Resolved: The United States ought to limit qualified immunity for police officers.

Key misunderstandings and not enough work done on the CP means that you negate.--He makes a few responses against the CP. He starts by saying that the CP is "implementing majority rule".First - Not true. The first Meltzer card does a really good job about saying that the counterplan is about, instead of using internal police investigations to investigate qualified immunity claims to provide information for the courts, to use independent civilian-ran oversight boards instead. There's no warrant as to why this is majority rule.Second - Not true again, 100 people hardly consitutes "majority rule". CCRB proves. Meltzer[1]: "The CCRB is the largest civilian oversight agency in the nation, with a staff of approximately 100 investigators. It is ... the sole external oversight body ... of the NYPD. ... Section 440 of the New York City Charter, empowers the agency to “receive, investigate, hear, make findings and recommend action upon complaints by members of the public against members of the police department.” The Charter circumscribes the agency’s jurisdiction to complaints “that allege misconduct involving excessive use of force, abuse of authority, discourtesy, or use of offensive language, including, but not limited to, slurs relating to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation and disability.” ..." But, even if you buy that this is "majority rule", go to where he says that "majority rule is dangerous to the rights of the minority".First - This makes no sense when we're looking at evaluating arguments that link into a utilitarian framework (i.e. encourage the most amount of pleasure possible) considering how that necessarily means that the minority are going to get screwed. Second - The idea of the judicial system being the best chance for minorities is a joke. Laundry list of reasons. Quigley[5]: "One ... whites and blacks engage in drug offenses ... at roughly comparable rates - according to a report ... by Human Rights Watch in May 2008. While African Americans comprise 13% of the US population and 14% of monthly drug users they are 37% of the people arrested for drug offenses - according to 2009 Congressional testimony by Marc Mauer of The Sentencing Project. Two. The police stop blacks and Latinos at rates that are much higher than whites. In New York City ... 80% of the NYPD stops were of blacks and Latinos. When whites were stopped, only 8% were frisked. When blacks and Latinos are stopped 85% were frisked according to information provided by the NYPD. The same is true most other places as well. In a California study, the ACLU found blacks are three times more likely to be stopped than whites. Three ... African Americans are arrested for drug offenses at rates 2 to 11 times higher than the rate for whites - according to a May 2009 report ... by Human Rights Watch. Four. Once arrested, blacks are more likely to remain in prison awaiting trial than whites ... the New York state division of criminal justice did a 1995 review of disparities in processing felony arrests and found that ... blacks are 33% more likely to be detained awaiting felony trials than whites ... Six. African Americans are frequently illegally excluded from criminal jury service according to a June 2010 study released by the Equal Justice Initiative. ... in Houston County, Alabama, 8 out of 10 African Americans qualified for jury service have been struck by prosecutors from serving on death penalty cases. Seven. Trials are rare. Only 3 to 5 percent of criminal cases go to trial - the rest are plea bargained. Most African Americans defendants never get a trial. Most plea bargains consist of promise of a longer sentence if a person exercises their constitutional right to trial. As a result, people caught up in the system, ... plead guilty even when innocent ... “Who wouldn’t rather do three years for a crime they didn’t commit than risk twenty-five years for a crime they didn’t do?” Eight. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in March 2010 that ... black offenders receive sentences that are 10% longer than white offenders for the same crimes. ... African Americans are 21% more likely to receive mandatory minimum sentences than white defendants and 20% more like to be sentenced to prison than white drug defendants. Nine. The longer the sentence, the more likely it is that non-white people will be the ones getting it. A July 2009 report by the Sentencing Project found that two-thirds of the people in the US with life sentences are non-white. In New York, it is 83% ... Eleven. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics concludes that the chance of a black male born in 2001 of going to jail is 32% or 1 in three. Latino males have a 17% chance and white males have a 6% chance. ... black boys are five times and Latino boys nearly three times as likely as white boys to go to jail. Twelve ... African American juvenile youth is but 16% of the population ... 28% of juvenile arrests, 37% of the youth in juvenile jails and 58% of the youth sent to adult prisons. 2009 Criminal Justice Primer, The Sentencing Project. ... Fourteen ... A study by Professor Devah Pager of the University of Wisconsin found that 17% of white job applicants with criminal records received call backs from employers while only 5% of black job applicants with criminal records received call backs. Race is so prominent in that study that whites with criminal records actually received better treatment than blacks without criminal records! ... Professor Michelle Alexander ... sees these facts as evidence of the new way the US has decided to control African Americans - a racialized system of social control. The stigma of criminality functions in much the same way as Jim Crow - creating legal boundaries between them and us, allowing legal discrimination against them, removing the right to vote from millions, and essentially warehousing a disposable population of unwanted people. ... Poor whites and people of other ethnicity are also subjected to this system ... Because if poor whites or others get out of line ... they will be treated just like poor blacks ... They must be controlled and dominated for the safety of the productive. They must be intimidated into accepting their inferiority or they must be removed from the society of the productive." This has two impacts:One - It means that the courts are always going to be further harming the marginalized.Two - Moving away from complete judicial control and allowing independent intervention via civilian oversight is the best chance to minimize or eliminate the problem. Since these were his only responses to the CP, then the CP can be cleanly extended. This is an easy neg vote because it a) fixes the problems identified within the Aff world better than affirming would, and b) fixes the problems I outline in my responses against his case, whereas he causes those problems. This means I'm always winning the weighing debate and turn the aff offense.--Then extend Schwartz. Schwartz does a really good job in outlining that in civil suit cases against police officers, even if they're found guilty of having violated QI that they are just indemnified by their jurisdiction - meaning that the cops are responsible for only paying a fraction of the cost of the suit, if they have to pay a dime at all. This means they never face any kind of punishment, thus have no incentive to actually stop the actions they take. Limiting QI doesn't change this in any way.Aff tries to say that "But the harms I argued for was the system that is used to grant qualified immunity allows officers to not be punished for brutality which hurts public image and thus police effectiveness." and then that "I do not need to incentivise them to do anything for my argument to work." There's a lot of problems with this.First: This literally makes no sense - you would need to incentivise police officers to act better to improve public perception, otherwise their actions won't change, thus perception won't change.Second: This is exactly the problem Schwartz identifies. In the current system, even if suits are successful, cops aren't punished at all. This means that limiting QI to punish cops more often - a.k.a. how he's trying to improve public perception - doesn't actually change anything. Schwartz is key because it acts as terminal defense against the aff's offense. Because I'm winning Schwartz, it's impossible for aff to access any of their offense since they only make one offensive argument in the entire round. This means it's literally impossible for him to affirm. --Then extend Eyre. Eyre does a good job in showing that, because courts HAVE RULED that cops aren't obligated to the people, a decline in QI will lead to less police action against crimes. He tries to say that there's no link between this happening and affirming, but a) it's not these rulings will happen, but that they HAVE HAPPENED. The card is really specific to that; b) even if that's not true, the card does a good job of putting it into resolutional context by talking about its application in civil law suits (a.k.a. where QI applies). Hold him accountable for not reading the card fully.Eyre is really damning to the Aff. One - It turns the entire Aff. By limiting QI, police will prevent less crimes. This is going to further hurt perception of them, meaning he doesn't fix his problems.Two - Obviously more crime happening is bad for its own reasons.---Round breaks down really simply. He's not doing enough work against the CP. The CP solves for his problems better than he does as well as solves for the problems I raise that he doesn't solve for. Multiple responses against him are mishandled that turn his case and prevent him from gettting any offense, which means he can't affirm.---Sources:[1] - See Round Two[5] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com...;