- Messages
- 7,381
- Reactions
- 19,890
Did anyone post the video yet? Is this the one we were talking about earlier.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks. I agree wholeheartedly with you that officers are human and I agree about honest mistakes but in questionable cases how do you ascertain what is deliberate unlawful conduct, gross negligence, negligence, or "honest mistakes"? "Qualified immunity" is a civil doctrine not a criminal doctrine so were talking about civil trial to determine if an officer is or isn't civilly liable for killing someone.
The Founders never wrote qualified immunity into the Constitution. No Congress or President ever signed a law creating qualified immunity. It's a wholly judge-created doctrine that the Republic seemed to do fine without before 1967.
One could argue that times have changed and now we need qualified immunity. I would say it's fair to argue that but under our Constitution it's something for Congress to put into the laws and for a President to sign (or not) into law.
Respectfully, you cannot quote an ORS section the proves you are wrong and say you are right. 813.095 is essentially a civil act saying your driver's license gets taken away (a privilege, not a right). As for the chemical test, it is required (still allowed for DL civil actions) after an ARREST, " A test shall be administered upon the request of a police officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested..". (Emphasis added) You have to refer to section 813.100 to see that "arrest" is required.Your hypotheticals above are wrong. Drivers have given their implied consent to be field tested or to have and their blood, breath, or urine tested if the police officer reasonably suspects that the person has committed the offense of driving while under the influence of intoxicants (ORS § 813.095 et seq.) If you refuse to submit to field or breath testing for intoxicants you can still be and most likely will be arrested for DWI and your refusal to be tested can be used as evidence that you were DWI (ORS § 813.136). This is basically the law in every US state. The rest of your hypothetical that "everyone goes to jail", false arrest suits, cops hiding, etc. is just slippery slope nonsense with no evidence.
Sincerely thank you for posting the link to appeal document. Massive credit to you for digging into the details of cases like this. It is important to review as detailed information as we can get. (Unfortunately most "news" outlets and "reporters" do not do this.)If there had been a trial there would have been, among other things, an opportunity to call, examine, and cross-examine witnesses, including the other three LE who were there but did not fire. The four dissenting 11th C.C.A. judges pointed to several alleged discrepancies in Deputy Sylvester's testimony. You might find their dissent interesting. It's too long for me to cut-and-paste in my reply but it starts at page 33 here (PDF). If you decide to read it then I recommend reading the footnotes, too.
Did you watch the video I was talking about? If you just want all cops to be the devil, shrug, no reaching you. If that is not the case you should try watching the video I was talking about. The guy died of terminal stupidity.
LEO's come knocking on your door and you charge out pistol in hand? You are begging to get shot. Of course those who never would be able to get the job the LEO's do will often love to say they know far better.
Again no reaching those who think that way.
LOL.
Qualified immunity should protect people from split second decisions under stress, not the ability to correctly read an address in a case like this then chuckle and claim qualified immunity after they shoot the guy who was well within his right....
So you watched the video I was talking about and that is your take away? OK, you made my pointCops go to wrong house...
Man steps out armed to investigate the commotion....
Cops kill man....
Man is the "stupid one"
LOL.
Qualified immunity should protect people from split second decisions under stress, not the ability to correctly read an address in a case like this then chuckle and claim qualified immunity after they shoot the guy who was well within his right....
I have nothing but praise for civil servants who actually take their jobs seriously and fix things that need fixing
Disagree, since I'm not bloody likely to EVER get shot by any kind of local popo, but a public employee can take my house, my car, my grandkids, raise my tax so much that it soaks up all my savings, send me to prison for having a brace on my shortie, keep me from visiting my wife in the nursing home or visiting friends or going to church, make me wear a mask, make me lock up my firearms when they are not on my person, make me get a permit and pay a fee to install a lawn sprinkler system or to build a garden shed or remodel my bath/kitchen, limit my ammo purchases, tax my ammo, tax my mileage, tell me when and where and how much to pay to hunt or fish and price said licenses out of my reach, force me to share my home with indigents, start wars with nuclear armed countries, and on and on, ad nauseum. Bloody high-minded civic azzholes!!!!!!!
Fair point. However, some of the people in charge of those efforts--judges and juries--often don't get to ascertain what happened when a case is tossed because of "qualfied immunity".How do YOU acertain, you ask... IMO YOU don't, you leave it up to the people in charge of those efforts.
Agreed but not every "good" person will actually be "good" or stay that way and sometimes "good" people do the wrong thing for the wrong reason or out of negligence. In such cases, they should be held accountable.Problem being that public trust has been completely shattered. We need to hire good individuals in positions of authority, and then let them do their jobs!!!
It's not only tort law. For example, 42 U.S. Code § 1983 is a federal statute that's been on the books since 1871 and applies to public employees and private citizens alike.We DON"T need to take LEOs to court to determine if they should individually pay out of their own pockets. That, tort law, is for people that are not public employees.
It has never been the case that in America law enforcement gets the final say in investigating alleged misconduct of law enforcement. God help us all if that that ever changes.Deliberate unlawful conduct is to be investigated by Internal Affairs and whatever investigator the DA has at hand.
I don't think LEO's should be treated differently. Qualified immunity should not apply to any public official.Gross negligence, negligence, and "honest mistakes" can be determined by the same, but why hold the officer personally responsible in a civil trial? Do we hold ALL our public employees civilly liable? I think not. Then why are officers to be treated differently?
Yep, accidents do happen so does deliberate misconduct, gross negligence, and negligence. I've never argued that genuine faultless mistakes made in good faith should be punished; they shouldn't. My main objection to qualified immunity is that, in too many cases, it wrongly short circuits a full and proper inquiry into the nature of the act.... Accidents happen... why does the public feel a need to add on layers of lifelong punishment to the loss of a child? I will never get it.
It's not even in the federal statutes.If we want to argue that if it's not in the Constitution, it's prohibited, that argument could be made.
The qualified immunity doctrine discussed in the OP article and in my comments is federal. Some state legislatures, e.g. Michigan, have passed state qualified immunity laws but they are generally inapplicable to suits brought under federal cases.We do have delineated powers of the Federal Govt and all other powers revert to the states. So there is nothing that says that each jurisdiction cannot establish such doctrine... and further, doesn't the SCOTUS typically rule regarding issues in individual states rather than on a national basis ...
I agree completely.P.S. Vengeance is something the anti-gunners are getting very good at... don't be like the anti-gunner. Yes, officer's need to be held responsible, but there are ways to do that without salivating over exacting a pound of flesh.
I cited "ORS § 813.095 et seq." So, I meant § 813.095 plus everything after it in chap. 813.Respectfully, you cannot quote an ORS section the proves you are wrong and say you are right. 813.095 is essentially a civil act saying your driver's license gets taken away (a privilege, not a right).
Several times now I've looked back at what you wrote and what I wrote last night. It's now clear to me that I misread or misunderstood something in these two sentences: "Conducts field sobriety tests. Can tell the person has been drinking but does not think there is enough probable cause to arrest." However, for the life of me I cannot now remember or discover what I thought you had said at the time I wrote my response. So, I will simply say I made a mistake and I apologize for it.My hypothetical is exactly why qualified immunity exists.
I agree with you, some slopes are slippery. However, in my opinion, the argument you made re: DWI and "everyone goes to jail", false arrest suits, cops hiding, etc. isn't one of those slopes that are actually slippery.Some slopes are actually slippery!
That generic non-LE "public employee" will never take your house, car, etc. She or he will send you an order to comply. If you refuse they may go to a court for an order. If you refuse to comply long enough and it's a high enough priority then someone with a badge and gun will show up with an order or a warrant. It might be "local popo", sheriff's deputy, staties, or the feds but it won't be a generic non-LE "public employee". The paper-pushers outsource their dangerous work.Disagree, since I'm not bloody likely to EVER get shot by any kind of local popo, but a public employee can take my house, my car, my grandkids, raise my tax so much that it soaks up all my savings, send me to prison for having a brace on my shortie, keep me from visiting my wife in the nursing home or visiting friends or going to church, make me wear a mask, make me lock up my firearms when they are not on my person, make me get a permit and pay a fee to install a lawn sprinkler system or to build a garden shed or remodel my bath/kitchen, limit my ammo purchases, tax my ammo, tax my mileage, tell me when and where and how much to pay to hunt or fish and price said licenses out of my reach, force me to share my home with indigents, start wars with nuclear armed countries, and on and on, ad nauseum. Bloody high-minded civic azzholes!!!!!!!
That generic non-LE "public employee" will never take your house, car, etc. She or he will send you an order to comply. If you refuse they may go to a court for an order. If you refuse to comply long enough and it's a high enough priority then someone with a badge and gun will show up with an order or a warrant. It might be "local popo", sheriff's deputy, staties, or the feds but it won't be a generic non-LE "public employee". The paper-pushers outsource their dangerous work.
Luckily I don't give darn what strangers think of me or need any sort of validation. It's really irritating to me how folks act as if they're for liberty but support a police state and cops can do whatever they want all willy-nilly with zero accountability and consequence. At the end of the day, cops aren't on our side and they'll do whatever their tyrannical masters tell them to do. That's how it is, and it is what it is.This discussion often becomes polarized. Have any opinion at all and you'll make an enemy.
...POOF
.
.
100% agree. Enforcement of willy nilly "laws" that someone else made up. I think some of them went in to help people but then somehow just become "enforcers" that see the public not as people but as the enemy. I always think it takes a pretty numb individual to become someone who can only operate on laws and rules, take the book away and they dont know how to handle a situation.Luckily I don't give darn what strangers think of me or need any sort of validation. It's really irritating to me how folks act as if they're for liberty but support a police state and cops can do whatever they want all willy-nilly with zero accountability and consequence. At the end of the day, cops aren't on our side and they'll do whatever their tyrannical masters tell them to do.
I have more I'd like to say on this thread but don't have the time and energy tonight for anything but this one post.I would just like to say I appreciate threads like this and the benefit to critical thinking they bring to those who carry firearms for self defense and support 2A issues. @RedCardinalSeven & @bbbass, (and others) thank you for encouraging me to dig into this and consider other perspective. Nothing but respect from me.