From King 5 Seattle:
The father of a man shot and killed inside Seattle’s Capitol Hill Organized Protest (CHOP) zone in June has filed three claims against local government amounting to $3 billion.
Horace Anderson, the father of 19-year-old Horace Lorenzo Anderson, filed claims Thursday against the city of Seattle, King County, and Washington state over the death of his son inside the CHOP zone.
The claim alleged that the actions and “inactions” by the local government are responsible for creating a “hazardous, and lawless situation” that resulted in the man’s death, according to a statement released by the Oshan & Associates, P.C., the law firm representing Anderson.
IANAL, but it is my understanding that qualified immunity protects city councils and state legislators.
However, I believe there are ways around qualified immunity when the protected person violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”
So does allowing rioters to take over an area of the city, essentially seceding it from the union to be taken over by a warlord, violate the “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which reasonable person would have known.”
I don’t know. Lawyers and judges will have to hash this out.
I just hope it goes on long enough for discovery to take place.
I really want to know what the Seattle city government and Washington state government had to say about the CHAZ/CHOP while it was happening.
That needs to become public information.
Maybe.
But I was reading some stuff about qualified immunity precedent a while ago. One case (SCOTUS if I remember right) basically ruled that QI applied unless there was an explicit law prohibiting the specific action in question. For example (again, the way I read the article) if an officer strangles an arrestee, that’s covered by QI in spite of the law against infringement on constitution rights, unless there is a specific law or police regulation or policy that says “do not strangle a person you arrested and handcuffed”.
IANAL alert, but I think there is a malpractice angle that can be explored against your city government. If it can be demonstrated that city government did in fact act in a negligent manner, or (again IANAL), in a manner that is inconsistent with reasonable standards.
No reasonable person would think allowing a chunk of downtown to be taken over by a mob is a good idea. You would have to be stupider than a box of rocks to think it was going to work out well. Occupy Wall Street demonstrated that clearly, setting precedent.
There may be a case here.
*COUGH*
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=42.20.100
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.80.010
*COUGH*