IMHO.....Came across this summary - may give some a different perspective on what's in store.
Taken from: https://www.theblaze.com/contributi...d-well-in-your-childs-public-education-systemOne of the most influential men in our American public education system was John Dewey, best known as “the father of modern education.” Dewey was a dedicated socialist and a member of 15 Marxist organizations. He taught those that trained America’s teachers.
Dewey believed that it was not possible to make socialists out of individuals. Therefore, developing children into being able to think for themselves would, as he put it, “spoil the harmony of the collective society.”
The National Education Association that honored Dewey for his contributions to education, previously stated, “We stand for socializing the individual.”
The organization firmly believes that, “The major function of the school is the social orientation of the individual… Education must operate according to a well-formulated social policy.”
One of the association’s specialists, Paul Haubner, once stated that, “The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”
More recently, Chester M. Pierce, M.D., Professor of Education and Psychiatry at Harvard, believed that every child entering school is essentially mentally ill because the child comes to school with certain “allegiances to our Founding Fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, and toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity.”
Pierce strongly believed that it was up to teachers to make all of these sick children well, “by creating the international child of the future.”
Apparently FL is not one of those states that has a "shared" or "mutual" responsibility in their tort law. IMO there is more than one thing in a chain or line of actions that leads to a "tragedy". But my reading indicates that in FL, LE cannot be held civilly responsible for mistakes in the line of duty. Interesting. I did not think the concept of qualified immunity included the city. One would think the city would have to pay up because Deputies had the wrong house. But IIRC, those cases are not typically not won by the plaintiffs in front of a judge.The judges opinion:
"..... But Andrew Scott made a fateful decision that night: he chose to answer his door with a gun in his hand. That changed everything. That is the one thing that – more than anything else – led to this tragedy."
That is the part that really scares me. So many good LEO's are "stuck". They get many years into it, now what? So of course they want to finish getting that pension under their belt. Last couple I have helped get on I did ask, are you really sure this is what you want? They are good but, a lot of good people no longer want to do this job for easy to see reasons. Look how many here have them pre judged. So what people will end up with is people getting the job who should not. The kind of people who "claim" anyone can get the job may live to see the day when it becomes close to that easy. Then we will see a LOT more really bad outcomes from people who should never had got the job. People get what they ask for then they scream and cry over their choicesI only got 4 more years! Then I’m gonna get a real job.
Read more here: [Opinion] Former San Francisco Cop Who Fatally Shot Unarmed Black Man Charged With On-Duty Homicide, a First for the City, District Attorney Says (msn.com)According to CNN, the office of San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin charged former San Francisco police officer Chris Samayoa with voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, assault with a semiautomatic firearm, assault by police officer, and discharge of a firearm with gross negligence. The charges stem from a 2017 incident where Samayoa fatally shot 42-year-old Keita O’Neil, an unarmed Black man who was fleeing from the police.
I agree but I think I have beat that horse pretty well already. One thing I could not find is officer involver shootings as a year over year statistic that went back more then several years. It would be interesting to see. If I had to guess on the job police fatalities from violence would be trending down and have a increase on the civilian side. Just a guess.Keep in mind as people are throwing around numbers there was a US population of 186 million in 1960 vs 331 million today. So per capita officer deaths are way down. Probably a heck of a lot more LEOs today and astronomically more contacts between police/citizenry.
That's pretty much what "qualified immunity" does. It shields police from civil liability even when they are "dead wrong" and violate the rights of citizens.If the police come to my door (on my several acres) without a valid reason they are trespassing. I'm not required to talk to them, or to allow them to remain on my property. If they have a valid reason to be there they need to use common courtesy, like identifying themselves and why they are there. Without a warrant they have no right to shout orders or to enter my dwelling. I have a perfect right to carry a gun in my hand anywhere on my property any time without being shot at. If there are laws and/or police policies that justify any other behavior they are dead wrong, and need to be changed.
That is why a broad coalition of organizations signed on to a Cato Institute brief last year asking the Supreme Court to reconsider qualified immunity.... under the judge-made doctrine of qualified immunity, public officials are shielded from liability even for illegal misconduct, unless that conduct violated “clearly established law.” This standard is incredibly difficult for plaintiffs to overcome, because courts generally require not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case on the books with functionally identical facts. Judge Lynn Adelman, of the Eastern District of Wisconsin, recently wrote that “[o]f all the restrictions that the Court has imposed on [Section 1983], the one that has rapidly become the most harmful to the enforcement of constitutional rights is the doctrine of qualified immunity.”
Thanks for clarifying. Your disagreement with the opinion wasn't clear to me.I meant the judge's opinion... I disagree with it.
Not sure where your mind went, but you wasted a lot of effort there, posting, reposting, pulling quotes, copying/pasting, etc to prove something that wasn't in doubt.
The average number of police contacts is about 50 million per year over the last 10 years. Death by cop runs as little as 900 and as much as 1100 a year. The last few years has been in the mid 900s. So, thats like .00002 deaths per contact.I agree but I think I have beat that horse pretty well already. One thing I could not find is officer involver shootings as a year over year statistic that went back more then several years. It would be interesting to see. If I had to guess on the job police fatalities from violence would be trending down and have a increase on the civilian side. Just a guess.
Apparently, you didn't read the article or the district court opinion or the 11th C.C.A. opinion. There's no testimony or evidence that the victim, Andrew Scott, knew LEO were at his door. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the county sheriff testified in a deposition that his department didn't have a policy of announcing they were LE under the circumstances which resulted in Scott's fatal shooting.And it keeps coming back to this. People who want to think they have a "right" to greet LEO's at the door gun in hand, and nothing bad happen.
I couldn't find any accurate info for historic shootings past about what you posted. I'm curious about historic contacts per year and officer involved shooting over said timeframe. Might be a better way to guage things.The average number of police contacts is about 50 million per year over the last 10 years. Death by cop runs as little as 900 and as much as 1100 a year. The last few years has been in the mid 900s. So, thats like .00002 deaths per contact.
Well....here’s a dark fact. No one used to report them.I couldn't find any accurate info for historic shootings past about what you posted. I'm curious about historic contacts per year and officer involved shooting over said timeframe. Might be a better way to guage things.
Should have given Officer Samoyed a medal!
I've read a few articles over the past few years on this. Exactly what is stated above. There is no standard for reporting shootings or uses of force nationwide. Only fatalities are noted and even then, they are not necessarily separated as "officer involved", often just listed as homicide (the definition...not the same a murder). I think we all agree it would be helpful to have better statistical reporting in this area. Specifically being able to track the "why" behind what happened to improve training and other areas when working with the public.Well....here’s a dark fact. No one used to report them.
Sadly, excusable is a standard. We are judged by the doctrine of the reasonable person. Life in these fringes is gritty, fraught with danger for both side almost always with limited or incorrect (an the time) information. Most people go through life either never or only extremely rarely experiencing this. They are nearly always only along for the ride when they do, not having to make life or death decisions.Use of lethal force by police should be the same standard as for civilians. I fail to see any credible reasons why not and I consider myself very pro-cop. But there's no excusable oops when it comes to taking a life.
We can solve ALL this by eliminating ALL public employee positions.... No Oregon public pension deficit either!!!And.....
What about the unlawful conduct done by Politicians?
Should Politicians have immunity too? Rrrrright....and most of them, are lawyers too.
Think about the many laws that Politicians have passed. But if/when challenged, the courts throw them out as unconstitutional or a violation of rights.
Also further think about.....who had to pay to fight the law and who got the bill to cover the Politician''s stupid mess.
Example: Law is passed to ban gun shops within the city limits of _________. So? Should an operating business be forcibly/suddenly shut down just because some Politician finds the business, not to his/her liking? Or......what about an obviously targeted tax meant to run the business out of business? Or.......a rezoning of property, meant to disallow an already operating business?
And what about the ATF?
Bump Stocks.....now illegal.
Pistol Braces.....now illegal (or soon will be).
Yet, there is no provision to pay compensation to the owners who already have them? And/or making a provision to collect a tax on __________? Certainly.......these measures are an infringement of the 2nd A?.