Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Qualified Immunity in Aurora, CO - I have a question

  1. #1

    Qualified Immunity in Aurora, CO - I have a question

    sorry if i sound stupid on this, but i am; i'm not LE. it looks like qualified immunity no longer applies in Colorado. but what really struck me was the comment by the victims' lawyer that "If the officers are deemed culpable by the department, they are also responsible for a portion of any verdict or settlement". am i reading this wrong? is that just his opinion, or is it part of the change in the law? if it's a fact, why on earth would anyone ever respond to a call, knowing you're not only risking jail time, but your life savings? again, sorry if there's something to this that i simply don't understand:


    https://news.yahoo.com/black-family-...l&uh_test=2_15

  2. #2
    Here are a couple article's on what happened on this subject.

    https://www.courthousenews.com/color...ty-for-police/

    https://policetribune.com/colorado-g...ty-for-police/

    Colorado has a Democrat for Governor and a Democrat controlled legislature. The Republican candidate for Governor was a Bush-bro and was readily shown to be lacking in his commitment to previous government posts he held.
    Last edited by FNFAN; 01-27-2021 at 07:51 PM.
    -All views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect those of the author's employer-

  3. #3
    Member jd950's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Quote Originally Posted by smokeman View Post
    sorry if i sound stupid on this, but i am; i'm not LE. it looks like qualified immunity no longer applies in Colorado. but what really struck me was the comment by the victims' lawyer that "If the officers are deemed culpable by the department, they are also responsible for a portion of any verdict or settlement". am i reading this wrong? is that just his opinion, or is it part of the change in the law? if it's a fact, why on earth would anyone ever respond to a call, knowing you're not only risking jail time, but your life savings? again, sorry if there's something to this that i simply don't understand:


    https://news.yahoo.com/black-family-...l&uh_test=2_15
    This is a bit complicated. Colorado passed new legislation last year and the short version is that there is much broader ability to bring claims against police officers and recover damages under state law (as opposed to federal law) than existed previously, and that such claims are not subject to qualified immunity, damage caps or several other defenses and protections. There are also provisions for revoking POST certifications for mistakes, thus ending a career. I will tell you that when I teach this stuff I use a powerpoint that I prepared (and I hate excessive use of powerpoints) that has about 20 slides and the material takes at least two hours to cover for already-certified cops, so I cannot explain it here. There is a provision that provides that under certain circumstances, an individual officer must be personally liable for up to $25k of a judgment. And yes, it is having a negative effect on law enforcement attitudes, morale and activities. Lawsuits have already been filed (Such as the one you mention, filed by Killmer, Lane and Newman) under this law. There is a reason that one of my slides is an image of Dorothy telling Toto they aren't in Kansas anymore.

    Look up Colorado S.B. 20-217 and you can find the bill and read it along with articles and even training materials from different sources. Have an adult beverage with you if you decide to wade into this stuff.
    Last edited by jd950; 01-27-2021 at 07:53 PM.

  4. #4

    Garner, we don' need no stinkin' Garner.

    This is kind of concerning:

    It also changes the standards of deadly force to say it can only be used as a last resort when absolutely necessary and it cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless he poses an immediate risk to the officers, according to the Denver Post.

    I hope this is misreported, because if this is the case, then apparently the PC to believe the subject will be a continued threat of death or great physical harm to officers or others portion of Garner, is null in Colorado.

    If the suspect is an immediate threat to the officer, then the officer is using lethal force in self-defense, not to apprehend a fleeing suspect.

    If this is the case, then an armed active shooter, fleeing from officers closing in, seemingly would not be a circumstance that justified lethal force to prevent his escape so long as he didn't point a weapon at an officer, or, if he had dropped his weapon.

    In essence, for almost any armed offense, 'drop the gun and run' will become the new mantra.

  5. #5
    IS WHAT PLANTS CRAVE BehindBlueI's's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Midwest
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Lehr View Post
    This is kind of concerning:

    It also changes the standards of deadly force to say it can only be used as a last resort when absolutely necessary and it cannot be used against a fleeing suspect unless he poses an immediate risk to the officers, according to the Denver Post.

    I hope this is misreported, because if this is the case, then apparently the PC to believe the subject will be a continued threat of death or great physical harm to officers or others portion of Garner, is null in Colorado.
    That would mean it would be verboten to shoot an active shooter fleeing deeper into a school, since the officer is not at risk. Didn't CO have something of a famous active shooter at a school incident? You'd think memories wouldn't be that short as to not figure in an event like that. That assumes the media got it right, of course, which is a big assumption.
    Important rule change regarding political discussion here: https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....58#post1151858

    Quote Originally Posted by UNM1136 View Post
    Maybe with talented students I would lube up with baby oil and then go at it.

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Colorado Springs

    Qualified Immunity in Aurora, CO - I have a question

    Quote Originally Posted by BehindBlueI's View Post
    That would mean it would be verboten to shoot an active shooter fleeing deeper into a school, since the officer is not at risk. Didn't CO have something of a famous active shooter at a school incident? You'd think memories wouldn't be that short as to not figure in an event like that. That assumes the media got it right, of course, which is a big assumption.
    Since moving here Iíve heard a bunch of stuff about how creepy that whole thing is. Like strangers will still randomly come to the school as if itís a shrine.

    My countyís sheriff has been one of many to take pretty bold stances against Denver politics. I have no idea what that means for the SO, but Iím super proud of it. I wish we could own many of these laws at county levels because it feels like the Sheriff is incurring risk for us but weíre not able to do a whole lot in areas such as this.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin
    https://www.leg.colorado.gov/sites/d...217_signed.pdf

    18-1-707. Use of force by peace officers - definition. (1) PEACE OFFICERS, IN CARRYING OUT THEIR DUTIES, SHALL APPLY NONVIOLENT MEANS, WHEN POSSIBLE, BEFORE RESORTING TO THE USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE. A PEACE OFFICER MAY USE PHYSICAL FORCE ONLY IF NONVIOLENT MEANS WOULD BE INEFFECTIVE IN EFFECTING AN ARREST, PREVENTING AN ESCAPE, OR PREVENTING AN IMMINENT THREAT OF SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO THE PEACE OFFICER OR ANOTHER PERSON.
    (2) WHEN PHYSICAL FORCE IS USED, A PEACE OFFICER SHALL:
    (a) NOTUSEDEADLYPHYSICALFORCETOAPPREHENDAPERSONWHO PAGE 13-SENATE BILL 20-217

    IS SUSPECTED OF ONLY A MINOR OR NONVIOLENT OFFENSE;
    (b) USE ONLY A DEGREE OF FORCE CONSISTENT WITH THE MINIMIZATION OF INJURY TO OTHERS;
    (c) ENSURE THAT ASSISTANCE AND MEDICAL AID ARE RENDERED TO ANY INJURED OR AFFECTED PERSONS AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE; AND
    (d) ENSURE THAT ANY IDENTIFIED RELATIVES OR NEXT OF KIN OF PERSONS WHO HAVE SUSTAINED SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR DEATH ARE NOTIFIED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.
    (2.5)(a) A PEACE OFFICERISPROHIBITEDFROMUSINGACHOKEHOLD UPON ANOTHER PERSON.
    (b) (I) FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION (2.5), "CHOKEHOLD" MEANS A METHOD BY WHICH A PERSON APPLIES SUFFICIENT PRESSURE TO A PERSON TO MAKE BREATHING DIFFICULT OR IMPOSSIBLE AND INCLUDES BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO ANY PRESSURE TO THE NECK, THROAT, OR WINDPIPE THAT MAY PREVENT OR HINDER BREATHING OR REDUCE INTAKE OF AIR.
    (II) "CHOKEHOLD" ALSO MEANS APPLYING PRESSURE TO A PERSON'S NECK ON EITHER SIDE OF THE WINDPIPE, BUT NOT TO THE WINDPIPE ITSELF, TO STOP THE FLOW OF BLOOD TO THE BRAIN VIA THE CAROTID ARTERIES.
    (3) A PEACE OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN USING DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE TO MAKE AN ARREST ONLY WHEN ALL OTHER MEANS OF APPREHENSION ARE UNREASONABLE GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND:
    (a) THE ARREST IS FOR A FELONY INVOLVING CONDUCT INCLUDING THE USE OR THREATENED USE OF DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE;
    (b) THE SUSPECT POSES AN IMMEDIATE THREAT TO THE PEACE OFFICER OR ANOTHER PERSON;
    (c) THEFORCEEMPLOYEDDOESNOTCREATEASUBSTANTIALRISKOF INJURY TO OTHER PERSONS.
    (4) A PEACE OFFICER SHALL IDENTIFY HIMSELF OR HERSELF AS A PEACE OFFICER AND GIVE A CLEAR VERBAL WARNING OF HIS OR HER INTENT TO USE FIREARMS OR OTHER DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE, WITH SUFFICIENT TIME FOR THE WARNING TO BE OBSERVED, UNLESS TO DO SO WOULD UNDULY PLACE PEACE OFFICERS AT RISK OF INJURY, WOULD CREATE A RISK OF DEATH OR INJURY TO OTHER PERSONS.
    (4.5) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER PROVISION IN THIS SECTION, A PEACE OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN USING DEADLY FORCE IF THE PEACE OFFICER HAS AN OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE BELIEF THAT A LESSER DEGREE OF FORCE IS INADEQUATE AND THE PEACE OFFICER HAS OBJECTIVELY REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE, AND DOES BELIEVE, THAT HE OR ANOTHER PERSON IS IN IMMINENT DANGER OF BEING KILLED OR OF RECEIVING SERIOUS BODILY INJURY.

  8. #8
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Maryland
    The problem I see cropping up for the do-gooders may be that LEO's don't have the deep pockets states, counties, and municipalities have. The bad guy or his family may desire revenge upon the officer personally, but the plaintiff's attorney is looking more for a payday than a political statement or personal revenge. That may somewhat reduce the number and quality of attorneys willing to take cases for mad bad guys or supposedly grieving families.

    Early on in my career at my former department, I was the target of an excessive force/wrongful arrest/cop hurt my feelings lawsuit that may have been the first the city faced. I had already finished the internal affairs ordeal. One day I encountered the assistant city manager, another jogger, in the break room. He mentioned that jogging must relieve the stress of the lawsuit filed against me and the city. I remarked that I had zero stress and, that if the city did not provide me with a letter of indemnity, I would not cooperate in the defense of the suit against the city. For all her aerobic exercise, I thought the little rodent was about to vapor lock in front of me. I imagine there were interesting conversations occurring in the chief's and city manager's offices in the next half hour.

  9. #9
    Site Supporter
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    America
    From the very brief reading of this thread I think that this will be a big problem. While the big lawsuits get the newspaper ink I suspect there are many lawyers out there that would love to sue individual officers for small amounts. I can see it now; were your rights violated during routine misdemeanor arrest? Call Nickle and dime attorneys and we will get you cash! Sue for 250k settle for 5k. Put a lien on the officer? That will get big laughs in prison. Hey the lawyer took $3000 of the 5k plus 1k for the paralegal and I only got $1000 bucks but it was worth it. I wonder how much that asshole cop paid for his lawyer?

    There was a lawyer in my area that had flyers printed in Spanish that said if you were involved in car crash they would get you money. The tactic was claim an injury. Lawyer sent a letter suing for 100k. Follow up with an offer to settle for five thousand bucks. This ambulance chaser ran this scam for a few years at least. Funny side story -Hispanic driver rear ended at red light. No visible damage. Driver wanted an ambulance for a neck/back injury. Once I informed the injured Hispanic driver that the driver that struck them was Hispanic with no drivers license and no car insurance the injured person was instantly healed and did not want a police report. I did the state accident report anyway.
    I

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by jd950 View Post
    This is a bit complicated. Colorado passed new legislation last year and the short version is that there is much broader ability to bring claims against police officers and recover damages under state law (as opposed to federal law) than existed previously, and that such claims are not subject to qualified immunity, damage caps or several other defenses and protections. There are also provisions for revoking POST certifications for mistakes, thus ending a career. I will tell you that when I teach this stuff I use a powerpoint that I prepared (and I hate excessive use of powerpoints) that has about 20 slides and the material takes at least two hours to cover for already-certified cops, so I cannot explain it here. There is a provision that provides that under certain circumstances, an individual officer must be personally liable for up to $25k of a judgment. And yes, it is having a negative effect on law enforcement attitudes, morale and activities. Lawsuits have already been filed (Such as the one you mention, filed by Killmer, Lane and Newman) under this law. There is a reason that one of my slides is an image of Dorothy telling Toto they aren't in Kansas anymore.
    i've read the provided links. so not only do you have to make the fraction-of-a-second decisions when you're confronted with an armed perp, you now also have to factor in whether your actions might be federally legal but violate state statutes. i'll ask again - why would anyone put up with this? looks like the law isn't effective until 2023. you have two years to find a new job out of state and get out from under this. and that's too bad. i lived in Denver for 9 years; it's a beautiful place. but why expose yourself legally and financially to this? there has to be other departments hiring

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •