Sergeant Foley
Well-known member
Following this thread.
Car thieves fired on a Tennessee homeowner. He fired back. Guess who the police arrested?
Someone explain to me why these cops would want to alienate law-abiding, crime-fighting homeowners, one of the most police-friendly constituencies on the planet?notthebee.com
Learn from this man's mistake; do not talk to the police under any circumstances without a lawyer present. Even then, don't say anything you haven't already run by said lawyer first.He admitted to shooting at fleeing suspects with his eyes closed.
More bluntly, he talked to the police and undermined his argument.
"I saw people messing with my van on my security camera and went outside to ask them what they were doing. They shot at me, fearing for my life, I shot back." should have been the absolute maximum that he said to the police.
More properly, he should have said "Look Officer, I would love to walk you through the incident but my gun safety classes were VERY clear that in the event I am ever involved in a use of force incident then I am not to say anything to the police without my lawyer present."
But once you straight up confess to shooting at people who are running away from you, in the dark, with your eyes closed, you are very likely to get charged.
What we need is a criminal charge, probably constructed as a constitutional amendment:More qualified immunity shenanigans:
No, we just need "qualified immunity" actually codified in legislation with clear language explaining the limits of it. Because the utter bullshit that crops up with it revolves around its nature as a construct wholly of the judiciary, thus allowing it to be re-defined by judges at will to excuse law enforcement of absolutely anything.What we need is a criminal charge, probably constructed as a constitutional amendment:
Nah, Qualified Immunity needs to be tossed wholesale; it has been abused far, far to often.I think Doom and Morphic Tide are both right.
Qualified Immunity is essential to having a functional police force in the modern litigious society. If a cop is going to have his life ruined for daring to stop someone for speeding, he's not going to risk being a cop for long.
At the same time, those who do cross the line and violate constitutional rights should absolutely be prosecuted for such. Politicians even more so.
The problem is that the civil suits get absurdly petty, rapidly adding up to a ludicrous amount of money and time because you still have to fight them off one by one unless they are so absurd that they reach the rare bar of being dismissed with prejudice. It would likely be less hazardous to one's livelyhood to clear a minefield by hand than try to head anti-gang operations for a year.If cops do not want to get sued for frivolous, abusive, or unConstitutional actions, then don't violate them to begin with, and stop treating the 'Thin Blue Line' as 'above' the common person.
See, that supposes that they need QI to do any of that.The problem is that the civil suits get absurdly petty, rapidly adding up to a ludicrous amount of money and time because you still have to fight them off one by one unless they are so absurd that they reach the rare bar of being dismissed with prejudice. It would likely be less hazardous to one's livelyhood to clear a minefield by hand than try to head anti-gang operations for a year.
That is literally what Qualified Immunity started as. "Officer was doing job in accordance with all guidance from the office on what the job entailed, he's not personally at fault for any issues in the process of upholding the law". Going through those motions still costs time and money, and not a small amount when you add up the sheer volume of litigious bullshit this country has.If the cop is not violating the dept guidelines or US Constitution in their actions, and still gets sued, then dismissing the suites and sticking the complainant with the legal fees is straight-forward enough and should discourage frivolous lawsuit's while not allowing QI to continued to be abused.
As Morphic Tide said, you're just going to end right back at the start of Qualified Immunity.See, that supposes that they need QI to do any of that.
If the cop is not violating the dept guidelines or US Constitution in their actions, and still gets sued, then dismissing the suites and sticking the complainant with the legal fees is straight-forward enough and should discourage frivolous lawsuit's while not allowing QI to continued to be abused.
Though with a two-tier justice system already in play, getting rid of QI is like a band-aid on an arterial wound at this point.
That is literally what Qualified Immunity started as. "Officer was doing job in accordance with all guidance from the office on what the job entailed, he's not personally at fault for any issues in the process of upholding the law". Going through those motions still costs time and money, and not a small amount when you add up the sheer volume of litigious bullshit this country has.
Yeah, but you two forget that QI is often paired with Civil Asset Forfeiture in terms of being abused, and CAF wasn't really a thing when QI was thought up.As Morphic Tide said, you're just going to end right back at the start of Qualified Immunity.
It needs to be clearly delineated with what it does and does not cover laid out, but getting rid of it basically makes any cop that doesn't have the protection of the ruling class subject to having their life destroyed at whim.
I don't have a problem with it following a conviction, though. For example, if someone got paid $5M for murder, then got convicted for the murder, they should end up forfeiting that money.Civil Asset Forfeiture should indeed be thrown out wholesale. It's been essentially nothing but a stack of perverse incentives.
Making the people suing the State pay legal fees sounds like a good way to suppress people disliked by the State. The State already has a bunch of other intrinsic advantages, this would just add to it.Yeah, but you two forget that QI is often paired with Civil Asset Forfeiture in terms of being abused, and CAF wasn't really a thing when QI was thought up.
And as I said, if the law is made so those bringing the frivolous lawsuit's end up bearing the cost when they lose, it will discourage such actions, while helping ensure that righteous lawsuits against abusive cops cannot just be waived away under QI's very vague guidelines/definitions.
I cannot in good faith say I think QI's reduction of litigation for LEO's is worth the abuses it has enabled, and the whole LEO system in the US is becoming more and more openly partisan and two-tier, all the way up to all the abuses carried out against Trump and all the Right Wing folks who were unjustly treated during the Wu Flu by LEO's and DA's who let Antifa and BLM run riot.
I know QI isn't going anywhere, just like I know the abuses towards Trump will probably never be rectified, and that most of the purely partisan hackery in LEO/intel agencies since 2016 will never truly be punished. Doesn't mean I don't still wish it was gone.
The legal fees for what I was talking about were if someone filed a frivolous lawsuit against a cop, and lost; if they bring such a suit, the person who filed the frivolous suit pays the legal fees.Making the people suing the State pay legal fees sounds like a good way to suppress people disliked by the State. The State already has a bunch of other intrinsic advantages, this would just add to it.
In practice that would just let the State double dip on fucking people it doesn't like. Judges already defacto side with police, letting them then dismiss cases they don't like and stick them with the bill?The legal fees for what I was talking about were if someone filed a frivolous lawsuit against a cop, and lost; if they bring such a suit, the person who filed the frivolous suit pays the legal fees.
It's not that odd for the person who losses a suit to have the burden of the legal fees, and the idea would allow the removal of QI while not allowing/encouraging frivolous lawsuits against police who didn't violate dept policies or the Constitution.
Insurance payouts from city's/dept's instead of QI removal would be acceptable, if not ideal.In practice that would just let the State double dip on fucking people it doesn't like. Judges already defacto side with police, letting them then dismiss cases they don't like and stick them with the bill?
You keep thinking that the courts in general and judges in particular are neutral. This is not the case, they side with the police in almost all circumstances. QI is asmuch an acknowledgement of expected outcome as it is a law.
Thus letting the courts punish claimants as a way of deterring claims is likely just going lead to QI with extra teeth.
I think the insurance idea is more workable. Allows for restitution without admitting fault or culpability. Your house get burnt down because of flashbacks in a noknock raid with the wrong number? Insurance pays out and the PD handle the clown internally for making their premiums go up.
While holding dumbasses responsible would be great, I'd settle for people not being rendered homeless and end with nothing.Insurance payouts from city's/dept's instead of QI removal would be acceptable, if not ideal.