Qualified Immunity is a direct insult to the Founding Father's belief in the liberty of a free country. An American citizen having the ability to sue the government and an individual law enforcement officer for the violation of natural rights has such a deep-rooted history and tradition in this Nation that it is the foundation of the American judicial system. The ability to defend a citizen’s liberty against a government in a fair jury trial was viewed as the most important key to freedom. The Founding Fathers would have rejected anything that would prevent a fair jury trial for any citizen, as Qualified Immunity does in America today. This can be clearly proved through the Founding Father’s writing and actions.
Declaration of Independence
In this fundamental document for America, the Founding Fathers included 27 specific grievances about the tyrannical conduct that King George III and the British government placed on the Colonies. There are two grievances that make the case to eliminate Qualified Immunity and for citizens to have the ability to sue the government and individual law enforcement officers directly.
Grievance 15 - Backstory:
In 1768, two citizens of Annapolis, in Maryland, were murdered by some marines belonging to a British armed ship. The marines were arrested and the trial was held aboard the ship on which they were stationed. There was overwhelming evidence against the marines. However, the trial was a mockery of justice and the marines were acquitted.
Grievance 15 - Declaration of Independence states:
"For protecting [British troops], by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States."
When Qualified Immunity is used today that is the exact same as a mock trial because a judge makes a ruling without a proper jury trial. This also proves that our Founding Fathers found it essential for the citizens to be able to sue the government and specifically the individual officer that broke the law.
Grievance 18 - Backstory:
England was enforcing “The Navigation Acts”. The Navigation Acts were a long series of English laws that developed, promoted, and regulated English ships, shipping, trade, and commerce between other countries and with their own colonies. Any cases concerning these regulations were tried by the Admiralty Court, which did not make use of a jury. The court’s decision came directly from the judge that was biased toward the crown.
Grievance 18 - Declaration of Independence states:
"For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Jury trial.”
Qualified Immunity is an example of tyranny based on this grievance. When an American citizen sues a law enforcement officer, it first goes to a judge or panel of judges to decide if a law enforcement officer is innocent or should go to a jury trial. The Qualified Immunity process is depriving American citizens of the benefit of a fair jury trial by allowing judges to find an officer innocent before all the evidence is presented by both sides. The Founding Fathers would have been against Qualified Immunity.
Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770
British troops and colonists had exploded into violence when a band of Redcoats opened fire on a crowd that had pelted them with not just taunts, but ice, oyster shells, and broken glass. Although the soldiers claimed to have acted in self-defense, it was referred to as the Boston Massacre. Eight British soldiers and their officer in charge, Captain Thomas Preston, faced charges for murdering five colonists.
Captain Thomas Preston and all eight British soldiers (Law Enforcement) went to trial and future President John Adams represented them. John Adams realized that much was on the line for colonial America, not the least of which was its international reputation. He realized it was critical for the accused to have a fair trial, lest other nations view colonial America as a place where justice and due process are not respected or applied to all. Adams firmly believed that the accused had the right to a fair trial and a competent defense, even though he bitterly hated their cause.
In the trial that ensued, Adams argued that Captain Preston had never issued the order for his soldiers to "fire," and that those who had shot into the crowd did so entirely in self-defense. Adams' persuasion won the day, and Preston and six of his soldiers were acquitted of all charges. Two soldiers were found guilty of manslaughter and were punished by having their thumbs branded.
This is considered the “most important case in colonial American history” and an important landmark in the development of American jurisprudence.
The Boston Massacre trial is a solid example of this Nation's deep-rooted history and tradition of citizens suing individual law enforcement officers with a fair jury trial. The Colonies never used anything like a "clearly established" claim within Qualified Immunity to stop a fair jury trial from happening. The Colonies never used the nonsense argument that since there have never been nine British Troops shooting and killing five colonists, the British Troops (law enforcement) are all innocent, just doing their job, and letting them go free. The "clearly established" argument within Qualified Immunity has ZERO historic references or tradition in our Nation. It’s actually an aversion to the values of justice our Founding Fathers believed were necessary for a free country.
Liberty can only be achieved through the ability to hold the government to the highest of standards through a peaceful judicial system of jury trials. This is what the Founding Fathers wrote and how they acted. They never expressed or showed any interest to allow the government or law enforcement officers to have the power to prevent a citizen’s day in court for any reason. Qualified Immunity is a direct insult to the Founding Father’s values of justice.
Even the Tyrant that King George III was, he still agreed that the citizens should be able to sue his individual law enforcement officers in a court of law. In 1774, the British Parliament created the Intolerable Acts after the Boston Tea Party. The Administration of Justice Act of 1774 allowed any British Soldier or Officer charged with a crime growing out of their enforcement of the law the ability to change of venue from Massachusetts to another colony or to Great Britain in order to receive a fair trial. At the time, Massachusetts was the only colony that was actively standing up to England and King George III felt that a fair jury trial was not possible in Massachusetts. King George III believed citizens of the colonies must have the ability to sue individual law enforcement officers. Even he would have been insulted with a barrier to justice as destructive as Qualified Immunity. America and England both have a deep-rooted history and traditions of citizens suing law enforcement officers with a fair jury trial in a court of law.
With Qualified Immunity in America today, we have distorted the Constitution, the meaning of a fair trial, twisted the history and traditions that founded America and completely destroyed the spirit of justice the Founding Fathers showed us through their actions and writings.
The Supreme Court has successfully become more tyrannical to the liberties of the American citizens than King George III and the British government. Maybe we should send the Supreme Court an award for this disgraceful accomplishment - The "Medal of Dishonor".