Police Reform: Qualified Immunity (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
1,445
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:

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
3,003
Reaction score
3,640
Age
45
Location
Earth
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.

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.
 

Saintamaniac

Rise Sons of the Gold & Purple
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,334
Reaction score
2,572
Age
53
Location
Laplace, LA
Offline
I think that he'll get away with it.

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.
 

Eeyore

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Messages
463
Reaction score
737
Age
52
Location
Indiana
Offline
Screenshot_20200816-202826_Reddit.jpg
 

wardorican

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
3,846
Reaction score
4,344
Age
42
Location
Gilbert, AZ
Offline

insidejob

"Trained Marxist"
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
2,624
Reaction score
3,450
Age
87
Location
ग्लानि
Offline
OP
OP

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
1,445
Location
Nashville
Offline
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.

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




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.

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.
 

insidejob

"Trained Marxist"
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
2,624
Reaction score
3,450
Age
87
Location
ग्लानि
Offline
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.
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.
 

insidejob

"Trained Marxist"
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
2,624
Reaction score
3,450
Age
87
Location
ग्लानि
Offline
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.

 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
2,168
Reaction score
2,514
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline

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
 

brandon

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
2,431
Reaction score
4,150
Offline
I'm confused - how did this one end?
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.
 

superchuck500

U.S. Blues
Joined
Mar 26, 2019
Messages
3,662
Reaction score
8,805
Location
Charleston, SC
Offline
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.

Okay, so same ending, just sooner.


(I'm also just messing with insidejob)
 

First Time Poster

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2019
Messages
276
Reaction score
1,408
Age
41
Location
Louisiana, Georgia, Texas
Offline
I'm confused - how did this one end?

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!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom