What cops need to consider about armed citizens

[OC for ME]

... However, a police officer is always responsible for their actions, and must have a reasonable belief that it’s necessary to use lethal force against an individual before they do so.

https://www.policeone.com/concealed...t-cops-need-to-consider-about-armed-citizens/

Responsible? Yes. Accountable? Unlikely.

 

[color of law]

This goes against standard operating proceedure of shoot first and ask questions later. As long as qualified immunity exists cops will have no incentive to evaluate the lay of the land.

 

[CJ4wd]

While "qualified immunity" is a problem for the public, I believe the greater problem is the few "bad apples" that taint the rest. And, when the rest do little or nothing to eliminate those intemperate LEOs, that compounds the problems.

 

[color of law]

While "qualified immunity" is a problem for the public, I believe the greater problem is the few "bad apples" that taint the rest. And, when the rest do little or nothing to eliminate those intemperate LEOs, that compounds the problems.

It is the "bad apples" that are gitting away with murder because of "qualified immunity." And, "the rest" are just "bad apples" of a different color.

 

[solus]

While "qualified immunity" is a problem for the public, I believe the greater problem is the few "bad apples" that taint the rest. And, when the rest do little or nothing to eliminate those intemperate LEOs, that compounds the problems.

Uh, CJ4wd when you state, ‘the rest’ in your post, do you mean the judges or the prosecutors or the entire blue brotherhood, employed/retired or all of the above?

 

[OC Freedom]

This sums it up nicely about law enforcment and the policy makers.

 

[HP995]

Disappointing video, another of the "OK I'll keep repeating 'logic' and related words, then I can say whatever the heck I want with little regard for or understanding of actual logic, and gullible dupes won't know the difference" genre. Counting on mentally lazy people who go into passive trust mode after one or two convincing statements and then swallow everything that follows with no further evaluation. Too bad because it's a good topic that deserves serious consideration. Law and its enforcement are imperfect and often dangerous. But a new type of brainlessness won't work any better than the old kinds; this video is too crippled by the author making the same kind of mistakes he rails against. Any better quality videos out there on this subject?

 

[gutshot II]

Without "qualified immunity", who would take the job knowing that one mistake could send them to prison for the rest of his life? Without their minions to do their bidding and protect them from the outraged masses, what politician would want to take the risk of public office?

 

[solus]

Quote 2017 Yale Law study Abstract:
This Article reports the findings of the largest and most comprehensive study to date of the role qualified immunity plays in constitutional litigation. Qualified immunity shields government officials from constitutional claims for money damages so long as the officials did not violate clearly established law. The Supreme Court has described the doctrine as incredibly strong—protecting “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Legal scholars and commentators describe qualified immunity in equally stark terms, often criticizing the doctrine for closing the courthouse doors to plaintiffs whose rights have been violated. The Court has repeatedly explained that qualified immunity must be as powerful as it is to protect government officials from burdens associated with participating in discovery and trial. Yet the Supreme Court has relied on no empirical evidence to support its assertion that qualified immunity doctrine shields government officials from these assumed burdens.


This Article is the first to test this foundational assumption underlying the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity decisions. I reviewed the dockets of 1,183 Section 1983 cases filed against state and local law enforcement defendants in five federal court districts over a two-year period and measured the frequency with which qualified immunity motions were brought by defendants, granted by courts, and dispositive before discovery and trial. I found that qualified immunity rarely served its intended role as a shield from discovery and trial in these cases. unquote.

Read whole article here:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-qualified-immunity-fails

 

[color of law]

..................
This Article is the first to test this foundational assumption underlying the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity decisions. I reviewed the dockets of 1,183 Section 1983 cases filed against state and local law enforcement defendants in five federal court districts over a two-year period and measured the frequency with which qualified immunity motions were brought by defendants, granted by courts, and dispositive before discovery and trial. I found that qualified immunity rarely served its intended role as a shield from discovery and trial in these cases. unquote.

Read whole article here:
https://www.yalelawjournal.org/article/how-qualified-immunity-fails

The study was a waist of time and money. Per the article.

I found that qualified immunity rarely served its intended role as a shield from discovery and trial in these cases. Across the five districts in my study, just thirty-eight (3.9%) of the 979 cases in which qualified immunity could be raised were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds. And when one considers all the Section 1983 cases brought against law enforcement defendants—each of which could expose law enforcement officials to burdens associated with discovery and trial—just seven (0.6%) were dismissed at the motion to dismiss stage and thirty-one (2.6%) were dismissed at summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. My findings enrich our understanding of qualified immunity’s role in constitutional litigation, belie expectations about the policy interests served by qualified immunity, and show that qualified immunity doctrine should be modified to reflect its actual role in constitutional litigation.

Bull. I have read hundreds of cases that were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds before trial. Most of these cases do go through discovery, but they never get to trial.

 

[OC for ME]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity

What did cops do long before QI was codified by judges who enjoy absolute immunity...

 

[solus]

From Mar ‘18 Forbes article, Quote:
Here’s the background. After the Civil War, most members of Congress were concerned that if the states had a free hand, they and their officials would often violate the civil rights of freed slaves and other unpopular groups. So Congress passed and President Grant signed the Civil Rights Act of 1871, which included this provision language (now known as 42 U.S. Code Section 1983):

“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, of the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit, or equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

Thus, individuals whose rights were violated by police or other officials could sue them in federal court. It was supposed to deter bad actors who violate the rights of people in the course of their duties. The law says nothing whatsoever about those officials having any defenses against those suits.

Nevertheless, the Supreme Court invented a defense known as “qualified immunity. unquote.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/george...trine-the-court-should-jettison/#13af7e7331c7

Also from the same article, an interesting downloadable discussion ‘thesis’ on the subject can be found here: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/public_law_and_legal_theory/620/

Fourth sentence of the document, quote: Does it insulate officials too much from liability, leaving them without adequate incentives to respect the constitutional rights of those they encounter? unquote.

 

[since9]

The study was a waist of time and money. Per the article.
Bull. I have read hundreds of cases that were dismissed on qualified immunity grounds before trial. Most of these cases do go through discovery, but they never get to trial.

I don't like it one bit.

 

[CJ4wd]

Uh, CJ4wd when you state, ‘the rest’ in your post, do you mean the judges or the prosecutors or the entire blue brotherhood, employed/retired or all of the above?

Solus - I was referring to the other LEOs that fail to expose the bad ones. It is like a "purification process" for medicine or petroleum. You refine a product, then refine it again to get a product of even greater purity. Distilleries do it, big pharma does it, oil (from crude to gasoline) does it, the police should do it.
The judges and prosecutors are "part" of the problem but, as their numbers are far fewer, they are a separate problem. Look at certain judges, seemingly many of those in the large urban areas, that let perps out on bail for "violent" crimes who then terrorize the witnesses against them - or worse - or skip out and do more crimes somewhere else. That is part of the problem many major cities face - "weak" judges.

 

[FreedomLover]

"What cops need to consider about armed citizens"----If the armed person is NOT suspected of having violated, currently violating, or about to violate the law then LEAVE THEM THE "HECK" ALONE!!!!!

 

[color of law]

"What cops need to consider about armed citizens"----If the armed person is NOT suspected of having violated, currently violating, or about to violate the law then LEAVE THEM THE "HECK" ALONE!!!!!

How did you come to that conclusion? Your location says Crust of Earth. That could be any state of the union, territory, some country or at the bottom of an ocean/sea in international waters. Depending on the wording of a states constitution can easily effect your statement. Please explain.

 

[FreedomLover]

Yes, laws may vary as a result of the location one is present. And for those located where the laws and Constitution of the US are in effect, I stand by my statement of MY OPINION and MY understanding of the Law and to expand on my earlier comment --- If one is NOT suspected of having violated, currently violating, or about to violate the Law--- NO MATTER WHAT ONE IS DOING, the LEO has NO AUTHORITY to interfere with the individual and therefore must, to avoid violating the person's Constitutionally protected rights--- LEAVE THEM THE "HECK" ALONE!!!!!

 

[Ghost1958]

Yes, laws may vary as a result of the location one is present. And for those located where the laws and Constitution of the US are in effect, I stand by my statement of MY OPINION and MY understanding of the Law and to expand on my earlier comment --- If one is NOT suspected of having violated, currently violating, or about to violate the Law--- NO MATTER WHAT ONE IS DOING, the LEO has NO AUTHORITY to interfere with the individual and therefore must, to avoid violating the person's Constitutionally protected rights--- LEAVE THEM THE "HECK" ALONE!!!!!

Pretty much sums it up.

LE is for the most part a revenue generator for the jurisdiction it operates in. Next it is a clean up crew, followed by MAYBE catching the person who committed a crime.

Preventative policing, beyond speed traps, is an excuse for LE to harass citizens who have done nothing wrong.

Or ride the civil forfeiture gravy train to get new toys.

 

[Ghost1958]

Without "qualified immunity", who would take the job knowing that one mistake could send them to prison for the rest of his life? Without their minions to do their bidding and protect them from the outraged masses, what politician would want to take the risk of public office?

The same kind of person who took the job all those years before QI.

 

[color of law]

Without "qualified immunity", who would take the job knowing that one mistake could send them to prison for the rest of his life? Without their minions to do their bidding and protect them from the outraged masses, what politician would want to take the risk of public office?

Qualified immunity deals with civil matters not criminal matters. Qualified immunity does not protect a cop from being criminally charged with a crime and prosecuted for that crime.