Insurance should be privatized rather than a govt pay in full. Each officer pays his own policy. Keep rogue or gypsy cops from going to different agency and continue elsewhere with bad behavior.
Qualified immunity and asset forfeiture are legal terms for our masters to get away with abusing the little people. This protects our masters of being held accountable and to steal our property.
You all are adding a bit to the confusion. Start with some fundamentals and skip the hype. Justice is Finality not Correctness (unfortunately). The Federal Court wants the State Courts to provide a remedy. That is what the Fourteenth Amendment requires. There's little or no federal remedy in 1983 until the State Court provides no remedy. Thomas (and David Breemer) pressed for an end to the state-litigation requirement in the area of Takings, but Thomas still believes it applies to Due Process. And he's right. The real problem the High Court has not grasped is that State Court judges now apply Harlow v. Fitzgerald to state law claims! Imagine that!! The decades of qualified immunity hype have eclipsed the validity of what William Baude dug out of history, and what Robert Brauneis called the "justification-stripping" challenge to state and local executive action. Colorado body cams won't prevent abuse of permitting and zoning authority. And absent sex, violence, race, or feces on every wall, there's no hype to hurdle an advocate defending property rights over the barrier of "clearly established (state) law." The "qualified immunity" doctrine has encouraged the State Judiciaries to do nothing to discipline their State Executives who refuse to follow state law. That's the problem that deserves a prayer... Maybe the High Court will answer it.
Law enforcement are not due process,a judge and jury is due process,law enforcement should not be physically laying a hand on any American citizens without a legal lawful search warrant signed by a judge allowing them to seize someone. Americans should not be in jail or prison unless a judge and jury finds them guilty,it is not a law enforcement officers job to say whether anyone is guilty or not, they should only be issuing a summons to appear before a judge and jury.
OK. Let's stipulate that there needs to be some liability protection for good faith mistakes. The functional (rather than legal) problems with QI are these: (1) Courts have pretty consistently stated that ONLY prior case law matters. Even if a police department trains their police that some things violate constitutional rights, this does not matter. (2) Despite claims otherwise, what counts as a clear indication in case law is defined extremely narrowly and has gotten progressively narrower since 1982. I don't think QI can be reformed or saved. It has to be gotten rid of entirely, at which time some other sort of limited liability could be imposed. But if there is QI at all, the courts will simply abuse it again, no matter how much it is rolled back. This is an established fact and has to be acknowledged.
Qualified Immunity is itself a red herring. A defense of Qualified Immunity is a clear cut admission of guilt. You can only ask for immunity if you have committed an act you know is wrong to have immunity from. Therefore disqualifying the actor from it's intended use... Right?
No. There is no defense of qualified immunity. It is not a defense. Nobody has to ask for qualified immunity. It forestalls even the need for any defense at all.
SCOTUS had it very close to correct but then messed it up when they started allowing courts to skip step #1 ---------- STEP #1 was mandatory after Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001) but in 2009, SCOTUS mucked it up in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) at III : "On reconsidering the procedure required in Saucier, we conclude that, while the sequence set forth there is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory. The judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand." ==== In my opinion, it is past time to fix that error and return to mandating step #1 for the lower courts.
The bar,and extorting American citizens for council is also unconstitutional. U.C.C. 1-308 all rights reserved with extreme prejudice Freedom of speech.
5:18-cv-01436-KK The hypocrisy of DA representation and Discovery motions in a police violence/civil rights trial (1) The local District Attorney (the SBCC in my case) has the job of defending law enforcement in allegations of excessive force. Their representation is free to the officers throughout the five years it takes to bring one of these cases to trial. Analysis: That’s wrong. The DA will file a Qualified Immunity motion before all of the witnesses have been formally deposed under oath and in front of DA A/V cameras. The vast majority of Qualified Immunity rulings are upheld in favor of law enforcement and that will stop the case in it’s tracks and it will be dismissed. When law enforcement fails the Qualified Immunity test, they should be on their own afterwards, no free DA legal representation or involvement after that. As a retired LAUSD District Intern, the highest level of recruitment, a public school teacher,....we'd be run out of town for beating, hog tying and confining anybody in an inhumanely small space (for 45 minutes according the 911 CAD incident report!). Even if they were acting up (I wasn't!). No free legal representation and suspended without pay, their career ruined on the basis of just the allegation. And teachers can never, just transfer to another district - that's considered not cooperating with Big Brother. It's time for another career, and,.... in a way, that's healthy for the students. It does, indeed, take a community to raise the next generation. And, like fish, TEACHERS AND COPS START TO STINK if they get too complacent and comfortable with their jobs. Diversity in education is absolutely essential in a global economy. And letting law enforcement officers earn benefit packages of up half a million dollars/yr for hanging around for 20 years is preposterous - read a little Machiavelli! Why: Qualified Immunity cannot be granted unless there is abundant, overwhelming evidence of a civil rights violation (of clearly accepted laws) with malice, because of a persons racial/social background. The only recourse of a plaintiff when no criminal charges are filed is a civil suit for money. The only question is how much! Anybody who has passed the Bar knows that they must do whatever it takes to win a case, therefore all DA defense and conviction rates are in the high 90%s. They will (and did) refuse a bench trial by a two judges, who will be more likely to issue a verdict in line with the law,... and hope to sway a jury with inductive logic like “the officers are innocent BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING DEFENDED BY THE DA!” That's FACISM under the guise of law and order - there is a tremendous difference in practice, so we lock more innocent people up who can't pay competent representation. (2) Discovery is where each side, in carefully worded legal jargon, requests the evidence the other side has. The DA has an insurmountable advantage in that they can track, subpoena, coerce, depose and bribe their witnesses, a plaintiff can’t. ALL MY DOCTORS were harassed into bring a lawyer to deposition, or ignoring the subpoena completely. And I'm talking about my primary care physician and county assigned neurologist. The DA can write and file as many motions (electronically, plaintiffs must file in person) as they want, to hide or delay releasing relevant information, like dash A/V data and investigative reports eg. FOI reports). Analysis: That’s wrong. When all of the new, high tech data is used only, against citizens that are not committing a criminal act,.... to protect law enforcement that is,..... that’s counter intuitive. Nobody wants to protect criminals and criminal law enforcement, do they? The SBCC had five years to bring some kind of charges against my family: A 100 year old white woman, her 58 year old black husband and caretaker, and me her 71 year old son. I was disabled by the attack, advised not to drive by my neurologist, but my step father, Robert (a black man) works every day at the family gas station at the I 10/Arizona border - I don't. So they harassed Mr. Dismuke (Papa) with Adult Protective Services and violent Animal Control officers. They combed through his previous statements and deposition testimony threatening prosecution if he testified at trial. A man, going blind from Diabetes, me, diagnosed as needing a heart transplant in 2005 and mom, 100 years old! Why: No profession is above reproach. Catholic priests (including the Pope) got away with a lot before the latest WOKE testimonies. And protestants burned Catholics at the stake, remember Joan of Arc. Law enforcement types with military backgrounds just aren’t the best choice for non violent police encounters, women or sociology graduates are, not Police Science majors. Let em go to Swat, or better yet, get a real productive job that doesn't destroy people's lives in the process. If law enforcement JUST TOLD THE TRUTH, the prisons would empty, THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS, WAKE UP! And Judges appointed by Democratic presidents (Bernal and Kato) are THE ONLY HOPE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL, REGARDLESS OF RACE. And so,....I see hope for Latinos and Asians and I champion their work, but TO HELL WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, I GUESS!
How does this not effect the longstanding tradition of " setting precedent"? IMHO they both suck but at least we the people have a chance with the precedent model. There is more bad case law than good and I don't see any way to fix it without wiping it all away and starting over.
Do you know if you think about it giving officers qualified immunity then what about doctors shouldn’t we give them qualified immunity people make mistakes
The issue I see is double standards, and an extreme afforded privilege. If a civilian makes a mistake with law "not knowing or understanding the law is not an excuse" and they throw you in jail. A cop makes a mistake, nothing happens, they possibly did not know the law they are ok....
if a cop breaks the law and causes damages to someone they should be personally liable
They are scared of what may happen if we hold people accountable 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Qualified immunity should totally eliminated.
Insurance should be privatized rather than a govt pay in full. Each officer pays his own policy. Keep rogue or gypsy cops from going to different agency and continue elsewhere with bad behavior.
Dan, I've been saying the same thing for years. 👍
Qualified immunity and asset forfeiture are legal terms for our masters to get away with abusing the little people. This protects our masters of being held accountable and to steal our property.
Criminals protecting criminals
The reason it exist is because blacks were able to sue and the system had to do something to slow that down.
And where the hell did they come up with a law that we are supposed to pay for government workers health insurance, enough of these injustices.
Court precedence......in other words ........they made it up, so there is no case where it can be .." clearly established"
All public officials should be held to a higher standard than average Joe American citizens.
Protecting the cops from personal liability for their own "official misconduct" does NOT make for a safer society!
All people must be judge equally under the laws of God, no immunity for anyone.
Amazing discussion. Thank you so much for putting this together!
You all are adding a bit to the confusion. Start with some fundamentals and skip the hype. Justice is Finality not Correctness (unfortunately). The Federal Court wants the State Courts to provide a remedy. That is what the Fourteenth Amendment requires. There's little or no federal remedy in 1983 until the State Court provides no remedy. Thomas (and David Breemer) pressed for an end to the state-litigation requirement in the area of Takings, but Thomas still believes it applies to Due Process. And he's right. The real problem the High Court has not grasped is that State Court judges now apply Harlow v. Fitzgerald to state law claims! Imagine that!! The decades of qualified immunity hype have eclipsed the validity of what William Baude dug out of history, and what Robert Brauneis called the "justification-stripping" challenge to state and local executive action. Colorado body cams won't prevent abuse of permitting and zoning authority. And absent sex, violence, race, or feces on every wall, there's no hype to hurdle an advocate defending property rights over the barrier of "clearly established (state) law." The "qualified immunity" doctrine has encouraged the State Judiciaries to do nothing to discipline their State Executives who refuse to follow state law. That's the problem that deserves a prayer... Maybe the High Court will answer it.
We have the second amendment we don't need law enforcement.
Law enforcement are not due process,a judge and jury is due process,law enforcement should not be physically laying a hand on any American citizens without a legal lawful search warrant signed by a judge allowing them to seize someone. Americans should not be in jail or prison unless a judge and jury finds them guilty,it is not a law enforcement officers job to say whether anyone is guilty or not, they should only be issuing a summons to appear before a judge and jury.
Hearings and pretrials are also unconstitutional, violating citizens rights of trial by jury.
OK. Let's stipulate that there needs to be some liability protection for good faith mistakes. The functional (rather than legal) problems with QI are these:
(1) Courts have pretty consistently stated that ONLY prior case law matters. Even if a police department trains their police that some things violate constitutional rights, this does not matter.
(2) Despite claims otherwise, what counts as a clear indication in case law is defined extremely narrowly and has gotten progressively narrower since 1982.
I don't think QI can be reformed or saved. It has to be gotten rid of entirely, at which time some other sort of limited liability could be imposed. But if there is QI at all, the courts will simply abuse it again, no matter how much it is rolled back. This is an established fact and has to be acknowledged.
Qualified Immunity is itself a red herring. A defense of Qualified Immunity is a clear cut admission of guilt. You can only ask for immunity if you have committed an act you know is wrong to have immunity from. Therefore disqualifying the actor from it's intended use... Right?
No. There is no defense of qualified immunity. It is not a defense. Nobody has to ask for qualified immunity. It forestalls even the need for any defense at all.
Would qualified immunity apply if a police dog runs off course from its intended human target and instead bites and mauls an innocent bystander?
SCOTUS had it very close to correct but then messed it up when they started allowing courts to skip step #1
----------
STEP #1 was mandatory after Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201 (2001)
but in 2009, SCOTUS mucked it up in Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223 (2009) at III :
"On reconsidering the procedure required in Saucier, we conclude that, while the sequence set forth there is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory. The judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand."
====
In my opinion, it is past time to fix that error and return to mandating step #1 for the lower courts.
"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty."
-not Jefferson but still true..
An Ohio State fan.
The bar,and extorting American citizens for council is also unconstitutional. U.C.C. 1-308 all rights reserved with extreme prejudice Freedom of speech.
If you do as you should. You cant go wrong
?
5:18-cv-01436-KK The hypocrisy of DA representation and Discovery motions in a police violence/civil rights trial
(1) The local District Attorney (the SBCC in my case) has the job of defending law enforcement in allegations of excessive force. Their representation is free to the officers throughout the five years it takes to bring one of these cases to trial.
Analysis: That’s wrong. The DA will file a Qualified Immunity motion before all of the witnesses have been formally deposed under oath and in front of DA A/V cameras. The vast majority of Qualified Immunity rulings are upheld in favor of law enforcement and that will stop the case in it’s tracks and it will be dismissed. When law enforcement fails the Qualified Immunity test, they should be on their own afterwards, no free DA legal representation or involvement after that.
As a retired LAUSD District Intern, the highest level of recruitment, a public school teacher,....we'd be run out of town for beating, hog tying and confining anybody in an inhumanely small space (for 45 minutes according the 911 CAD incident report!). Even if they were acting up (I wasn't!). No free legal representation and suspended without pay, their career ruined on the basis of just the allegation.
And teachers can never, just transfer to another district - that's considered not cooperating with Big Brother. It's time for another career, and,.... in a way, that's healthy for the students. It does, indeed, take a community to raise the next generation.
And, like fish, TEACHERS AND COPS START TO STINK if they get too complacent and comfortable with their jobs. Diversity in education is absolutely essential in a global economy. And letting law enforcement officers earn benefit packages of up half a million dollars/yr for hanging around for 20 years is preposterous - read a little Machiavelli!
Why: Qualified Immunity cannot be granted unless there is abundant, overwhelming evidence of a civil rights violation (of clearly accepted laws) with malice, because of a persons racial/social background. The only recourse of a plaintiff when no criminal charges are filed is a civil suit for money. The only question is how much!
Anybody who has passed the Bar knows that they must do whatever it takes to win a case, therefore all DA defense and conviction rates are in the high 90%s. They will (and did) refuse a bench trial by a two judges, who will be more likely to issue a verdict in line with the law,... and hope to sway a jury with inductive logic like “the officers are innocent BECAUSE THEY’RE BEING DEFENDED BY THE DA!” That's FACISM under the guise of law and order - there is a tremendous difference in practice, so we lock more innocent people up who can't pay competent representation.
(2) Discovery is where each side, in carefully worded legal jargon, requests the evidence the other side has. The DA has an insurmountable advantage in that they can track, subpoena, coerce, depose and bribe their witnesses, a plaintiff can’t.
ALL MY DOCTORS were harassed into bring a lawyer to deposition, or ignoring the subpoena completely. And I'm talking about my primary care physician and county assigned neurologist.
The DA can write and file as many motions (electronically, plaintiffs must file in person) as they want, to hide or delay releasing relevant information, like dash A/V data and investigative reports eg. FOI reports).
Analysis: That’s wrong. When all of the new, high tech data is used only, against citizens that are not committing a criminal act,.... to protect law enforcement that is,..... that’s counter intuitive. Nobody wants to protect criminals and criminal law enforcement, do they?
The SBCC had five years to bring some kind of charges against my family: A 100 year old white woman, her 58 year old black husband and caretaker, and me her 71 year old son. I was disabled by the attack, advised not to drive by my neurologist, but my step father, Robert (a black man) works every day at the family gas station at the I 10/Arizona border - I don't.
So they harassed Mr. Dismuke (Papa) with Adult Protective Services and violent Animal Control officers. They combed through his previous statements and deposition testimony threatening prosecution if he testified at trial. A man, going blind from Diabetes, me, diagnosed as needing a heart transplant in 2005 and mom, 100 years old!
Why: No profession is above reproach. Catholic priests (including the Pope) got away with a lot before the latest WOKE testimonies. And protestants burned Catholics at the stake, remember Joan of Arc.
Law enforcement types with military backgrounds just aren’t the best choice for non violent police encounters, women or sociology graduates are, not Police Science majors. Let em go to Swat, or better yet, get a real productive job that doesn't destroy people's lives in the process.
If law enforcement JUST TOLD THE TRUTH, the prisons would empty, THAT'S HOW BAD IT IS, WAKE UP!
And Judges appointed by Democratic presidents (Bernal and Kato) are THE ONLY HOPE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS FOR ALL, REGARDLESS OF RACE. And so,....I see hope for Latinos and Asians and I champion their work, but TO HELL WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, I GUESS!
Qualified immunity should not even legally exist.
Hey hey
ho ho
qualified immunity
gots to go.
How does this not effect the longstanding tradition of " setting precedent"?
IMHO they both suck but at least we the people have a chance with the precedent model.
There is more bad case law than good and I don't see any way to fix it without wiping it all away and starting over.
the "supreme court" had reversed itself over 250 times...
Do you know if you think about it giving officers qualified immunity then what about doctors shouldn’t we give them qualified immunity people make mistakes
The issue I see is double standards, and an extreme afforded privilege. If a civilian makes a mistake with law "not knowing or understanding the law is not an excuse" and they throw you in jail. A cop makes a mistake, nothing happens, they possibly did not know the law they are ok....
42 1983 and 1985.
Is there an Anti-Federalist Society?
Yes. The DNC
@@80sDon not really, not the way Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson would have defined being Anti-Federalist