don’t have good people, the training does no good,†he told “State of the Union†host Jake Tapper. “Now, the problem we have got now is that there are some bad apples in policing. We have seen it in our living rooms. We know it’s still there. We have got to root out the bad apples, and let’s go forward with a good, solid program.â€
Is he talking about police or government employees? Or, perhaps, elected officials? There are always going to be bad apples in everything. The question here is “why is the federal government determining how state, county, and local police departments operate?” This isn’t the business of Los Federales. This is not a power prescribed by the Constitution to the federal government. Perhaps James should look at the FBI, who investigated a president elect and his people over a fake report.
In March, the House passed the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, an overhaul of police practices that would ban the use of chokeholds, strengthen federal civil rights laws, create a national database to track officer misconduct and end qualified immunity, making it easier for officers to be sued for their actions in the line of duty. The legislation has failed to advance in the Senate.
Is it any wonder that police are quitting/retiring in droves? Just the threat of doing away with QI for cops who suddenly find themselves being accused, who got stuck in a bad position (and, sure, some who created that situation because they probably shouldn’t be in the job), falsely accused, and so forth, will see them leave and make it harder to recruit new officers. That the Feds are watching them all, when they do not work for the feds. That the feds could come after them in a heartbeat. That people who have never had to attempt to control a criminal will ban chokeholds. What do the feds want, cops to use harsh language? Which then will probably have the feds filing a federal hate crimes charge.
Since then, a bipartisan group of lawmakers has sought to reach a deal. A recent meeting included Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), as well as Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.).
I hope the three Republicans realize that the Dems will never give up on getting rid of QI for cops. It might not be in this bill, which is a typical Congressional overreach, but, they’ll attempt to jam it through later.
