Finally a judge that actually understands what true rights are. I am all for ending qualified immunity. The supreme Court made a huge mistake when they created qualified immunity out of thin air.
@N Fels - Murdering 1 cop per week in a country of 340 million is not a lot considering cops shoot and kill, on average, 5 people per day, many under dubious circumstances. Also, you make no distinction between an illegal gun and a lawfully possessed gun. This gun was lawfully possessed. The people shooting cops have illegal guns.
There should be criminal prosecution, in addition to civil liability, when police do this kind of thing. The cops know that they are wrong when they do this, but they figure that qualified immunity gives them the cover to do whatever the hell they want. Eventually citizens are going to start offering police who do this, and jurors will nullify the charges during jury deliberation.
The very fact that a free citizen must get on his knees before a government entity and beg for his God given right to defend himself is so horrible and terrible that I don't have adequate words to describe my feelings.
While i'll calmly and peacefully submit to arrest i will NEVER get on my knees for a cop !, he'll have to kill me first and then i can go meet God the only One i'll get on my knees for !
So, a police officer can't immediately tell if a gun permit is real, but we're expected to instantly know that someone claiming to be cop is wearing a legitimate uniform and badge?
That's why everyone needs a dash camera. All my kids are required to run one every time they are driving. Then there will never be a he said she said or any question about anything. Should be standard equipment on every vehicle period.
well it would apply to everything. insurance card? no insurance! its invalid! search! drivers license? sorry didnt get to check it assumed it was invalid or suspended seach and arrested! registration papers? the papers are probably invalid! total fucking clown logic.
By that logic, A citizen has no way of knowing that the person knocking on the window is an actual police officer, and not some violent felon with a fake badge.
@@superdave8248 there really needs to be a way for people to verify if the officer is liget. and the officers should be expecting and patient with the verification, any officer who doesn't like this idea should be assumed to be a bad cop unless he gives a REALLY good reason why not, it would only make both parties safer.
Assume anyone kicking down your door in the middle of the night is a bad guy until verified otherwise. Honest men come in daylight with open faces, not at 3 AM wearing masks.
I am a former LEO, back in the time when qualified immunity did not exist. When I first herd about it I thought it was a bad idea. Knowing that it would be hard to be found culpable of anything during my service seemed like a license to abuse the justice system. It was not until the advent of RUclips that these abuses became extremely obvious. It isn't a once in a while ordeal. It is daily, almost hourly. I am in favor of abolishing such a privilege or at least modify it to be very hard to claim. The current rules are unjust and unseemly and ridiculous to say the least. Look at modern policing. It is a bunch of out of control thugs, harming, abusing and killing citizens and walking away unscathed in the name of qualified immunity. It is disgusting! Thank you for sharing...
Thank you for serving with honor as a peace officer. Here's something I've noticed in life. Anytime anyone is not held responsible for their actions they tend to behave badly.
If they can assume that the permit was fake they could also try and argue your drivers license was fake and arrest you for driving without a license without checking it. That is insane.
my issue with the whole things is , as a police dispatcher , a ccw license can very quickly be retrieved once the DL numvber is given to the dispatcher, within a min or so. common sense (no so common anymore ) would tell any person , hey this person isnt hiding anything and is being upfront and honest . but where the problem lie is that some police think because they wear a badge they have power.
Seems like the only dangerous person with a gun that night was the police officer on the scene. There is no excuse for an officer to not know the laws of their state and this officer should be fired and charged for the unlawful arrest.
Oh I'm pretty sure that officer understand at least basic law well enough, LOL! He was absolutely relying on QA. All he had to do was take a few minutes to verify the info. But we know that was never the goal anyway. As soon as the P.O.S. was informed of the weapon, that is all he needed to escalate & lie. Not to mention the fact he had no valid reason to even approach the vehicle. And he sure as hell had no R-A-S to ask or demand any ID. But he is well aware that QA allows Officers to criminalize citizens for following the law. Cops are stupid & highly ignorant for sure. However, It seems this one knew exactly what he was doing.
prepared to be disappointed then as even judges back the blue line they will find some technicality to get him/her off with a slap on the wrist so to speak in fact if this 1 does get sent to jail i will be totally impressed
I agree with you! Many judges hold self-aggrandizement in their favor. Which, by the way, is not in their best interest and will screw up a citizen's life. Their omniscience is self-serving.
The irony is that this cop is exactly the reason why the second amendment exists. Statve v Robinson even affirmed this by ruling that resisting unlawful arrest with force is akin resisting assault and battery with force. Good on the judge. That cop needs to be bagging groceries.
Imagine if the police got away with this logic. You get pulled over for a traffic infraction. You hand the officer your license, registration and insurance. The officer immediately arrests you and impounds your car because you was driving with no license, registration and insurance because he/she never ran it to see if it was all valid.
There are just so many things for which you require some form of license and/or permit. Imagine if for all of these you could be arrested simply because the officer hasn't checked it yet.....
It's an excellent point. The fact that the officer was still trying to defend the indefensible shows that he learned nothing after talking to attorneys shows that he has no business being a Police Officer.
As soon as the jurisdiction has to pay the judgement, they will fire his butt. But if the jurisdiction doesn't feel the consequences they will turn a blind eye.
But that would require his superior to be reasonable, which if he is defending a cop who doesn't have two brain cells to rub together and runs on autopilot we should assume he isn't.
@@eddarby469 unfortunately he will just go and be hired in the next county. There should be a national DO NOT HIRE list for law enforcement if you were terminated for cause from another jurisdiction, but alas that will never happen.
By this logic, every time someone sees someone else with a gun they should call the police, even if that person is in a police uniform and provide police ID as they could be fake.
By this logic, you could pre-emptively shoot him, as you could no establish that he's an actual police officer, and not a criminal dressed as a police officer to commit a crime. Just saying. Let's hope the cop has to pay out of his own pocket. That would be nice.
@@cohenworrior898 agree, whole heartedly! However the local government officials that enabled that dirtbag to carry a badge and gun are also personally responsible.
@N Fels I'm less worried about a legal gun owner going insane than the rivers of blood being shed in our inner cities. So many young men of color being cut down in the prime of their lives, as well as innocent bystanders (including children.) Don't you care about them? Legal gun owners are not, and have never been, the problem in the USA. 10 white kids die in a school shooting, it's on all the news 24/7 for a month. 100 young men of color die? The news media ignores those deaths. Oh, and the First Amendment is also a "centuries old piece of paper." Can the Government just trample that? How about the Fourth or Fifth Amendments? Exact same age. The Constitution says what it says, and does not say what it doesn't say. Don't like the Second Amendment? The First Amendment allows you to speak out against it, organize against it, and start the legal process to amend the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic. We operate under the Rule of Law, not the rule of men.
@N Fels Don't you see the trap you've fallen into? As sad as it is, you can't arrest anyone until they commit a crime or you can prove they were planning a crime. Ever see the movie "The Minority Report"? Until someone comits a crime, there is no reason to arrest them.
@N Fels this police officer is one of the bad ones ! All are guilty , it would be proper to assume the state issued license is valid ! Separate the gun from the man temporarily to investigate! No where was a crime committed
@N Fels That's exactly how it works, especially in cases of Domestic Violence. "Sorry, our hands are tied" until the victim is on a slab in the coroner's office. Your concept that any one in possession of a firearm is a threat sounds really paranoid. It ain't so, not by a thousand percent.
It's not big at all if I understood correctly that he said no precedent has already been established for this EXACT situation in that EXACT district... Without precedents he has no legal standing to have the officers Immunity disqualified. And if the case goes federal then I think it MIGHT fall under the Westfall act...
@@warrmalaski8570 But that is what I am trying to explain, they WONT allow it, people have been trying ever since the first year Immunity was signed but they deliberately put in a catch 24 or a loop and they just wont allow it! You'll see... That is why I keep saying "there has to be a precedent BEFORE they will allow the precedent!!!
Waterbury Police strike again! I don't know how many times I have seen videos on this police department violating constitutional rights. I think it's time for some serious retraining for this department!
Qualified immunity is misused for bad deeds, not mistakes in good faith. Way too often, end it and make LEO's responsible for their actions like the rest of us have to be. Police have a plethora of people working they can contact to be sure they're doing things properly while we're lucky to get a phone call. Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you're a cop or a judge.
I don´t favor elimiminating QA, BUT, I do support severely limiting it. It should be denied far more often than it is granted. If you don´t know the laws, you shouldn´t be enforcing them. I can understand mistakes as the law can be ambiguous sometimes, and that is where it should apply. If it is something that is taught on day 1 at the Academy however. it should be immediately denied. Honest mistakes happen, but abuse should not be tolerated.
Any settlement needs to be paid from the pension fund. Or deducted from the pd's next year budget. Or perhaps cops should have to have like "malpractice" insurance. They get a big hit and they'll be dropped and not rehired at another city.
As a CT resident I’m glad to hear about the case. P.S. in CT you are allowed to carry an unloaded, locked up pistol to/from you work place, gun shop, and shooting range with out a permit. Probably not applicable in this case.
I agree 100% I think more people need to push for the Supreme Court to do away with qualified immunity there needs to be something that every Governor can do in every state to get rid of it
Kendrick, these cops do not care & they really get high on brutalizing innocent folk, it is the spiritual darkness in their lives, they are 100% evil through & through, by their fruit you shall know them!!
You are spot on. The officer knew he was wrong but was relying on qualified immunity to give him a free pass. Based on the officers theory, everyone that is driving and presents an operator's license, should immediately be pulled out of the car and arrested for driving without a license, as you just don't know the license is valid. Glad to hear the court got it right.
Guaranteed the officer was acting outside his departments policy and common sense. Qualified immunity is necessary but should be allowed to be challenged by a judge. If the person wants to sue personally because he was handcuffed and it hurt then no. If the Officet punched him after he was handcuffed, immunity does not apply.
The officer should be written up and fired. His supervisors should be disciplined, if they are defending the indefensible. If unsure of a permit or license being valid, check it against the computer!
I was hopelessly lost - years ago, before GPS - in a small town near Santa Cruz, CA. Pouring rain. Dark. No maps. Cops pull me over and tell me I am in a “high crime” area known for drugs and prostitutes. I tell them I am totally lost going to Santa Cruz. I am white. They escort me to the freeway. Gee……….
I remember hearing this about a year ago and it still sounds like rights were violated, and possibly laws broken. At the very least the man was assaulted, and he was falsely accused.
When your rights are violated. A crime has been committed. The constitution isnt just an cool read. It is the highest law in the country. So much so all other laws must submit to it. Theyve created a disconnect between rights violation and felony crime when infact they are one in the same
This is why qualified immunity should be gone. But not just for police, for everyone. Even judges and prosecuting attorney's. No One should be above the law, no one.
Qualified immunity only works when the cop acts lawfully. Clearly he (I assume male officer) was well outside acting lawfully and that’s why he is being sued. This is what happens because of the real stupid “gun control” laws in these draconian states.
A lot of them not just some. They do not like people who utilize their 2nd amendment rights. This is why the back the blue movement confuses me. Cops care about one thing and one thing only: themselves. If they get an order to impede your rights, they won’t even hesitate.
Oh yeah this is how he's been operating his whole career it's just that he got caught on this one and they never change even if they're found wrong because nothing happens to them. Sooner or later when will they get tired of paying out cases because of cops being sued for violating people's rights?
@@africacarey Too few sue and even fewer win. Good cops need to police the bad ones because they're getting tarred with the same brush by ignoring or supporting bad behaviors of fellow officers. Too few do that, too.
I believe the case of Hill v. Sibley Memorial Hospital explains how cases do NOT have to have an exactly matching prior case for a newer case to be valid.
They do/did but now we have social media But it's still going to be a long journey. Social media is finally changing all this, finally ! Thanks WAYNE America and thanks Steve for bringing this up.
@@rhal2930 less social media, more just the widespread and easy use of cameras. social media is another way they can abuse your rights, look at the FBI using facial recognition to mass scan social media for individuals.
No they don't even if you believe some cases they get away with some incidents there a thing in the universe call karma it goes full circle the nonsense or actions you give in the world you get it back so justice comes to those who least suspect it this why you see bad people get bad situations it no matter how they dress up bullshit it shows itself later
this is exactly why police are hated because so many officers have little concept of the law. so many become cops just to be mean to people they think are breaking the law or that they don't like
We had a similar result here in Arkansas several years ago. The cop had the "you might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" attitude and was sued after he arrested this guy without any PC whatsoever. The officer claimed QI, which the federal court bounced. He appealed and the appeals court bounced it as well.
@@hankkingsley9300 the whole system is based on value you bring to society. If you live your life as a pessimist, then yeah, everything is punishment. But in all reality, we are beyond privileged. Even the beatumup hood kids still have bigger and nicer things than a majority of people pre-1950
@@goldenhate6649 I bring plenty of value to society but I sure as hell don't get paid for it. That's a real nothingburger response. Don't matter I will be on SSI in 4 years and just get a shit job to make up the difference instead of busting my zza for nada. Hi here's your pizza sounds fun
Qualified immunity has always been ridiculous. Ignorance of the law is no justification for citizens who break it. Why do we hold officers of a law to a lower standard?!
I am a Kentucky resident and was pulled over for speeding (which I was) in Tennessee while returning home from Nashville on I-24. It was just after midnight on a Friday or Saturday night. The officer asked if I had any drugs or firearms in the car. I said, "no to drugs, yes to a firearm". The officer asked where it was and I told him that it was "under that towel on the passenger seat". He said, "that's fine, just leave it there", (which I did). A few minutes later, I was back on my way home. Life in Kentucky and Tennessee is good.
As a permit holder myself, I found this informative. Reminds me of a story I was told where a permit holder was driving in another state that did not have reciprocity with his state. The local police assumed that because he had a permit, there must be a gun in the car somewhere; so they arrested him & basically tore the car down to the frame trying to find the gun that the man HAD LEFT AT HOME BEcAUSE HE KNEW HIS PERMIT WOULD BE INVALID.
I read about a similar situation in my NRA magazine several years ago. It turned into a really bad deal for the driver and his wife that was harassed trying to get her to disclose where the gun was. It was at home!
I recently had an interaction with a PSP Trooper. Due to the circumstances I knew that we were going to be there for a while and instead of letting him notice on his own that I was carrying concealed I decided to inform him when he first approached the scene. His words "Good, that's your right, I'm carrying one too". We spent the next two hours chatting along side the road. Friendliest trooper I ever met. I even called his CO the next day to put in a good for his courtesy and professionalism during the entire event. Shame that there aren't more officers like him.
@@stevewilliamson8526 Innocent people should have the same right to go home, not to the hospital, jail or morgue because of a slew of inept police officers.
I was in sales for 25 years and drove more miles than Id like to admit. I quite a few interactions with Texas Department of Safety (Our State Troopers) I can say without a doubt, its truly a professional organization. I never had a moment of disrespect and generally had positive conversations (Got a few ticket too) But don't get me started on city police and dirt ball constables.
The first precedent is the Unanimous ratification of the Constitution. The constitution itself outlines how Gov and its entities can and will be overstepping bounds if not controlled. They dealt with this from Tyrant Kings first hand and knew better.
As a police officer with 30 years experience and a lawyer with 22 years experience I know the government provided attorney for the police officer went, "You did what?" Now he has to figure out some rationale he can use to save the agency from having to pay out for a bad arrest - even it means a very lame bootstrapping and some questionable arguments that are not likely to be upheld on appeal. For years I had tried to warn chiefs that this is not how you do police work.
Yeah, I’ve had experiences with both good and bad. The good ones are an asset to the community. The bad ones can be a nightmare. Hopefully as we usher in a new generation of officers we will see less and less of the “bad” ones. We mustn’t give up.
So you are saying the lawyer is throwing the case because he is trying to protect the department? He wants the judge to rule against qualified immunity so that the idiot officer is liable rather then the department?
The Supreme Court has ruled that being in an area where a crime has occurred before has no influence on probably cause. It must be established the same as anywhere else.
@@everyonesentitledtomyopini6723 and then you will get yank out of your car, slam face down on the ground and handcuffed, then charged with multiple crimes... Rewind, if you were a POC (person of color) and did the same, those actions most likely would get you shot by the police, reason "I feared for my life"...
Imagine the first ammendment parallel: "You are under arrest for illegal speech until we check our database of woke speech to verify that you are licensed for such speech."
The supreme court will dodge every case involving qualified immunity, just like every 2nd Amendment case that comes before them. Kicking the can down the road is what they do best.
You mean "dodge" like like they are in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen which is scheduled for arguments on 11/3/2021? The question the court is taking up is, "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment." In other words, May-Issue carry permits vs. Shall-Issue.
Police can do anything, with no fear.... They have the Union and the power and Asset$ of the State to back them up. YOU must risk your financial well being, and possibly your freedom to challenge them. Any encounter with police is potentially the ruination of your life.
They have already tried that in New Jersey with your 5th Amendment rights. A lawyer was arrested & charged by the NJ State Police for saying NOTHING. Yet we all have the right to "Remain Silent." That case was dismissed & she was cut a decent chunk of money for it
@@benvarela4472 In my small hometown, there was a woman who had a boyfriend. Guy owned a local business, not a shady guy at all. Local cop started harassing him for every little possible thing. Eventually the woman decided that her boyfriend must be into some bad shit, else why would he be getting so much attention from the police? Either that or she decided that whatever the reason for it, she didn't want any part of it. Having eliminated his rival, the cop is now married to that woman.
"Your honor, I felt threatened that he was so compliant, it felt like he was trying to lure me into a false sense of security, taking his heart condition into account, it felt right to assume he would feign a heart attack and then lunge for his firearm, probably." - The Officer.
“He was within 500m of a person I think might have been prostitute, so I detained just in case there was a prostitute in his car, I wanted to put her in my car…for reasons”
9:09 The 2 most dangerous implements a cop has are qualified immunity and the knowledge that s/he has a team of lawyers ready and eager to defend ANYTHING s/he has done under the color of law.
8:25. Who has a Blockbuster video rental card, except for people using the single remaining store in Oregon! Well Unless this was Doc Brown trying to restart his Delorean. Great case analysis as usual, informative and timely. Thanks.
Being in an area that is known “for crime” is one of those workarounds that officers use to violate the 4th Amendment. Absent “reasonable suspicion” based on observations and articulable facts, the stop itself is unlawful. The argument for “Qualified Immunity” is tantamount to, “I don’t know what I’m doing” as a LEO. On it’s face it is an absurd argument.
@Lexington73300 Those circumstances can give an officer "Arguable" reasonable suspicion but prior bad acts need to be more specific.... What specific crime do you think was committed here...
@Lexington73300 Fact 1: the suspect was not observed breaking the law in any form. Fact 2: virtually every public space is a “high crime” area. And is not an excuse for detainment or arrest. Fact 3: you’re an immoral fascist 🤤
God I wish I could remember the auditor who said this but in response to the "this is a high crime area" statement he said something to the effect of "well then why do we pay taxes for you guys if you know where all the crime is happening and cant prevent it"
3:47 - The logic is worse than that. They stop someone driving a car and immediately arrest them for driving without a license, because they haven't had a chance to verify that the license is valid.
Arrest and tow the car.... Then seize the car thru Civil asset forfeiture.. Once the process is validated to be within the law,,, the Police will take every opportunity to compound the penalties. It's their job. The are NOT your friend.
Throw them in jail and hold them for three weeks until the judge orders their release. Just because the cops/prosecutor is too lazy to check if the ID is valid.
All the years wasted in law school, when I could just have watched Lehto, Audit the Audit, Lackluster, We the People! Some great legal analysis here and in the many other great channels. BTW, why on earth would ANYBODY willingly go to Waterbury CT. What a shit hole.
@N Fels Fuck the police. If they can't do their job without QI, then they clearly can't do their job. Like, your whole argument is that cops should be allowed to operate as criminals in order to deal with crime. It's pathetic.
@N Fels Fourth Outcome - Properly train police to do their jobs correctly and expect them to do so or face the consequences just like EVERY other job in the country. (ie: fuck up and get fired - it's called accountability)
@N Fels I disagree. Your statement is based upon an anti-gun sentiment. The main issue of this case was: Man had legal permit to have gun (which IAW Shuttlesworth v Burmingham SCOTUS Ruling - Any time a State licenses, fees, registers a Constitutional Right - one may ignore said law with impunity) Man gave police his permit and informed cops - I am a legal gun permit holder Police saw permit Police then pulled the man violently from the car Police then searched the car (PC being falsely generated). Found LEGAL PRESCRIBED DRUGS. Found a mem stick (with pictures of his father on it - hardly a drug related item) Found $300 (in cash) You get the idea. ------------------------------- Then a judge said: the man had a valid CCW The man had his gun legally carried The man had a USB mem stick (with pictures of his father - hardly a drug related item) The man presented his ID and CCW card The man informed the cops - I am a CCW holder and here is my permit ------------------------------ But, the cops did not believe him. But, the cops did use vastly recognized excessive force ------------------------------- But, the prosecution attempted to; label the man's prescribed heart medicine as "narcotics - and illegal narcotics" Label the man as "a drug dealer - by implication of; presence of a gun presence of "drugs" presence of $300 in cash presence of a USB Stick (with pictures of his father) I can understand some small mistakes. We are all human. But, this situation was not "just a small mistake". It was a massive "I am Cop!!!! - I am !!!!THE LAW (JUDGE DREAD)!!!!!!!!! Your argument falls extremely short on any of the facts of this case. In fact, your argument is a boot licker argument. Remove QI immediately and cops will not do this sort of action.
@N Fels the police will send YOU to prison for making the tiniest mistake, or even just arbitrarily. I think it’s only fair they have the same set of rules. Remember QI has been around for less then 40 years. It’s completely possible to police without QI. Anecdotally, my grandfather was on Detroit police department since 1965. Never had QI. Never discharged his firearm. Never hurt anybody. Police these days are over equipped, overfunded, and operate like money hungry gangs, abusing civil forfeiture, QI, etc in order to take from citizens and manipulate the legal system in their best interest. Do you know the names of the cops in your district? Probably not, due to the ‘us versus them’ attitude cops have. Maybe revoking QI will make cops more inclined to actually engage with their communities on a positive level, instead of treating everyone like a future prisoner.
@@isaiahcoleman967 The "Us vs Them" mentality applies on both sides. How often do people expect the police to catch criminals and prevent crimes, yet when they have useful information, refuse to come forward? Both sides of the equation have to change.
Congress, itself, benefits. This is partly why Congress doesn't act and often exempts itself from the laws it creates. Congress has been a corrupt institution for many decades now.
I’ve run into too many police, and prosecutors, who feel they have the right to investigate and question anyone; and is the person’s responsibility to prove their innocence.
they do have the right to question and investigate many things, you however are not required to assist them in their investigation nor are you required to answer their questions, officer, 5th, on advice of council i respectfully refuse to answer any questions w/out an atty , then stfu, then stfu some more.
@@ocsob007 Remaining silent only helps if and when you are charged and it goes to court. The reality is police will detain people, sometimes for hours, without charges. If they find something to charge they count on the person not fighting, or effectively fighting, the allegations. If they find nothing they count on qualified immunity let them get away with abusing citizens rights.
@@larrypeterson8710 no, to many Judges run on “conditioned reflexes” they see the defendant, look at the charge, then reflex on the basis of their experience, especially in the preliminary stages. They even reflex on the basis of past experience with the lawyer representing the defendant.
@@michaelshepherd733 Nothing wrong with that. You can negotiate for a fresh carnation boutonniere and a copy of the NY Times every morning from your employer.
@@KB4QAA Did I say there is something wrong?......My point is endind qualified immunity wont change a dang thing. Colorodo and New Mexico have abolished qualified immunity for cops yet they still violate law abiding citizens rights daily.....
@@michaelshepherd733 Yes it will change things If cops can be sued for any action they take, even in good faith and following training, they will become risk adverse and withdraw from pro-active policing. Their first thought in any situation will be, "Does this risk my job, my house, my assets, my retirement, my family's security?". If yes, they will 'Nope out" and follow the path of least risk. CONSIDER: What if military personnel could be sued for any action they take while following legal orders and national policy?
"No one is above the law", the judiciary proceeds to give life to "qualified immunity". The Constitution says, "Inalienable rights", the government proceeds to create amendments that undue those rights😔🤦.
I believe it was Carl Sagan who said in his book ,A Demon Haunted World, "The ink was barely dry on the bill of rights when those rights began being eroded".
What you and most don't understand is that in a Common Law System that we have here in the US, the majority of our Rights actually come from the way the Courts INTERPRET Them, and NOT from the actual text. No where in the text of the Fourth Amendment does it say that a warrant is required to enter your home, or to arrest or search you. It has two distinct clauses. The First is that we shall be secure from unreasonable searches/seizures. What is unreasonable? No where in the Amendment does it say what is or isn't unreasonable. The Courts determine that. The second clause only tells the requirements and procedures for getting a warrant. Again NOWHERE in the Amendment does it say when, where or if a warrant is even necessary, only how to get one and what it must contain.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn That's not where the rights come from but it is an accurate description of how the rights are protected / violated by the judicial system.
@@gorkyd7912 Again, in a COMMON LAW System that is where our Rights come from. Sure there is a certain Text, and then the adage that inalienable rights come from God, but what if according to our Constitution you are an atheist? In a Common Law System, which is what we have, the Judicial Interpretation takes precedence over what is written in the text. It is a very common misconception that the Fourth Requires a warrant before a search or seizure, and NO WHERE does the Fourth say that. The Fourth says there shall be no unreasonable searches or seizures in the first part, then lays out the requirements for and the process to obtain a warrant, but NO WHERE are the two clauses dependent on the other. It has been Court decisions which say that a search/seizure is inherently unreasonable without a warrant unless it meets one of the many exceptions which make the search/seizure reasonable.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn If you are an atheist there is not such thing as rights, only power. If the courts have the power to defend you against the state, and you have the power to influence the courts to do so, then maybe that's what you call rights. If you do not have the power to influence the courts, or they do not have the power to defend you from the state, then you simply apply your power elsewhere. I.e you try to influence the state instead of the courts. This is why it's popular with certain atheist groups today to simply get rid of any institution they are not able to influence. The court's interpretation is only relevant to the court if the judge desires to be consistent with previous judges. So they would look at prior rulings which spell out what is a reasonable search (a warrant approved by a judge who knows case history) but if the judge does not want to be consistent with previous judges there's nothing stopping the judge from making an exception for whatever logic so there's no evidence of rights existing because of the tradition of respecting previous rulings.
If that logic would hold, then every driver can be stopped, arrested and searched for driving without a license. Wheather they have one or not. The cop simply does all that before checking, if the license is valid.
what is needed to stop qualified immunity crap is for a federal judge or a supreme court justice to be arrested and his or her rights trampled and the cop to claim qualified immunity - maybe they would see the error of their decisions when they legislate from the bench!
Yes. I absolutely wish this would happen. 26 State’s Attorney’s General need to be arrested and deliberately framed too. This will make them retract their positions that “There is no Constitutional right NOT to be framed”. (Google that phrase) 26 states AG stated it’s not unconstitutional to frame people.
The lack of Empathy for citizens is a major issue.... Preference for the officer's point of view has been given for so long, it has made a citizen's concerns second level
There is no "Duty to Inform" a police officer in Connecticut that a license (Pistol Permit) holder is carrying a concealed firearm. While a permit holder may think they are doing the right thing, this case is a perfect example where no good deed goes unpunished. I have been advised by a 2nd Amendment attorney in my state, which also has no "Duty to Inform" requirement, to NOT voluntarily inform a police officer during a traffic stop that I am carrying. Sadly, there are too many police officers that DO NOT know the law when it comes to concealed carry.
Good job for the judge that actually reads the law. The cop deserves felony conviction and years in jail. The supreme court needs to get rid of qualified immunity. On a side note, having a hunting license makes you a criminal subject to search and seizure by state and federal agents for merely being in possession of a hunting license. Hunters are illegally searched written fines for this crap all the time. Ask me how I know.
Well maybe 5-10 years from now this man will actually win. The state will fight this forever on appeal after appeal. Qualified immunity is such a bad concept. The court should be embarrassed for creating it at this point.
There is a rational basis for the idea that, when seconds count, someone should be given the benefit of the doubt if they make a mistake. Unfortunately, Qualified immunity has been twisted to the point that it protects *any* decision a cop makes and *any* action a cop takes unless/until someone proves that *that* cop has previously been informed that the *exact* decision/action is unlawful. It’s *well* beyond ‘reasonable actor making an error in judgement’ at this stage, yo the point that the only reasonable action is to dismantle it completely, and recognize that it was a mistake in the first place. It should have been set up as an affirmative defense, not as a blanket protection from prosecution or liability.
@@Vessekx All that does is give cops an excuse to make mistakes. It breeds complacency and gives zero incentive for police or other civil servants to get things right. In the military if ROE is not followed to the letter, you go to jail. There's no bullshit "I was mistaken". If troops can be held accountable for their actions overseas in a combat zone, the same can be done for cops in America.
@@taoliu3949, fun fact: There are entire *worlds* of difference between ‘the benefit of the doubt’ and ‘absolute immunity from consequences for malicious or criminal activity’. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing in favor of the latter.
Авто/Мото
Finally a judge that actually understands what true rights are. I am all for ending qualified immunity. The supreme Court made a huge mistake when they created qualified immunity out of thin air.
@N Fels
A Google search showed that 45 police were killed in 2020 and police killed about a thousand people. Why are your cops such fraidy cats?
@N Fels So, repeal the second amendment and make ALL firearms illegal?
@N Fels - Murdering 1 cop per week in a country of 340 million is not a lot considering cops shoot and kill, on average, 5 people per day, many under dubious circumstances. Also, you make no distinction between an illegal gun and a lawfully possessed gun. This gun was lawfully possessed. The people shooting cops have illegal guns.
@N Fels ever hear of parity? special training makes the difference? people are, and will be people. all put their pants on the same way.
@N Fels you are on the wrong channel if you want to argue in favour of qualified immunity...
Outrageous illegal arrests like these should be tried as kidnappings.
That's essentially what the Civil Rights lawsuit is about.
This is how you get the radical left wingers to join your side.
Kidnapping used to be a capital crime punished by death....
@@akulkis Can a cop be sentenced to prison time in a civil case? Then it is NOT essentially what a civil lawsuit is about.
There should be criminal prosecution, in addition to civil liability, when police do this kind of thing. The cops know that they are wrong when they do this, but they figure that qualified immunity gives them the cover to do whatever the hell they want. Eventually citizens are going to start offering police who do this, and jurors will nullify the charges during jury deliberation.
Imagine getting arrested for NOT breaking the law...
happens all the time unfortunately
"Public-Sector" - "Violent Crime" is a growing private-sector citizen-concern.
Happens all the time ,crooked cops supported by crooked prosecution,supported by crooked judges.
Is criminal conspiracy to obey the law coming up next?
HAPPENS a thousand times a day, I guarantee you!
The very fact that a free citizen must get on his knees before a government entity and beg for his God given right to defend himself is so horrible and terrible that I don't have adequate words to describe my feelings.
Do we actually have rights if we must passively allow the police to violate them?
Yeah, democracy is disgusting. Free market anarchy, everyone protecting their community from the bad eggs.
Government monopolies are evil.
@@ianbattles7290 :: Our Constitutional Rights are in Jeopardy!!!
While i'll calmly and peacefully submit to arrest i will NEVER get on my knees for a cop !, he'll have to kill me first and then i can go meet God the only One i'll get on my knees for !
This is the best post about the arrest. Thank you.
So, a police officer can't immediately tell if a gun permit is real, but we're expected to instantly know that someone claiming to be cop is wearing a legitimate uniform and badge?
That badge doesn’t tell me whether or not your dangerous.
There’s wolves behind those masks.
That's why everyone needs a dash camera. All my kids are required to run one every time they are driving. Then there will never be a he said she said or any question about anything. Should be standard equipment on every vehicle period.
well it would apply to everything. insurance card? no insurance! its invalid! search! drivers license? sorry didnt get to check it assumed it was invalid or suspended seach and arrested! registration papers? the papers are probably invalid! total fucking clown logic.
When working in a circus. Clowns are just part of the act.
By that logic, A citizen has no way of knowing that the person knocking on the window is an actual police officer, and not some violent felon with a fake badge.
Yeah, but the citizen doesn't get qualified immunity if something bad happens.
@@superdave8248 there really needs to be a way for people to verify if the officer is liget.
and the officers should be expecting and patient with the verification, any officer who doesn't like this idea should be assumed to be a bad cop unless he gives a REALLY good reason why not, it would only make both parties safer.
Assume anyone kicking down your door in the middle of the night is a bad guy until verified otherwise. Honest men come in daylight with open faces, not at 3 AM wearing masks.
More like a cop knocking on one’s window IS a violent felon with a REAL badge, lethal weapons and a bad attitude, ready to use all at any time!
@@TallDiana Bingo.
I am a former LEO, back in the time when qualified immunity did not exist. When I first herd about it I thought it was a bad idea. Knowing that it would be hard to be found culpable of anything during my service seemed like a license to abuse the justice system. It was not until the advent of RUclips that these abuses became extremely obvious. It isn't a once in a while ordeal. It is daily, almost hourly. I am in favor of abolishing such a privilege or at least modify it to be very hard to claim. The current rules are unjust and unseemly and ridiculous to say the least. Look at modern policing. It is a bunch of out of control thugs, harming, abusing and killing citizens and walking away unscathed in the name of qualified immunity. It is disgusting! Thank you for sharing...
Thank you for serving with honor as a peace officer. Here's something I've noticed in life.
Anytime anyone is not held responsible for their actions they tend to behave badly.
Adrenaline junkies, many of them are... Smh
I wouldn't abolish it , our society is too litigious, but it most certainly needs modifying!
It is a shame to have lost you from the police force. The country needs men like you in public service. Thank you for your service.
Well said sir. Thank You for your honesty.
This officer should be fired AND sued. His behavior was clearly unconstitutional and abusive.
If they can assume that the permit was fake they could also try and argue your drivers license was fake and arrest you for driving without a license without checking it. That is insane.
By the cop's own logic, *you can assume he's not a real cop until you can confirm his credentials.*
The cop found pills for the driver's heart. Hmmm.... the driver's definitely going to need those pills now!
my issue with the whole things is , as a police dispatcher , a ccw license can very quickly be retrieved once the DL numvber is given to the dispatcher, within a min or so. common sense (no so common anymore ) would tell any person , hey this person isnt hiding anything and is being upfront and honest . but where the problem lie is that some police think because they wear a badge they have power.
@@ianbattles7290- Exactly what I was thinking, how do you know the police officer is really an officer. This logic is scary!
great point !
Seems like the only dangerous person with a gun that night was the police officer on the scene.
There is no excuse for an officer to not know the laws of their state and this officer should be fired and charged for the unlawful arrest.
Oh I'm pretty sure that officer understand at least basic law well enough, LOL! He was absolutely relying on QA. All he had to do was take a few minutes to verify the info. But we know that was never the goal anyway. As soon as the P.O.S. was informed of the weapon, that is all he needed to escalate & lie.
Not to mention the fact he had no valid reason to even approach the vehicle. And he sure as hell had no R-A-S to ask or demand any ID. But he is well aware that QA allows Officers to criminalize citizens for following the law. Cops are stupid & highly ignorant for sure. However, It seems this one knew exactly what he was doing.
Here the police will tailgate you with their brights on in deer-infested areas. They do it in the name of "protecting us from drunk drivers."
That guy is too stupid to work as a police officer. He shouldn't even be allowed to work as a mall cop.
@@ChristianMcAngus LOL! You're probably right! smdh
Its Ct they are horrible about gun owner rights.
If I get to the end of this video and the offcer isn't BEING SENTENCED TO JAIL FOR HIS CRIMINAL ACTS I will be disappointed.
prepared to be disappointed then as even judges back the blue line they will find some technicality to get him/her off with a slap on the wrist so to speak in fact if this 1 does get sent to jail i will be totally impressed
@@dougbrown6534apparently the cops and police unions rule the judicial system...judges just go for the ride.
The most astonishing thing about this case is that it was not immediately settled
oh the man was most likely offered a settlement only to tell the state FU we taking this s#$t to court mfer
This judge actually understands the Constitution. I love the commonsense of this judge!
Agreed!
as all judges should,,, yet it is always amazing when they do
I agree with you! Many judges hold self-aggrandizement in their favor.
Which, by the way, is not in their best interest and will screw up a citizen's life.
Their omniscience is self-serving.
The irony is that this cop is exactly the reason why the second amendment exists. Statve v Robinson even affirmed this by ruling that resisting unlawful arrest with force is akin resisting assault and battery with force.
Good on the judge. That cop needs to be bagging groceries.
I would call it uncommon sense these days.
Imagine if the police got away with this logic. You get pulled over for a traffic infraction. You hand the officer your license, registration and insurance. The officer immediately arrests you and impounds your car because you was driving with no license, registration and insurance because he/she never ran it to see if it was all valid.
Absolutely! The pure INSANITY of the Officer's claim is just mind-boggling! Even for the U.S.!
Their game, we are forced to play. Peaceful slavery over dangerous freedoms.
Thank you!!!
The police get away with that logic every week somewhere in the USA. They are criminals and abusers of the rights of Americans.
There are just so many things for which you require some form of license and/or permit. Imagine if for all of these you could be arrested simply because the officer hasn't checked it yet.....
By this logic you could arrest and search anybody for driving without a license simply by delaying running it.
By this logic, I can run away from any cop because I can't immediately verify if they are legitimate or not.
I can only hope that Karma visits the police officer and that it costs him every penny he has along with his job.
Since the judge deemed "no reasonable officer..." that officer should be fired on the grounds that he is not reasonable.
It's an excellent point. The fact that the officer was still trying to defend the indefensible shows that he learned nothing after talking to attorneys shows that he has no business being a Police Officer.
As soon as the jurisdiction has to pay the judgement, they will fire his butt. But if the jurisdiction doesn't feel the consequences they will turn a blind eye.
But that would require his superior to be reasonable, which if he is defending a cop who doesn't have two brain cells to rub together and runs on autopilot we should assume he isn't.
@@eddarby469 unfortunately he will just go and be hired in the next county. There should be a national DO NOT HIRE list for law enforcement if you were terminated for cause from another jurisdiction, but alas that will never happen.
The sad thing is there's no such thing as a reasonable officer
By this logic, every time someone sees someone else with a gun they should call the police, even if that person is in a police uniform and provide police ID as they could be fake.
By this logic, you could pre-emptively shoot him, as you could no establish that he's an actual police officer, and not a criminal dressed as a police officer to commit a crime. Just saying.
Let's hope the cop has to pay out of his own pocket. That would be nice.
@N Fels to true. All cops should give up their guns and not be allowed to carry them
@@cohenworrior898 agree, whole heartedly! However the local government officials that enabled that dirtbag to carry a badge and gun are also personally responsible.
@@theDemocraticway Hopefully the lawsuit bankrupts both the dirtbag and the dirtbag department that failed to train him properly.
@N Fels I'm less worried about a legal gun owner going insane than the rivers of blood being shed in our inner cities. So many young men of color being cut down in the prime of their lives, as well as innocent bystanders (including children.) Don't you care about them? Legal gun owners are not, and have never been, the problem in the USA. 10 white kids die in a school shooting, it's on all the news 24/7 for a month. 100 young men of color die? The news media ignores those deaths. Oh, and the First Amendment is also a "centuries old piece of paper." Can the Government just trample that? How about the Fourth or Fifth Amendments? Exact same age. The Constitution says what it says, and does not say what it doesn't say. Don't like the Second Amendment? The First Amendment allows you to speak out against it, organize against it, and start the legal process to amend the Constitution. We are a Constitutional Republic. We operate under the Rule of Law, not the rule of men.
This occurs frequently. :( There are a lot of anti 2nd Amendment police out there.
Outlaw-Cops! Un-American policing.
I thought there was already precedent in the legal system stating that the mere presence of a firearm is NEVER grounds for "probable cause."
As far as I'm concerned, the only "probable cause" here is for the cop's termination, with prejudice.
Termination? Shit.... he needs to do jail time. Put him away a few years, make him a felon, ENSURE that he never does this again.
@@grappler240 , You are 100 % correct. I like the way you think !
@N Fels Don't you see the trap you've fallen into?
As sad as it is, you can't arrest anyone until they commit a crime or you can prove they were planning a crime.
Ever see the movie "The Minority Report"?
Until someone comits a crime, there is no reason to arrest them.
@N Fels this police officer is one of the bad ones ! All are guilty , it would be proper to assume the state issued license is valid ! Separate the gun from the man temporarily to investigate! No where was a crime committed
@N Fels That's exactly how it works, especially in cases of Domestic Violence. "Sorry, our hands are tied" until the victim is on a slab in the coroner's office. Your concept that any one in possession of a firearm is a threat sounds really paranoid. It ain't so, not by a thousand percent.
This is big. Every time someone wins against qualified immunity. It gets a lot easier for the next guy to fight.
Not usually. The US Supreme Court just finds some way to redefine Qualified Immunity that makes the win practically useless.
It's not big at all if I understood correctly that he said no precedent has already been established for this EXACT situation in that EXACT district... Without precedents he has no legal standing to have the officers Immunity disqualified. And if the case goes federal then I think it MIGHT fall under the Westfall act...
@@oldogre5999 This sets the precedent. That's what makes this big.
@@warrmalaski8570 But that is what I am trying to explain, they WONT allow it, people have been trying ever since the first year Immunity was signed but they deliberately put in a catch 24 or a loop and they just wont allow it! You'll see...
That is why I keep saying "there has to be a precedent BEFORE they will allow the precedent!!!
Free country, where people have rights.
Sorry PRIVILEGES!
Qualified Immunity has been bastardized beyond belief 😭
Waterbury Police strike again! I don't know how many times I have seen videos on this police department violating constitutional rights. I think it's time for some serious retraining for this department!
This is the same police department that arrested somebody for filming the front door of their police station from the public sidewalk.
Qualified immunity is misused for bad deeds, not mistakes in good faith. Way too often, end it and make LEO's responsible for their actions like the rest of us have to be. Police have a plethora of people working they can contact to be sure they're doing things properly while we're lucky to get a phone call. Ignorance of the law is no excuse unless you're a cop or a judge.
Yep, they are supposed to be held to a higher standard. Hell, I would be happy if they were just held to the same standard we are.
Cops should KNOW the laws they enforce and investigate before arresting.
I don´t favor elimiminating QA, BUT, I do support severely limiting it. It should be denied far more often than it is granted. If you don´t know the laws, you shouldn´t be enforcing them. I can understand mistakes as the law can be ambiguous sometimes, and that is where it should apply. If it is something that is taught on day 1 at the Academy however. it should be immediately denied. Honest mistakes happen, but abuse should not be tolerated.
I hope this man is victorious in all appeals and becomes rich from this.
Even if the cop loses qualified immunity the citizens will pay the price for still another idiot cop
@@mikejordan533 that's why I'm all for those who violate the constitution to be publicly hanged by the neck until dead.
@@williamwinder5011 like sleepy Joe and immigration????
Should he consider his drivers license is not valid when given to a cop?
Any settlement needs to be paid from the pension fund. Or deducted from the pd's next year budget. Or perhaps cops should have to have like "malpractice" insurance. They get a big hit and they'll be dropped and not rehired at another city.
As a CT resident I’m glad to hear about the case. P.S. in CT you are allowed to carry an unloaded, locked up pistol to/from you work place, gun shop, and shooting range with out a permit. Probably not applicable in this case.
Those laws won't help you if the cop who pulled you over doesn't know them.
CT has some of the most draconian gun laws in the country.
Won't help if a NAZI COP
I agree 100% I think more people need to push for the Supreme Court to do away with qualified immunity there needs to be something that every Governor can do in every state to get rid of it
The mental gymnastics that cop had to go through to justify his actions is astounding.
Kendrick, these cops do not care & they really get high on brutalizing innocent folk, it is the spiritual darkness in their lives, they are 100% evil through & through, by their fruit you shall know them!!
Oh he didn't have to bother. The attorney provided to him at taxpayer expense did all the thinking.
Police departments stopped screening out psychopaths in the personality assessments at least 2 decades ago.
You are spot on. The officer knew he was wrong but was relying on qualified immunity to give him a free pass. Based on the officers theory, everyone that is driving and presents an operator's license, should immediately be pulled out of the car and arrested for driving without a license, as you just don't know the license is valid. Glad to hear the court got it right.
in colorado, not only has qualified immunity been abolished, they added IF a police officer turns off his body camera, his testimony gets thrown out..
Guaranteed the officer was acting outside his departments policy and common sense. Qualified immunity is necessary but should be allowed to be challenged by a judge. If the person wants to sue personally because he was handcuffed and it hurt then no. If the Officet punched him after he was handcuffed, immunity does not apply.
The officer should be written up and fired. His supervisors should be disciplined, if they are defending the indefensible. If unsure of a permit or license being valid, check it against the computer!
@@gorillaau Err no, he should go to prison for assault, etc.
@@gorillaau Uh…the computer is down.
Umm…the computer has been hacked…again.
I was hopelessly lost - years ago, before GPS - in a small town near Santa Cruz, CA. Pouring rain. Dark. No maps. Cops pull me over and tell me I am in a “high crime” area known for drugs and prostitutes. I tell them I am totally lost going to Santa Cruz. I am white. They escort me to the freeway. Gee……….
I remember hearing this about a year ago and it still sounds like rights were violated, and possibly laws broken. At the very least the man was assaulted, and he was falsely accused.
Title 18, Section 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
This cop committed an actual crime.
When your rights are violated. A crime has been committed.
The constitution isnt just an cool read. It is the highest law in the country. So much so all other laws must submit to it.
Theyve created a disconnect between rights violation and felony crime when infact they are one in the same
This is why qualified immunity should be gone. But not just for police, for everyone. Even judges and prosecuting attorney's. No
One should be above the law, no one.
REPEATING BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE SAID AGAIN: No one should be above the law, no one.
Qualified immunity only works when the cop acts lawfully. Clearly he (I assume male officer) was well outside acting lawfully and that’s why he is being sued. This is what happens because of the real stupid “gun control” laws in these draconian states.
Agreed
Too many people get railroaded by lying DAs with the help of the judges.
Some cops simply reject the idea that anyone other than they may be armed, regardless of what the law says.
That's really the root issue here, yeah.
It's all about control my friend, never forget that. It's all about control!!!
Yes, and we have as much right as law enforcement to be armed. "Shall not be infringed" means nothing to some of them. They are scofflaws.
A lot of them not just some. They do not like people who utilize their 2nd amendment rights. This is why the back the blue movement confuses me. Cops care about one thing and one thing only: themselves. If they get an order to impede your rights, they won’t even hesitate.
Most cops don't want citizens to exercise their 2nd Admendment rights.
Hope you provide follow up on this case in the future as it proceeds through the courts. Thank you.
A Blockbuster rental card! OFF TO JAIL! Blockbuster's been out of business for well over a decade!
More cases we win against qualified immunity the less impact they have to use it as a defense.
"Pending litigation" - Translation: We currently have no way off justifying what our client did and need more time to come up with something.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 " we don't want to say anything that might be contradictory with the many lies we are about to come up with"
No, what they want is 3 or more chances [via appeals] to find a judge that will protect the thin blue line and cover the officers ass.
Like, “We hope that the plaintiff will die, mooting the lawsuit.”
Cop logic 101: You're guilty until you prove to me you're not.
When does "shall not be infringed" mean "shall not be infringed"?
I hope this cop loses his job and his law suit, this was an abuse of power.
And jailed
If the officer did this once, you know he does this as his regular routine. Most just don't want to be bothered with fighting it.
It costs money to access justice.
Oh yeah this is how he's been operating his whole career it's just that he got caught on this one and they never change even if they're found wrong because nothing happens to them. Sooner or later when will they get tired of paying out cases because of cops being sued for violating people's rights?
@@africacarey Too few sue and even fewer win. Good cops need to police the bad ones because they're getting tarred with the same brush by ignoring or supporting bad behaviors of fellow officers. Too few do that, too.
Unless the cop was TRYING to get sued, why on earth would he charge a licensed gun owner for illegally possessing a gun?
@@ianbattles7290 Only he knows why. Probably because he's been getting away with these kinds of behaviors for a while now.
I believe the case of Hill v. Sibley Memorial Hospital explains how cases do NOT have to have an exactly matching prior case for a newer case to be valid.
This officer not only needs to be banned from ever being in law enforcement again, but also charged criminally!
The abuse of our rights coming from law enforcement is absurd. And as you stated steve, they know they can get away with it and they do
They do/did but now we have social media But it's still going to be a long journey. Social media is finally changing all this, finally ! Thanks WAYNE America and thanks Steve for bringing this up.
@@rhal2930 less social media, more just the widespread and easy use of cameras. social media is another way they can abuse your rights, look at the FBI using facial recognition to mass scan social media for individuals.
When you have no morals & rely on man made legal systems; you WILL answer to GOD Our Father on Judgement Day.
Repent and be saved.
No they don't even if you believe some cases they get away with some incidents there a thing in the universe call karma it goes full circle the nonsense or actions you give in the world you get it back so justice comes to those who least suspect it this why you see bad people get bad situations it no matter how they dress up bullshit it shows itself later
this is exactly why police are hated because so many officers have little concept of the law. so many become cops just to be mean to people they think are breaking the law or that they don't like
We had a similar result here in Arkansas several years ago. The cop had the "you might beat the rap but you won't beat the ride" attitude and was sued after he arrested this guy without any PC whatsoever. The officer claimed QI, which the federal court bounced. He appealed and the appeals court bounced it as well.
“The process is the punishment” is the motto of many an amateur dictator or corrupt bureaucrat these days in America.
Thats exactly how its supposed to work. You can claim it but it doesnt mean itll apply in a case by case basis
Everything from the DMV to the school system to your local Hospital job at a big Corporation the whole system is designed to punish you
@@hankkingsley9300 the whole system is based on value you bring to society. If you live your life as a pessimist, then yeah, everything is punishment. But in all reality, we are beyond privileged. Even the beatumup hood kids still have bigger and nicer things than a majority of people pre-1950
@@goldenhate6649 I bring plenty of value to society but I sure as hell don't get paid for it. That's a real nothingburger response. Don't matter I will be on SSI in 4 years and just get a shit job to make up the difference instead of busting my zza for nada. Hi here's your pizza sounds fun
living in a police state - step 1 : own 10 cameras that all record live stream
Qualified immunity has always been ridiculous. Ignorance of the law is no justification for citizens who break it. Why do we hold officers of a law to a lower standard?!
“Hey I have a permit and gun.”
Cop: “Well you must obviously be a criminal. Imma take your medication, money and memories, thank you.”
... and kidnap you.
I am a Kentucky resident and was pulled over for speeding (which I was) in Tennessee while returning home from Nashville on I-24. It was just after midnight on a Friday or Saturday night. The officer asked if I had any drugs or firearms in the car. I said, "no to drugs, yes to a firearm". The officer asked where it was and I told him that it was "under that towel on the passenger seat". He said, "that's fine, just leave it there", (which I did). A few minutes later, I was back on my way home. Life in Kentucky and Tennessee is good.
What ever judgment the gentleman receives it won’t be enough.
As a permit holder myself, I found this informative. Reminds me of a story I was told where a permit holder was driving in another state that did not have reciprocity with his state. The local police assumed that because he had a permit, there must be a gun in the car somewhere; so they arrested him & basically tore the car down to the frame trying to find the gun that the man HAD LEFT AT HOME BEcAUSE HE KNEW HIS PERMIT WOULD BE INVALID.
Definitely over-reach
If I couldn't sue the cop I would find out where he lived and trash His car. And maybe the garage too.
I read about a similar situation in my NRA magazine several years ago. It turned into a really bad deal for the driver and his wife that was harassed trying to get her to disclose where the gun was. It was at home!
I read about that. I think it was in Maryland.
You could make a living off sueing some cops for their stupidity. Hmmm?
I recently had an interaction with a PSP Trooper. Due to the circumstances I knew that we were going to be there for a while and instead of letting him notice on his own that I was carrying concealed I decided to inform him when he first approached the scene. His words "Good, that's your right, I'm carrying one too". We spent the next two hours chatting along side the road. Friendliest trooper I ever met. I even called his CO the next day to put in a good for his courtesy and professionalism during the entire event.
Shame that there aren't more officers like him.
There are many more officers like that. This just wasn't one of them.
If your not white I’ll eat my left shoe
There are ,they just have to be careful so they can go home at the end of there day and not to the hospital.
@@stevewilliamson8526 Innocent people should have the same right to go home, not to the hospital, jail or morgue because of a slew of inept police officers.
I was in sales for 25 years and drove more miles than Id like to admit. I quite a few interactions with Texas Department of Safety (Our State Troopers) I can say without a doubt, its truly a professional organization. I never had a moment of disrespect and generally had positive conversations (Got a few ticket too) But don't get me started on city police and dirt ball constables.
Thanks Steve for bringing forward information on this case. Transparency and accountability is critical.
The first precedent is the Unanimous ratification of the Constitution. The constitution itself outlines how Gov and its entities can and will be overstepping bounds if not controlled. They dealt with this from Tyrant Kings first hand and knew better.
POLICE WIPE ON THE CONSTITUTION.......THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT IT AT ALL , AND MANY WILL TELL YOU JUST THAT .
As a police officer with 30 years experience and a lawyer with 22 years experience I know the government provided attorney for the police officer went, "You did what?" Now he has to figure out some rationale he can use to save the agency from having to pay out for a bad arrest - even it means a very lame bootstrapping and some questionable arguments that are not likely to be upheld on appeal. For years I had tried to warn chiefs that this is not how you do police work.
oh please. im sure you violated hundreds if not thousands of innocent peoples rights.
Yeah, I’ve had experiences with both good and bad. The good ones are an asset to the community. The bad ones can be a nightmare. Hopefully as we usher in a new generation of officers we will see less and less of the “bad” ones. We mustn’t give up.
So you are saying the lawyer is throwing the case because he is trying to protect the department? He wants the judge to rule against qualified immunity so that the idiot officer is liable rather then the department?
@@Lilo-A You are absolutely right
@@FakeSchrodingersCat I hope this idiot cop has to sell his house to pay the judgement.
The Supreme Court has ruled that being in an area where a crime has occurred before has no influence on probably cause. It must be established the same as anywhere else.
Most cops couldn’t give you directions to the cop shop, let alone what scotus has to say. That’s why QI is in place in the first place.
Probably cause? LOL
@@f14tomcat30 Most people in known drug areas aren't on their way to the church bingo game.
Where is an area where no crime has ever been committed? In the crater of Mt St Helens right after it blew up, maybe.
@@bobbybarnes1652 Lots of them live there. They have businesses there. Good grief. Buckhead, Atlanta is a known illegal drug area.
Please cover the story of the mass graves containing 215 bodies behind Miss. jail!
That's WHY they were buried! DUH! So ALL will OVER LOOK ! Only 215? just check again.
The cop never had reasonable articulable suspicion of the man having committed a crime so he never had a lawful right to go up to or question him.
@@everyonesentitledtomyopini6723 and then you will get yank out of your car, slam face down on the ground and handcuffed, then charged with multiple crimes... Rewind, if you were a POC (person of color) and did the same, those actions most likely would get you shot by the police, reason "I feared for my life"...
Cop deserves to be hit with a Color of Law Charges. Sued for the exact thing.
Sounds dangerous separating a heart patient from his medication.
Especially when the LEO has caused a stressful situation.
Congratulations to THIS JUDGE!!!!❤️❤️
Imagine the first ammendment parallel: "You are under arrest for illegal speech until we check our database of woke speech to verify that you are licensed for such speech."
Don’t give the crazies any ideas.
100% right, The bill of rights do not require permits
The supreme court will dodge every case involving qualified immunity, just like every 2nd Amendment case that comes before them. Kicking the can down the road is what they do best.
You mean "dodge" like like they are in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen which is scheduled for arguments on 11/3/2021? The question the court is taking up is, "Whether the State's denial of petitioners' applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment." In other words, May-Issue carry permits vs. Shall-Issue.
Idk, but "...shall not be infringed" sounds damn blunt to me.
@@Adroit1911 What about a well-regulated militia?
@@selanryn5849 the people are the militia. And we must take responsibility for regulating ourselves.
There seem to be more and more cases recently where the police argue that merely obeying the law creates probable cause.
Police can do anything, with no fear....
They have the Union and the power and Asset$ of the State to back them up.
YOU must risk your financial well being, and possibly your freedom to challenge them.
Any encounter with police is potentially the ruination of your life.
They have already tried that in New Jersey with your 5th Amendment rights. A lawyer was arrested & charged by the NJ State Police for saying NOTHING. Yet we all have the right to "Remain Silent." That case was dismissed & she was cut a decent chunk of money for it
Police hate the law. They do whatever they want.
@@graysonchristie7687 1 was just charged for stalking a woman for 3 years. A state trooper in fact
@@benvarela4472 In my small hometown, there was a woman who had a boyfriend. Guy owned a local business, not a shady guy at all. Local cop started harassing him for every little possible thing. Eventually the woman decided that her boyfriend must be into some bad shit, else why would he be getting so much attention from the police? Either that or she decided that whatever the reason for it, she didn't want any part of it.
Having eliminated his rival, the cop is now married to that woman.
If not for the BS of qualified immunity, this wouldn't cost tax payers
PAYOUTS for a CHILDREN'S EGO!
This is coming up in Maine next month 5/23.
Discuss Personal Officer Liability (potential immunity) vs Agency Liability
"Your honor, I felt threatened that he was so compliant, it felt like he was trying to lure me into a false sense of security, taking his heart condition into account, it felt right to assume he would feign a heart attack and then lunge for his firearm, probably." - The Officer.
“He was within 500m of a person I think might have been prostitute, so I detained just in case there was a prostitute in his car, I wanted to put her in my car…for reasons”
Officer “I shot him so he wouldn’t have a heart attack
@@AndyGeesGarage Heart Attack or Gunshot?? No, he died from Covid.
9:09 The 2 most dangerous implements a cop has are qualified immunity and the knowledge that s/he has a team of lawyers ready and eager to defend ANYTHING s/he has done under the color of law.
Plus no charge to them meanwhile the victim has thousands of dollar's of debt fighting the state to clear their name
Probably not ready and eager so much as, 'he did WHAT? Oh godfuckingdammit....'
Anywhere in United States even the middle of Yellowstone is a high-crime area I'm so tired of this lie these cops tell like the phone call li
8:25. Who has a Blockbuster video rental card, except for people using the single remaining store in Oregon! Well Unless this was Doc Brown trying to restart his Delorean. Great case analysis as usual, informative and timely. Thanks.
Being in an area that is known “for crime” is one of those workarounds that officers use to violate the 4th Amendment. Absent “reasonable suspicion” based on observations and articulable facts, the stop itself is unlawful.
The argument for “Qualified Immunity” is tantamount to, “I don’t know what I’m doing” as a LEO. On it’s face it is an absurd argument.
They use that when they argue that the "Totality of the circumstances" must be looked at
@Lexington73300 Those circumstances can give an officer "Arguable" reasonable suspicion but prior bad acts need to be more specific.... What specific crime do you think was committed here...
@Lexington73300 Fact 1: the suspect was not observed breaking the law in any form.
Fact 2: virtually every public space is a “high crime” area. And is not an excuse for detainment or arrest.
Fact 3: you’re an immoral fascist 🤤
@Lexington73300 What crime did the "suspect" commit?
God I wish I could remember the auditor who said this but in response to the "this is a high crime area" statement he said something to the effect of "well then why do we pay taxes for you guys if you know where all the crime is happening and cant prevent it"
3:47 - The logic is worse than that.
They stop someone driving a car and immediately arrest them for driving without a license, because they haven't had a chance to verify that the license is valid.
Arrest and tow the car.... Then seize the car thru Civil asset forfeiture..
Once the process is validated to be within the law,,, the Police will take every
opportunity to compound the penalties. It's their job. The are NOT your friend.
Throw them in jail and hold them for three weeks until the judge orders their release. Just because the cops/prosecutor is too lazy to check if the ID is valid.
All the years wasted in law school, when I could just have watched Lehto, Audit the Audit, Lackluster, We the People! Some great legal analysis here and in the many other great channels. BTW, why on earth would ANYBODY willingly go to Waterbury CT. What a shit hole.
End qualified immunity ow and require officials to obtain insurance for their own actions!
When he is victorious, this will set a precedent to go to SCOTUS and have QI removed completely for LEO(s). We can pray that this happens.
@N Fels Fuck the police. If they can't do their job without QI, then they clearly can't do their job. Like, your whole argument is that cops should be allowed to operate as criminals in order to deal with crime. It's pathetic.
@N Fels Fourth Outcome - Properly train police to do their jobs correctly and expect them to do so or face the consequences just like EVERY other job in the country. (ie: fuck up and get fired - it's called accountability)
@N Fels I disagree.
Your statement is based upon an anti-gun sentiment.
The main issue of this case was:
Man had legal permit to have gun (which IAW Shuttlesworth v Burmingham SCOTUS Ruling - Any time a State licenses, fees, registers a Constitutional Right - one may ignore said law with impunity)
Man gave police his permit and informed cops - I am a legal gun permit holder
Police saw permit
Police then pulled the man violently from the car
Police then searched the car (PC being falsely generated).
Found LEGAL PRESCRIBED DRUGS.
Found a mem stick (with pictures of his father on it - hardly a drug related item)
Found $300 (in cash)
You get the idea.
-------------------------------
Then a judge said:
the man had a valid CCW
The man had his gun legally carried
The man had a USB mem stick (with pictures of his father - hardly a drug related item)
The man presented his ID and CCW card
The man informed the cops - I am a CCW holder and here is my permit
------------------------------
But, the cops did not believe him.
But, the cops did use vastly recognized excessive force
-------------------------------
But, the prosecution attempted to;
label the man's prescribed heart medicine as "narcotics - and illegal narcotics"
Label the man as "a drug dealer - by implication of;
presence of a gun
presence of "drugs"
presence of $300 in cash
presence of a USB Stick (with pictures of his father)
I can understand some small mistakes. We are all human.
But, this situation was not "just a small mistake".
It was a massive "I am Cop!!!! - I am !!!!THE LAW (JUDGE DREAD)!!!!!!!!!
Your argument falls extremely short on any of the facts of this case.
In fact, your argument is a boot licker argument.
Remove QI immediately and cops will not do this sort of action.
@N Fels the police will send YOU to prison for making the tiniest mistake, or even just arbitrarily. I think it’s only fair they have the same set of rules.
Remember QI has been around for less then 40 years. It’s completely possible to police without QI. Anecdotally, my grandfather was on Detroit police department since 1965. Never had QI. Never discharged his firearm. Never hurt anybody.
Police these days are over equipped, overfunded, and operate like money hungry gangs, abusing civil forfeiture, QI, etc in order to take from citizens and manipulate the legal system in their best interest.
Do you know the names of the cops in your district? Probably not, due to the ‘us versus them’ attitude cops have. Maybe revoking QI will make cops more inclined to actually engage with their communities on a positive level, instead of treating everyone like a future prisoner.
@@isaiahcoleman967 The "Us vs Them" mentality applies on both sides. How often do people expect the police to catch criminals and prevent crimes, yet when they have useful information, refuse to come forward? Both sides of the equation have to change.
Qualified immunity needs to go ASAP, once again Congress has failed to act on it.
If you totally remove qualified immunity, you will not have any police.
And of course I know that people are going to say we don't need police, that we should be responsible for ourselves. Doesn't work.
Congress, itself, benefits. This is partly why Congress doesn't act and often exempts itself from the laws it creates. Congress has been a corrupt institution for many decades now.
@@JohnGalt-vr3lx or you could, i dont know, maybe train police so they know what laws they have to enforce.
@@JohnGalt-vr3lx that's horseshit there were cops long before qualified immunity existed.
I too have been found guilty of cavaliering, galavanting about, and lurking in the shadows.
Never volunteer information. Also never accept a license or permission to exercise a right.
COPS HAVE BEEN SO USED TO BEING ABOVE THE LAW AND CAUSING SO MUCH HUMAN SUFFERING.
Earning the hate
I’ve run into too many police, and prosecutors, who feel they have the right to investigate and question anyone; and is the person’s responsibility to prove their innocence.
they do have the right to question and investigate many things, you however are not required to assist them in their investigation nor are you required to answer their questions, officer, 5th, on advice of council i respectfully refuse to answer any questions w/out an atty , then stfu, then stfu some more.
@@ocsob007 Remaining silent only helps if and when you are charged and it goes to court. The reality is police will detain people, sometimes for hours, without charges. If they find something to charge they count on the person not fighting, or effectively fighting, the allegations. If they find nothing they count on qualified immunity let them get away with abusing citizens rights.
Everyone is guilty…of something. Cops, prosecutors, judges know that they are criminals, so presume that everyone is.
Negligence shouldn't be protected.
Amnsety through ignornace begets incompetence as a standard.
Another example of our wonderful police officers.
Someone give that Judge a bouquet, it’s so refreshing to hear of a Judge thinking.
They think all the time. It's just usually liberal activist bullshit.
@@larrypeterson8710 no, to many Judges run on “conditioned reflexes” they see the defendant, look at the charge, then reflex on the basis of their experience, especially in the preliminary stages. They even reflex on the basis of past experience with the lawyer representing the defendant.
Please let this be the beginning of the end of qualified immunity!
There is nothing wrong with qualified immunity for legal and good faith work by police.
They still have a idemification clause in contracts that pay for any lawsuits even if the cop loses qualified immunity...
@@michaelshepherd733 Nothing wrong with that. You can negotiate for a fresh carnation boutonniere and a copy of the NY Times every morning from your employer.
@@KB4QAA Did I say there is something wrong?......My point is endind qualified immunity wont change a dang thing. Colorodo and New Mexico have abolished qualified immunity for cops yet they still violate law abiding citizens rights daily.....
@@michaelshepherd733 Yes it will change things If cops can be sued for any action they take, even in good faith and following training, they will become risk adverse and withdraw from pro-active policing. Their first thought in any situation will be, "Does this risk my job, my house, my assets, my retirement, my family's security?". If yes, they will 'Nope out" and follow the path of least risk. CONSIDER: What if military personnel could be sued for any action they take while following legal orders and national policy?
Thank you, for the information,
SCOTUS has almost never seen a case egregious enough to reject qualified immunity.
So, producing a driver's license could imply you don't have a driver's license?
You'd think that the ENTIRETY of the stop would be tossed out as an illegal stop. It was a pretextual stop through and through.
Wished the hell that the cop could be facing prison.
How could any adult, lawyer or otherwise, make such assertions with a straight face?
Fortunately, the 6th Circuit has Northrup v City of Toledo (PD), which covers all of Ohio, KY, MI, and TN.
Maybe if the police were assigned Court Appointed lawyers, just like many of their arrestees
They are, it's called the prosecutor. Both are agents of the govt exercising authority over a possible violation of a statute
Why do you think they went after the mafia, and still go after gangs today? They do it, because the government doesn't like competition...
LOL I read "arrestees" as 'mistresses' 😂😂😂
@Willy Wonka you can't say it that way. The mafia can sue you for libel as you'll damage their reputation lumping them inn with our gov't.😆
"No one is above the law", the judiciary proceeds to give life to "qualified immunity". The Constitution says, "Inalienable rights", the government proceeds to create amendments that undue those rights😔🤦.
I believe it was Carl Sagan who said in his book ,A Demon Haunted World, "The ink was barely dry on the bill of rights when those rights began being eroded".
What you and most don't understand is that in a Common Law System that we have here in the US, the majority of our Rights actually come from the way the Courts INTERPRET Them, and NOT from the actual text. No where in the text of the Fourth Amendment does it say that a warrant is required to enter your home, or to arrest or search you. It has two distinct clauses. The First is that we shall be secure from unreasonable searches/seizures. What is unreasonable? No where in the Amendment does it say what is or isn't unreasonable. The Courts determine that. The second clause only tells the requirements and procedures for getting a warrant. Again NOWHERE in the Amendment does it say when, where or if a warrant is even necessary, only how to get one and what it must contain.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn That's not where the rights come from but it is an accurate description of how the rights are protected / violated by the judicial system.
@@gorkyd7912 Again, in a COMMON LAW System that is where our Rights come from. Sure there is a certain Text, and then the adage that inalienable rights come from God, but what if according to our Constitution you are an atheist? In a Common Law System, which is what we have, the Judicial Interpretation takes precedence over what is written in the text. It is a very common misconception that the Fourth Requires a warrant before a search or seizure, and NO WHERE does the Fourth say that. The Fourth says there shall be no unreasonable searches or seizures in the first part, then lays out the requirements for and the process to obtain a warrant, but NO WHERE are the two clauses dependent on the other. It has been Court decisions which say that a search/seizure is inherently unreasonable without a warrant unless it meets one of the many exceptions which make the search/seizure reasonable.
@@HUBABUBA-il8fn If you are an atheist there is not such thing as rights, only power. If the courts have the power to defend you against the state, and you have the power to influence the courts to do so, then maybe that's what you call rights. If you do not have the power to influence the courts, or they do not have the power to defend you from the state, then you simply apply your power elsewhere. I.e you try to influence the state instead of the courts. This is why it's popular with certain atheist groups today to simply get rid of any institution they are not able to influence.
The court's interpretation is only relevant to the court if the judge desires to be consistent with previous judges. So they would look at prior rulings which spell out what is a reasonable search (a warrant approved by a judge who knows case history) but if the judge does not want to be consistent with previous judges there's nothing stopping the judge from making an exception for whatever logic so there's no evidence of rights existing because of the tradition of respecting previous rulings.
He should have a complaint form in his back pocket.
How can something be a right if you need a license to exercise it?
If that logic would hold, then every driver can be stopped, arrested and searched for driving without a license. Wheather they have one or not. The cop simply does all that before checking, if the license is valid.
what is needed to stop qualified immunity crap is for a federal judge or a supreme court justice to be arrested and his or her rights trampled and the cop to claim qualified immunity - maybe they would see the error of their decisions when they legislate from the bench!
Yes. I absolutely wish this would happen.
26 State’s Attorney’s General need to be arrested and deliberately framed too. This will make them retract their positions that “There is no Constitutional right NOT to be framed”. (Google that phrase)
26 states AG stated it’s not unconstitutional to frame people.
The lack of Empathy for citizens is a major issue.... Preference for the officer's point of view has been given for so long, it has made a citizen's concerns second level
There is no "Duty to Inform" a police officer in Connecticut that a license (Pistol Permit) holder is carrying a concealed firearm. While a permit holder may think they are doing the right thing, this case is a perfect example where no good deed goes unpunished. I have been advised by a 2nd Amendment attorney in my state, which also has no "Duty to Inform" requirement, to NOT voluntarily inform a police officer during a traffic stop that I am carrying. Sadly, there are too many police officers that DO NOT know the law when it comes to concealed carry.
So, the prosecutor’s are saying that the officer is supposed to assume guilt.
Good job for the judge that actually reads the law. The cop deserves felony conviction and years in jail. The supreme court needs to get rid of qualified immunity.
On a side note, having a hunting license makes you a criminal subject to search and seizure by state and federal agents for merely being in possession of a hunting license. Hunters are illegally searched written fines for this crap all the time. Ask me how I know.
BS. How do you know? What agency did the officers work for? How exactly did they know that you had a hunting license?
Well maybe 5-10 years from now this man will actually win. The state will fight this forever on appeal after appeal.
Qualified immunity is such a bad concept. The court should be embarrassed for creating it at this point.
There is a rational basis for the idea that, when seconds count, someone should be given the benefit of the doubt if they make a mistake.
Unfortunately, Qualified immunity has been twisted to the point that it protects *any* decision a cop makes and *any* action a cop takes unless/until someone proves that *that* cop has previously been informed that the *exact* decision/action is unlawful.
It’s *well* beyond ‘reasonable actor making an error in judgement’ at this stage, yo the point that the only reasonable action is to dismantle it completely, and recognize that it was a mistake in the first place.
It should have been set up as an affirmative defense, not as a blanket protection from prosecution or liability.
They completely skip over the word “qualified” and pretty much give blanket immunity to completely stupid and tyrannical officers. It’s insane.
@@Vessekx honestly everyone that created qualified immunity deserves to go to prison.
@@Vessekx All that does is give cops an excuse to make mistakes. It breeds complacency and gives zero incentive for police or other civil servants to get things right. In the military if ROE is not followed to the letter, you go to jail. There's no bullshit "I was mistaken". If troops can be held accountable for their actions overseas in a combat zone, the same can be done for cops in America.
@@taoliu3949, fun fact: There are entire *worlds* of difference between ‘the benefit of the doubt’ and ‘absolute immunity from consequences for malicious or criminal activity’. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I was arguing in favor of the latter.