JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Folks should keep in mind what Qualified Immunity really is. It's a tool that isolates LEOs from being responsible for the bad law created by the legislature. It's not a blanket immunity to do whatever they want.
Without it their every action can be questioned, thus disabling them from doing their job.
 
1st your actions are your own. Police don't cause you to speed. You speed at your own will. You start blaming police for your actions and we then have clearly lost all reasonable perspective. I do think that live is more valuable but I don't think that one should be able to hold life hostage to get away. Police will NEVER just let you go. They will back off and wait for you to make a mistake, which is the right choice. However you get a guy that has faulted and you have the shot, and there is a reasonable belifve that he will get away and cause addition risk (holding people's lives hostage to get away) I have no problem with police eliminating that risk.

Precisely! The police and their actions are on their own accord, just the same. The same is said when police shoot innocent bystanders for no reason. (like the Asian ladies for the millionth and one times) Dorner didn't cause those police officers to shoot those newspapers ladies. Those cops caused that shooting. The same is said when police chase after someone and compound a crash scene. Many times the person they are chasing are not involved in the crash and the officer hits an innocent vehicle/people in the process, the police are still responsible for their own actions. If they don't call off the chase (which has shown to cause the person they were chasing to slow down), they are responsible when they choose to keep pushing the envelope, all to catch someone at any cost- even at the expense of innocent bystanders lives.
 
The medical emergency argument against it is the strongest argument against it. but in reality there are few emergencies that you can't 1) call ems 2) call law enforcement and alert them to your situation or 3) <worst case scenario> you get pulled over and quickly explain to the officer that you need an escort to the hospital. Just because you have an emergency it doesn't give you the right to put others in undue risk. The key here is be prepared and stay calm. Just because we are more forgiving of people in this situation doesn't mean you can disregard safer methods.
 
Precisely! The police and their actions are on their own accord, just the same. The same is said when police shoot innocent bystanders for no reason. (like the Asian ladies for the millionth and one times) Dorner didn't cause those police officers to shoot those newspapers ladies. Those cops caused that shooting. The same is said when police chase after someone and compound a crash scene. Many times the person they are chasing are not involved in the crash and the officer hits an innocent vehicle/people in the process, the police are still responsible for their own actions. If they don't call off the chase (which has shown to cause the person they were chasing to slow down), they are responsible when they choose to keep pushing the envelope, all to catch someone at any cost- even at the expense of innocent bystanders lives.
lol double standard. Also you miss read my post. What I was saying is Police don't make anyone run or run faster. That is the sole choice of the alluder. The alluder chooses to put lives under getting away. Police don't cause that, the alluder does. Now police don't "call off the chase" they back off giving the allusion of calling off the chase. This is a good and reasonable method of catching alluders. A police officers primary responsibility is public safety. But they never "end a chase" they simply back off when air gets involved so that hopefully they can turn it into a foot chase.
 
Now put that logic in the police officers mind, when they decide to forego pursuit or possibly "put others in undue risk".

officers have equipment and laws in place to mitigate that risk. light siren and a universal method of dealing with emergency when it is apperant. Regular persons don't have this, surely you can see that.
 
Folks should keep in mind what Qualified Immunity really is. It's a tool that isolates LEOs from being responsible for the bad law created by the legislature. It's not a blank immunity to do whatever they want.
Without it their every action can be questioned, thus disabling them from doing their job.

Qualified immunity IS keeping them from being responsible for their actions. And YES, ABSOLUTELY every action they take should be questioned...
 
officers have equipment and laws in place to mitigate that risk. light siren and a universal method of dealing with emergency when it is apperant. Regular persons don't have this, surely you can see that.

We're not gonna change each others minds....and neither of ours really matter because there is always going to be some officers that will pursue at all costs and others that will call off their pursuit to preserve life (including the one they were chasing). :s0159:
 
Qualified immunity IS keeping them from being responsible for their actions. And YES, ABSOLUTELY every action they take should be questioned...

So let's make this clear. In your opinion, at all times, cops should know that some law or policy imposed on them by legislatures and departments might be in violation of the
Constitution, and must refrain from enforcing such law under threat of prosecution. Am I reading you correctly ? Cops should be experts on the constitutional law ? Have law
degrees and bubblegum ?
 
So let's make this clear. In your opinion, at all times, cops should know that some law or policy imposed on them by legislatures and departments might be in violation of the
Constitution, and must refrain from enforcing such law under threat of prosecution. Am I reading you correctly ? Cops should be experts on the constitutional law ? Have law
degrees and bubblegum ?

The constitution is the foremost law that they all have sworn to protect, above any other law in the land. They are to protect the constitution from even the laws they are told to enforce. When any federal, local or state law goes against the constitution, that law equates to a domestic threat. Check out oathkeepers, there's some good police and people in it.
 
We're not gonna change each others minds....and neither of ours really matter because there is always going to be some officers that will pursue at all costs and others that will call off their pursuit to preserve life (including the one they were chasing). :s0159:

yes exactly just like SWAT shouldn't take the clear shot when dealing with a hostage situation. .. because it could potentially save the hostage takers life by just letting it play out. ;)

I do agree with you that police backing up to increase a likelihood that the alluder (hostage taker) is a good idea to the point at which police can pick with the time and circumstances of the eventual stop. I don't agree that cops "call off a chase" like I said they back up to make the alluder feel comfortable. The chase is still there, the alluder just doesn't realize it. Like I said, if an officer has an oppertunity to mitigate the risk to the lone individual that alluded. they should take it. Ie if they have the shot take it.
 
The constitution is the foremost law that they all have sworn to protect, above any other law in the land. Including the ones they are told to enforce. Check out oathkeepers, there's some good police and people in it.

I am sorry, you clearly don't understand the problem here. Most laws aren't black/white. They require extensive legal analysis by a competent body (federal court) to determine
whether they are in violation of the national Constitution. Many laws expected to be in violation, yet found to be within the framework upon review. Others are expected to be within
the constitutional framework, and courts decide otherwise. So the question is, given this background, should the officers be liable when a law found to be unconstitutional ?
 
yes exactly just like SWAT shouldn't take the clear shot when dealing with a hostage situation. .. because it could potentially save the hostage takers life by just letting it play out. ;)

I do agree with you that police backing up to increase a likelihood that the alluder (hostage taker) is a good idea to the point at which police can pick with the time and circumstances of the eventual stop. I don't agree that cops "call off a chase" like I said they back up to make the alluder feel comfortable. The chase is still there, the alluder just doesn't realize it. Like I said, if an officer has an oppertunity to mitigate the risk to the lone individual that alluded. they should take it. Ie if they have the shot take it.

That's part of the problem, is SWAT taking a shot when they shouldn't. That marine in California that got shot in his own house etc.... Under your comprehension anyone that feels threatened by police should take a shot when they get a clear shot.... Doesn't matter according to you if you are justified in taking a shot, but only if you have one, take it. :rolleyes:
 
So let's make this clear. In your opinion, at all times, cops should know that some law or policy imposed on them by legislatures and departments might be in violation of the
Constitution, and must refrain from enforcing such law under threat of prosecution. Am I reading you correctly ? Cops should be experts on the constitutional law ? Have law
degrees and bubblegum ?

Are you kidding me? Yes. Your expected to know the laws. Do you think I should be arrested for not showing ID when asked even though it's legal? Happens everyday in this country because they're not being held accountable for wrongful actions. Blaw blaw blaw if you don't have anything to hide... that's not the point. Your trying to justify MORE power for cops with LESS accountability.
 
Doesn't matter according to you if you are justified in taking a shot, but only if you have one, take it. :rolleyes:

I think that is rather unfair and mildly offensive. What it really comes down to is you feel it's still unjustifiable to take a life when someone puts others at risk. I think it is. It's not about the shot at all, it's a disagreement about what is justifiable. It's rather offensive that you assume I have no regard for life. In fact the reasons I have for it being justifiable is about regard for innocent life over those that care little for others lives.
 
I think that is rather unfair and mildly offensive. What it really comes down to is you feel it's still unjustifiable to take a life when someone puts others at risk. I think it is. It's not about the shot at all, it's a disagreement about what is justifiable. It's rather offensive that you assume I have no regard for life. In fact the reasons I have for it being justifiable is about regard for innocent life over those that care little for others lives.

What we are trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong chariot13) is that powers given to people in positions such as these get twisted and abused very quickly and easily. There is no need for some cop to smoke some dude because he simply ran. Abuse of this would come fast. "He didn't shut his car off when asked and he put it in gear so I fired." What about that scenario. Officer felt person was going to potentially hurt someone else. That's how fast abuse comes.... Again, read what's happening across our country. They don't need qualified immunity, they already have it.
 
Are you kidding me? Yes. Your expected to know the laws. Do you think I should be arrested for not showing ID when asked even though it's legal? Happens everyday in this country because they're not being held accountable for wrongful actions. Blaw blaw blaw if you don't have anything to hide... that's not the point. Your trying to justify MORE power for cops with LESS accountability.

Dude. Not the knowledge of the laws is in question, but the Constitutionality of such laws. I asked you a specific question, should an average cop be an expert on the Constitutional jurisprudence ?
 
That's probably because there is no problem here lol. Whatever you got going on is your own thing. You may want to get it checked out by a doctor bro. :p

My bad, I knew you're not a person who can maintain a reasonable discussion, and I tried to address you. Carry on.
 
Dude. Not the knowledge of the laws is in question, but the Constitutionality of such laws. I asked you a specific question, should an average cop be an expert on the Constitutional jurisprudence ?

The reason why people like you don't want someone questioning the constitutionality of a law on the spot, is so the infringement can occur. It's much worse to not question the constitutionality of a law and let an infringement happen than to question said state, federal or local law 100% of the time.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top