Steyr said the SO seized the firearms.Originally Posted by Entryteam
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Site Sponsor
Steyr said the SO seized the firearms.
Site Sponsor
So I guess what I'm saying is results are mostly the same and difference is a matter of details.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Banned
People complain about how the Government isn't accountable and wields too much power. Then they support qualified immunity. Howzat?
Senior Member
Qualified immunity isn't supposed to mean that cops are not accountable for their actions. God knows, that's not true at ALL. It just means that if they take the best course of reasonable action with the information available to them at the time, they have some protection if they turn out to be wrong or make a mistake. I don't think ANYBODY, cop or not, should be punished for attempting to do the reasonable and right thing. But this means that cops won't be able to do their job; if anything goes wrong, even if they are doing the right thing, they're screwed.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who do not.-Ben Franklin
there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo. And it’s worth fighting for.-Samwise Gamgee
Senior Member
----------
Qualified Immunity: The Commonly Misunderstood Defense and Opponents’ Efforts to Expose Law Enforcement Officers to Financial Ruin
"Recent unrest has thrust the doctrine of qualified immunity into the spotlight. Many of those who oppose law enforcement frequently misrepresent the nature, extent, and intent of this limited immunity. Doing so fosters the “us versus them” mentality and abrogation advocates suggest the immunity is an example of “rules for thee not for me.” “After all,” they argue, “the average person on the street does not get any immunity from suit, why should law enforcement officers?” Whether by accident or design, opponents of the immunity falsely claim the doctrine insulates officers from police misconduct claims and the financial consequences of violating the constitutional rights of the people they are responsible for policing. A movement is afoot to strip officers of this very limited immunity under the guise of protecting the public and permitting those victims of police misconduct to recover from their oppressors. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects all government officials acting within the scope of their governmental duties, not just law enforcement officers. As a threshold manner, constitutional theories of liability are available only against the government and government officials, not against private citizens. Private citizens simply cannot sue each other for a violation of the constitution. In order to qualify for protection under qualified immunity, a public official must first prove he was acting within the scope of the discretionary authority provided by his or her governmental position. This applies equally to all governmental officials. The purpose of qualified immunity is to permit officials to carry out their discretionary duties without fear of personal liability or harassing litigation. Court’s unanimously recognize the doctrine is designed to protect routine decision-making and actions by government officials, but expressly excludes the “plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Qualified immunity is not carte blanche to violate the constitutional rights of others, but instead, provides a defense from personal liability for routine, good-faith decisions by government officials, including law enforcement officers.
When qualified immunity is implicated, the plaintiff must demonstrate the law allegedly violated by the officer was clearly established. More specifically, a plaintiff must point to earlier binding case law that is materially similar to the current case or show that the conduct by the officer to be so obviously at the core of what the Constitution prohibits that the unlawfulness is readily apparent. Stated another way, if reasonable minds can disagree, and they often do, than an officer should not be held personally liable for his or her conduct. If an officer’s conduct is clearly prohibited, or if the conduct so clearly violates the Constitution that a specific case defining the illegal conduct is not needed, then the limited immunity does not apply, and the officer may be held personally liable.
If, on the other hand, the conduct is not clearly unconstitutional, then the officer is entitled to immunity from personal liability. We see this most frequently under three circumstances. First, when different courts disagree on the law. If judges, in the safety of their chambers and under no pressure or threat of harm, cannot agree on the parameters of the constitution in a new or novel situation, how then can an officer be expected to perfectly analyze a complex constitutional issue on the side of the road, under pressure, or, in some cases, under threat of death or great bodily harm? Constitutional interpretations are not carved in stone but instead are fluid and evolving. The first category of cases in which the immunity applies acknowledges this as well as the fact that police officers are not lawyers or judges. It begs the question, why should officers’ personal assets be exposed if they fail to perfectly analyze a complex constitutional issue when the courts cannot even agree?
Second, immunity applies in cases with unique facts that no other court has addressed, and therefore, there is no guidance that an officer’s conduct was unlawful. If an officer acts in good faith, in a reasonable manner, and in a way no court has held is improper, why should he or she be personally liable if the conduct is later found to have violated the Constitution? Third, the immunity applies in the application of new or novel technology. If new technology is developed that no court has examined, and an officer uses it in good faith, why should he or she be personally exposed if it is later found to be unconstitutional? A seminal case in this regard addressed the use of then-new thermal imaging technology to “scan” houses for increased heat signatures to locate marijuana grow operations.[ii] Prior to the court’s decision, there was no guidance on the proper use of the new technology, and more specifically, whether a warrant was required to use it. In determining the use required a warrant, law enforcement officers were put on notice that the failure to do so would be unconstitutional. Qualified immunity exists to protect officers from personal liability under circumstances such as these, not to excuse, condone, or permit the wanton violation of the Constitution without ramification.
A critical fact opponents of qualified immunity never seem to acknowledge is that the immunity does not bar claims or suits against the government for violations of the constitution. The immunity applies only to individual government officials. In operation, it makes complete sense. If a government official’s conduct violates the Constitution and the violation is a result of a custom, pattern, or practice of an agency, then the victim of the unconstitutional conduct is entitled to recover from the agency. The requirement for right to be clearly established does not apply to agency liability. Therefore, any claim that the qualified immunity doctrine prevents recourse or the recovery of damages is simply untrue. Agencies, but not individual public officials, may be held accountable and may be required to pay damages where sovereign immunity applies if their conduct violates the constitutional rights of others.
The abrogation of qualified immunity would be catastrophic for individual law enforcement officers who dedicate themselves to policing in good faith and who make every effort to follow the law. It would have zero impact on those officers who are “incompetent or who knowingly violate the law,” because those officers are already exposed to personal liability for their conduct. The potential ramifications on recruiting and retention are countless. What person in their right mind would want to take enforcement action when their reasonable, good faith conduct could result in personal sanctions for a violation of the Constitution, even in the absence of any prior decisions notifying them their conduct was unconstitutional? The net effects of the abrogation of sovereign immunity are real, foreseeable, and catastrophic. Should current efforts to abrogate this important protection prevail, there are dark days ahead for government officials of all types who inadvertently, unintentionally, and unknowingly violate the Constitution."
https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/qu...monly-8441176/
Last edited by ChattanoogaPhil; 03-05-21 at 20:36.
Site Sponsor
Clipped from the article explaining how qualified immunity works and an example of another qualified immunity "win" from last summer.
Cliff Notes, officers had the K9 attack a guy who had already surrendered. Had he surrendered by laying down the officers (allegedly) would be on the hook. Instead the guy was sitting down with hands raised so the officers involved couldn't possibly realize what they were doing was a violation.
https://pacificlegal.org/national-re...fied-immunity/
"Before the last few weeks, many Americans had probably never heard of “qualified immunity.” But as a result of the nationwide protests against abusive policing, this esoteric legal doctrine is now widely understood as a significant impediment to the sound enforcement of constitutional law. The call to “End Qualified Immunity!” has made its way from policy papers to the cardboard signs carried at police reform protests to the pages of our national newspapers.
On June 15, the Supreme Court passed up the opportunity to review several pending cases that called the doctrine into question. The issue is still in the halls of Congress, though, in the form of a bill to “end Qualified Immunity” introduced by Representative Justin Amash, a Michigan libertarian. Some Republicans have been skeptical, but they shouldn’t be.
Anybody who cares about the law, order, and justice should take note: ending qualified immunity will improve government accountability, encourage better official conduct, and give victims of government abuse their day in court.
Qualified Immunity Understood
Qualified immunity protects all government officials, not just police officers, from financial liability when they violate constitutional rights. Unless the complained-of conduct is “clearly established” as unconstitutional, they’re off the hook.
The problem is that courts have defined “clearly established” in such an unusual way that it is nearly impossible to hold law enforcement officers accountable for even the most serious and deliberate violation of constitutional rights. Courts will not impose liability unless virtually identical conduct has been the subject of a past lawsuit and was declared unconstitutional. And since immunity from suit prevents constitutional violations from becoming “clearly established” in the first place, qualified immunity creates a cycle that frustrates the enforcement of constitutional rights.
To see how this works in practice, consider Baxter v. Bracey, which the Supreme Court declined to review this month. In that case, police sicced their dog on Alexander Baxter, who was sitting on the ground, hands raised in surrender. We know from an earlier precedent that it is unconstitutional for police officers to release a dog on an unarmed suspect who is laying down on the ground, hands at his side. Should it matter to the law whether the suspect was laying down, hands at side, or sitting down, hands raised?
Under qualified immunity, that meaningless distinction is the difference between accountability and impunity. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the officers in Baxter are immune from suit, leaving Baxter without redress for his injuries. Because the court declined to address the merits of his claim, the same impediment will exist for anybody who suffers a similar injury in the future. Whether the conduct at issue in Baxter violates the constitution is still “unclear” in the Sixth Circuit."
Member
I can tell you local law has the ability to charge cases federally because the state prosecutors will drop the ball and let the shitbag go. I took a stolen four wheeler case that turned into a drug distribution, witness tampering/hit threat on my witness captured on a recorded jail phone, stolen guns, money, molestation of a minor (his girlfriend's kid) and got 40 years in federal pin on the dick and I never saw a day in court. He just got out of state prison for assault 1 and distribution 2 months prior so he learned his lesson. Narc assisted me on getting the case to the feds since our state judges and prosecutors are afraid of trial.
Ending qualified immunity is the end of policing in America. They already sue departments frivolously and win because depts don't want to spend the money to fight it. Little law suits win them a few thousand dollars to go away, which gets pissed away to lawyers fees and drugs. You can sue when the officer or dept is found negligent and criminal charges are sought. If they do not get indicted then they are protected from law suits because some loser just doesn't know how to quit and account for their actions and strangers found the officer was in the right.
I know guys with 20+ years in ready to call it quits if this gets dropped. Law suits will be you make a lawful arrest but the prosecutor drops the case because they don't feel like trying it and now you are open for false arrest claims. Doesn't matter if the elements of the crime fit the law. Police will just be report writers and not proactive. Arrests will go down, jails will be empty, crime will increase with no consequences.
Just had a close call yesterday pulling over a car for no plates and smoking weed. While they are pulling to the shoulder, the back passenger throws something over the seat in to the storage area of the suv. Walk up to him first and see he is still licking his blunt closed. Told him to throw that shit out the window, look behind him and see an AR mag sticking up. He gets pulled out and cuffed and the front two grab dash. Three 20's black males on break from work at the pepper spray factory just out smoking weed and going to get snacks at the gas station. Needless to say they were nervous as shit. I asked them why they were so nervous and trying to hide guns and they said "you know how shit is with cops and black people." Our county is predominately white working class laborers so no I don't know how it is with white cops and black males. I went on to tell them their actions are what get them shot. Riding around in a car with no plates, windows down, smoking weed, hiding guns when they get pulled over and then thinking it is my fault for being nervous. They understood that, maybe. Gun hider got his momma on the phone and wanted me to talk to her. I tried talking to her but all she could say was her son was at work. I told her no, he is on break smoking weed and hiding guns. He was just arrested a year before for unlawful use of a weapon and resisting arrest. Gun was not stolen and was a Delton AR pistol, no sights, mag empty, and obtained from a cousin who in no longer living because he was shot in St. Louis. Needless to say they are making their own beds to lie in. Couldn't seize the gun because it wasn't stolen and an 18 y/o can possess a handgun they just can't buy them till 21. Thanks government for all the ass backward laws.
Our sheriff is spending alot of time in our capital appealing to our senators trying to save policing in our county. All I can say is you better have a lawyer on retainer and worry about you and yours and no one else.
Site Sponsor
Qualified immunity got expanded in 1983 and created in 1967. US Police existed prior to both events.
https://theappeal.org/the-lab/explai...ity-explained/
Site Sponsor
Well you need to make some personal "risk vs. reward" decisions. If they banned guns, I'd still have guns somewhere...but I wouldn't always have one on me. I can think of NOTHING that would ever have me driving through NJ because of local laws.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Member
How often did people sue others in 1967? In 1983?
Now, how about 2021?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks