JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Case in point on qualified immunity is not an absolute...someone just posted this case.

I just read the decision. The case wasn't about qualified immunity. Quite the opposite, the government argued that the "anti-SLAPP" statute, which was intended to prevent frivolous lawsuits against private citizens for protected free speech applied to lies and misrepresentations made by government employees in open court and in court ordered negotiations with the plaintiff's. And they won.

The takeaway from that is that the guy's guns are gone, he was denied legal recourse to receive compensation for them, and he has a $9,000 bill for the city's attorney fees. All because his lawsuit was deemed "frivolous" and infringed on the government's right to free speech under a statute that I would bet a million dollars was never intended to be used this way (who even thinks the government has rights since it's not a person?).
 
I think this is the right thread I'm resurrecting for today's SUPCO 9-0 decision.






Lars brings up a good point in this:
 
Last Edited:
Quote from the linked piece...

{ Winkler said. "Generally, we allow police officers to use force when they feel threatened. And merely possessing a gun raises that threat." }

So, according to the authors of the piece, a cop, or cops can kill you if they see YOU with a firearm and thus suffer an adverse emotional state.

Does the same defense apply to you? What if you see a cop with a firearm and you "feel threatened"? Would you have immunity due to your adverse emotional state?

No? Why not? Because you're not a State employee?

The further this "qualified immunity is stretched, the more egregious the behavior of State employees will become.

There MUST be accountability.
 
I always wondered that too. Self defense against a police officer, how would this be justified? I know of at least one case where the guy shot a swat member in his house and the shot was justified and reasonable self defense.

So how about you walk down the road minding your own business not doing anything wrong and a police situation escalates, they draw their guns because you refuse a "illegal arrest" and you have to defend your life? I would consider a loaded gun pointed at me a major thread to my life, uniform or not. I always wondered that....
 
Quote from the linked piece...

{ Winkler said. "Generally, we allow police officers to use force when they feel threatened. And merely possessing a gun raises that threat." }

So, according to the authors of the piece, a cop, or cops can kill you if they see YOU with a firearm and thus suffer an adverse emotional state.

Does the same defense apply to you? What if you see a cop with a firearm and you "feel threatened"? Would you have immunity due to your adverse emotional state?

No? Why not? Because you're not a State employee?

The further this "qualified immunity is stretched, the more egregious the behavior of State employees will become.

There MUST be accountability.
Just to be clear, the article featured in the OP was about a civil case involving a civil doctrine known as qualified immunity (QI). QI is inapplicable in criminal prosecutions.

Police officers can be and have been held accountable via criminal prosecution. However, in the case featured in the OP, the death of Andrew Scott, they were not criminally charged and the attempt to hold them civilly accountable was thwarted by QI.
 

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