Police Reform: Qualified Immunity (1 Viewer)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    JimEverett

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 30, 2019
    Messages
    1,832
    Reaction score
    1,423
    Location
    Nashville
    Offline
    I am hearing a lot of people agreeing with Justice Clarence Thomas and advocating for the elimination of qualified immunity across the board and especially in police misconduct cases. I agree as well.
    Basically, qualified immunity means that a cop is immune from civil liability when he or she violates a persons constitutional rights when the right violated has not been a clearly articulated right. There are a lot of problems with this legal concept and hopefully, it is nearing its end.
    But I also hope that municipalities begin to back off union contracts that have the taxpayer foot the bill for police misconduct. I think using qualified immunity concepts might be good. Meaning that city contracts with the police union that it will pay judgments when an officer violates a person's constitutional rights only when the officer violated a right that was not clearly articulated - or something to that effect. Otherwise, the city can come after the officer to pay the judgment.
     
    Last edited:
    JimEverett said:
    I am hearing a lot of people agreeing with Justice Clarence Thomas and advocating for the elimination of qualified immunity across the board and especially in police misconduct cases. I agree as well.
    Basically, qualified immunity means that a cop is immune from civil liability when he or she violates a persons constitutional rights when the right violated has not been a clearly articulated right. There are a lot of problems with this legal concept and hopefully, it is nearing its end.
    But I also hope that municipalities begin to back off union contracts that have the taxpayer foot the bill for police misconduct. I think using qualified immunity concepts might be good. Meaning that city contracts with the police union that it will pay judgments when an officer violates a person's constitutional rights only when the officer violated a right that was not clearly articulated - or something to that effect. Otherwise, the city can come after the officer to pay the judgment.
    Click to expand...

    On the part about unions...

    I think union members need to make sure their union leaders know that their job isn’t just to protects members from management, but it is just as important that union members are protected from bad employees.

    A bad employee hurts the union members just as bad as overreaching management.

    Unions have just become a shield that protects bad employees from consequences. That is not what is in the best interest of the union members.

    The union I am a member of recently had an employee make the news for the wrong reasons and I wrote my union rep explaining that I wanted the union to push for the employee to be terminated.

    I’m sure the union agreement prevents them from doing it, but I plan to keep being vocal about it and working to have something put into the next agreement.
     
    Eeyore said:
    I think that he'll get away with it.

    www.kiro7.com

    Cop who threatened to kill protesters shoots, kills colleague who knocked on door, affidavit says

    Calvin Nicholas “Nick” Salyers, 33, of Alexander, Arkansas, is charged with manslaughter in the June 3 killing of 36-year-old Scott Hutton, who was fatally shot through Salyers' front door.
    www.kiro7.com www.kiro7.com
    Click to expand...
    They will seek the death penalty because he killed a cop but an internal investigation will find that he feared for his life so the shooting was justified. The investigation will take a year because they want to wait until all the facts come out. Meanwhile, the victim will be portrayed as a dirty cop who if he had complied would still be alive.
     
    Screenshot_20200816-202826_Reddit.jpg
     
    article said:
    When the caseworker arrived at the home, Holly refused to let her in without a warrant. The worker returned with a sheriff's deputy, but still no warrant. When Holly insisted that they still couldn't enter, they threatened to "come back and put your kids into foster care." Holly begged for time to call her husband. They refused. Finally, crying and terrified, Holly let them in.

    Labeling that decision "voluntary consent," the authorities entered the home.
    Click to expand...

    :LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL::LOL:




    insidejob said:
    You know, that's some really down low dirty shirt those cops pulled by letting her be at the scene but opening an investigation into her family because of it. I've heard horror stories about families never/having a really hard time getting out from under the thumb of DCFS once a file has been opened on them.
    Click to expand...

    Its possible it was a state law of some sort requiring the police to notify. If that is the case you would hope the police would explain to the person what they are required to do.
     
    JimEverett said:
    Its possible it was a state law of some sort requiring the police to notify. If that is the case you would hope the police would explain to the person what they are required to do.
    Click to expand...
    I'm just assuming that there'd also be a required citation at the least in order for a case to be opened. I know they open cases for accusations of abuse, but the cops obviously didn't think there was any abuse going on since they let them go.

    IDK. Just seems shady. And you're absolutely right. There could be some requirement for them to report but the people being investigated shouldn't be surprised by it. At least notify them so they can prepare to fight it before they're at the door to investigate.
     
    Anyone besides me think that if this were a black person threatening to slice this officer's throat that the ending would be much different?

    I do.

     
    www.usatoday.com

    Louisiana officers fire 11 rounds, fatally shooting Black man; state police investigate

    Louisiana State Police identified the man killed as 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin and said he was carrying a knife before he was fatally shot.
    www.usatoday.com

    So this happened in Lafayette. A man was reported holding a knife, police tazed him, but he kept walking AWAY from them, so the only logical next step is to open fire and kill him :confused:
    Later 200 (peaceful) protestors were dispersed by police in riot gear
     
    superchuck500 said:
    I'm confused - how did this one end?
    Click to expand...
    She shot him, and it seems sure as hell justified.

    I'm thinking the contrast is being drawn between the amount of time and deference she gave the guy with a knife very clearly moving towards her and threatening to kill her multiple times before she finally put him down, versus, say, a guy walking away to his vehicle and being shot in the back.
     
    brandon said:
    She shot him, and it seems sure as hell justified.

    I'm thinking the contrast is being drawn between the amount of time and deference she gave the guy with a knife very clearly moving towards her and threatening to kill her multiple times before she finally put him down, versus, say, a guy walking away to his vehicle and being shot in the back.
    Click to expand...

    Okay, so same ending, just sooner.


    (I'm also just messing with insidejob)
     
    superchuck500 said:
    I'm confused - how did this one end?
    Click to expand...

    Well, he didn't die in the first ten seconds of the video so I am sure the implication is to show how restraint is shown towards someone white. Although, I seem to remember reading that in this incident the officer did end up shooting the suspect but not fatally.

    This probably belongs in the Defund the Police thread but I understand why the poster is posting it. I actually have mad respect for the restraint showed by this officer but it does highlight a huge discrepancy in how suspects of a different color get treated or can be treated. This guy is shouting aggressively, advancing on her aggressively and repeatedly, with a weapon and threatening to kill her...and lives to talk about it. In contrast, to unarmed black men, moving away from officers being shot in the back. It can't continue like that.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom