imported post
bigtoe416 wrote:
I actually agree with you on this to a point. Qualified immunity is needed, but in my opinion it is applied to broadly.
I don't think I agree with this. In their day, constables had no qualified immunity. Why would one need qualified immunity if one was not an abuser? If one genuinely acted in an upright manner, there is nothing one will need to be "immune" from. A lack of "immunity" doesn't mean that every mistake is instantly punished with utmost severity. A presence of "immunity", on the other hand, pretty much guarantees that no mistake will ever be punished.
I, as a non-Law-Enfarcing citizen, genuinely feel comfortable not having any sort of immunity. Why, then, should police, who are supposedly held to a "higher standard", need any? I'm not sure what "immunity" one needs against arresting actual, real criminals in accordance with due process.
In fact, I'm quite sure one needs no "immunity" to arrest actual, real criminals in accordance with due process.
grumpycoconut wrote:
SWAT and military looking tactics save lives many more times than they take them.
LOL! You're a funny guy.
Now cite.
grumpycoconut wrote:
Anyway we need a standing army. Could you imagine having to train up a whole new army from scratch everytime we decided that someone needed stomping.
Wow, way to miss the point of our entire history. The point is that we
should not be able to just up and decide "someone needs stomping". This creates entanglements, and is never a good idea.
When we've actually needed to defend ourselves (against, say, the Japanese), we've been able to build up as we go. Hell, we were even able to stop a Holocaust in the process. Nothing to be said for "standing armies" there. The American Giant wouldn't have been "sleeping" had we standing armies, ready to go.
No, we don't "need" to violate the constitution for any reason in this regard.
Citizen militias are cool if our aim is strictly defensive but we havn't lived in that world since 1940 something.
Of course, this has nothing whatever to do with the whims of our "corporate masters", and their need to "stomp someone" every time they see new opportunities for profit. No, nothing at all.
WE THE PEOPLE was written well before corporations were legally people. Remember the Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.
Creating special privileges for corporations, necessarily in violation of the rights of others, is where modern American "capitalism" deviated from the "free market" needed in a truly free society.
If you want a cop free paradise I hear that Mogadishu is a real buyer's market right now.
Bringing up Somalia is super-trendy right now. You can pretty much tell anytime a person tries to compare Somalia to "anarchy", or otherwise suggests that Somalia is what happens when this or that government control is lost (in this case, police) that that person has absolutely no idea what they're talking about.
Actually, wait, what am I talking about, you're 100% correct. America
was exactly like Somalia throughout the entire 18th century. I dunno what I was thinking. :quirky
Sorry, Law Enfarcement doesn't get to take any credit at all for America being nothing like Somalia.
Edit: By the way, lunch with Citizen is something I've suggested for the next time I'm in Virginia. Sounds like a good idea to me.