quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
Don’t forget ending qualified immunity on your wishlist.

I don't have a problem with qualified immunity except when it's clearly being abused.

I do have problems with selective enforcement, civil asset forfeiture, and no-knock

Let’s don’t stop there.

Let’s not only end forfeiture, let’s give the drug dealers, terrorists, money launderers, illegals and scammers a gift card on top of letting them keep their illegal monies.

And we can’t stop with doing away with no knock warrants. Call ahead seating. Cops need to call a criminal at least 48 hours ahead to let them know that they are coming and make sure they’re ok with them serving a warrant.

That should go a long way to restoring faith for people like Greg.

(I’m only partially kidding)

Or, we could let cops be cops and do cop shit instead of trying to please everybody with something different. Stop trying to make the police something different for everybody. Stop setting cops up for failure. Let them do good old police work instead of moving resources off the street and on to a community center basketball court for a game up pick up skins and shirts so they check that weeks box of “community policing”. It’s crazy enough that it might just work.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
I don't have a problem with qualified immunity except when it's clearly being abused.

Then I offer-- and I say this as sincerely and respectfully as I can, in this medium-- you probably don't understand what "Qualified Immunity" actually means (unless you DO understand it, but believe that courts are hugely abusive of their discretion in granting it, something which mostly translates to "I don't like the outcome"... see below.)

If the court finds that an officer acted reasonably, in good faith, and did not violate an ESTABLISHED Constitutional right, then he/she is entitled to QI. Fail on any one of those points, and the court CANNOT recognize the immunity claim. That's the "qualified" part.

Many (most) of the cases where QI is asserted involve uses of force, which are evaluated under a fairly small collection of VERY well-established Supreme Court precedents. By well-established, I mean "settled law before most currently-serving LEOs were born."

"Abuse" would be giving each officer five "Qualified Immunity! Escape the Consequences of your actions" cards each year, where the officer could do whatever they wanted with impunity for as long as the cards held out. Obviously-- or maybe not-- that's not how it works. What most people call "abuse of QI" is really just a different way of saying "In my subjective opinion, probably including facts that we all learned only AFTER the use of force, and not evaluating what the officer reasonably believed at the time, I wouldn't have done *that*."

The problem with that approach is that it's exactly how courts SHOULDN'T analyze QI or reasonableness, according the Supreme Court, at least since 1989. Google "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" for their discussion of why.

Subjective opinions, after the fact, don't matter, nor should they.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

I don't have a problem with qualified immunity except when it's clearly being abused.

"Abused" how?
I've been sued personally while working a few times. I know more than a few cops who have had to pay out of pocket...



Then there's...

quote:

Originally posted by Chowser:
Trying to question the guy in the hospital about who shot him and he said he's no snitch and will handle it himself.

quote:

A couple possible reasons for this come to mind, besides the "snitch" aspect: 1. The "victim," himself, is guilty of something capturing his assailant would bring to light. 2. He has no faith in the "justice" system. Think Death Wish.

This isn't on the cops, but, personally, I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in today's "justice" system actually meting-out justice.

Remember where I work at?
So, MY faith in the "Justice" System here is hovering just above zero.
"Law Enforcement" system is completely different! My job is to lock someone up.
Judge & States/District Attorney's job is to put them in prison.


The vast majority of Homicides that I'm involved in is Gang-banger v Gang-banger
They don't give a fuck about our "Justice" system, or lack thereof. They find and use everything they can as an excuse for bad behavior. I've seen them with my own two eyes act all tough when they're around their Homies, but cry like a lil bitch for "Momma" when they have a bullet in their ass. (It's fun when you get to remind them that "they was being a lil bitch last week, cryin' like a lil baby!" and show them the video.


Yeah, sometimes they are just as guilty as the dude that they shot.
Sometimes they're a liberal twat that doesn't want to sign complaints because "society made them that way" / "white guilt" bullshit. "God wouldn't have made them sheep if he didn't want them sheared."
Most of the time, they just want the "street cred" to say they didn't snitch AND they took care of it themselves.

Good detectives know this as well.