JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Well, unfortunately, we'll only ever have unethical studies and historical events that give insight into the behavior-altering effects of power, real or perceived. My point was that, perhaps with these studies and similar and your experiences, that you may have insight into why LEO is less hesitant to shoot on their "enemy."

I'm not sure, but its an interesting phenomenon. I think a lot of it is training. Most LE training is pretty doom and gloom. If you don't stay in the yellow or orange zone, the bad guy WILL get the drop on you. Insert video of this happening. Show the wife and kids getting a folded flag with bagpipes playing in the background. Then train through scenario after scenario where you WILL use force at least 90% of the time.
 
I'm pretty sure many (most?) of those training scenarios are geared to keeping the cop alive........ not so much about keeping the "perp" happy.

Of course expecting a 5'7', 165 lb. traffic officer to physically restrain a 350 lb "suspect" without "pre-tenderizing" them with a 9mm first, could be part of the problem.

(as are the expectations created in the public mind, by those Police Chick's-with-Kicks taking out giant bad-guys in the movies/tv, as are those 5-min DNA tests and those 20 round revolvers and never fail tasers)
 
There is a big difference between making a split life or death decision and making an accounting error that you can dwell on.

You missed the point of my example. That may be your rationale why police get qualified immunity, but it's not the government's purpose behind it.

As I said, it doesn't suit the government to have its own agents being held liable for their actions against citizens. The second the government decides that qualified immunity no longer suits its purposes, it will be gone- without a care in the world as to how difficult split second decisions are for you. This past summer's rioting and the renewed interest in politicians of eliminating qualified immunity are evidence of this. If they think hanging a cop out to dry will save them having a few city blocks burned, they'll sacrifice the cop without a second's hesitation.

Regardless of all that, the dissent eloquently sums up why it shouldn't have applied in this case, and I can't repeat it here without writing a page long reply.
 
You missed the point of my example. That may be your rationale why police get qualified immunity, but it's not the government's purpose behind it.

As I said, it doesn't suit the government to have its own agents being held liable for their actions against citizens. The second the government decides that qualified immunity no longer suits its purposes, it will be gone- without a care in the world as to how difficult split second decisions are for you. This past summer's rioting and the renewed interest in politicians of eliminating qualified immunity are evidence of this. If they think hanging a cop out to dry will save them having a few city blocks burned, they'll sacrifice the cop without a second's hesitation.

Regardless of all that, the dissent eloquently sums up why it shouldn't have applied in this case, and I can't repeat it here without writing a page long reply.

That's exactly how it works with my agency. A "critical incident review" occurs and the goal is to not only absolve the agency of liability, but hand the plaintiff a gift-wrapped pile of reasons its your fault. That's why I quote policies in my reports. If I follow them, the agency will eat the lawsuit. If they try and fire me, I'll win a career worth of wages with my own lawyer.
 
Last Edited:
Regardless of all that, the dissent eloquently sums up why it shouldn't have applied in this case, and I can't repeat it here without writing a page long reply.
You are of course welcome to your opinion, but after reading the entire document, the dissent ignores most of the facts and uses case decisions to support their tenuous opinions that are not relevant. These are specifically detailed in the majority opinion. Their two premises are:
...he was standing inside his own house without threatening them. Second, the police were not engaged in a permissible "knock and talk" when they killed Mr. Scott."​
Officer stated Mr. Scott pointed his gun directly at him. The only other (possible) witness is the girlfriend who is an interested party as both the girlfriend and a plaintiff in the lawsuit who has a monetary interest in the outcome of the case. The other officers, base on descriptions of their locations, were very unlikely to have been a position to see the actions by Mr. Scott inside the doorway.

As for the "knock and talk" the dissent opinion is beyond weak and the majority disassembles their cases. The dissent uses inflammatory language and the majority explains why their citations are not applicable to this situation:
Instead, relying on cases from other circuits, the dissent argues that it is clearly established federal law that Deputy Sylvester's behavior was "a raid" and exceeded the scope of the permissible knock and talk exception because it was 1:30 a.m., he unholstered his weapon, and he knocked so loudly. In those cases, however, the officers made warrantless entries using a coercive show of force. In contrast, the officers' actions here are dissimilar and do not rise to the level of a "show of force" found impermissible in those other cases.​
Emphasis added

Big difference here. They are basically saying scary police cannot knock on doors after dark. We all hate the outcome, and I understand our views on qualified immunity differ. I have read many opinions that differ from what I think (both majority and dissent) that I understand their reasoning, but for me, this is not one of them. I do respect that your view may be different.
 
What I was thinking of is where some idiot calls the cops, either with a burner phone or routed through an exchange so number untracable, and started screaming "the guy at such and such address is holding a hostage, shooting people, blah, blah, blah, SEND THE SWAT TEAM!" for fun. in one case the guy who answered the door (it was the wrong address) DID NOT have a gun, but be did have sweatpants on, the cops drag him out of the house, and his pants fall down, he grabs them and the sniper across the street shoots him in the head. The guy who paid for the hit and the scum who did the calling (he had a business setting up swattings!) are both in prison. The murdered guy? "Oh, tough luck there guy! Sorry we over reacted!"

Another case was where some 13 year old (?) kid won the world championship video game got "swatted", but not murdered luckly.
 
As for the "knock and talk" the dissent opinion is beyond weak and the majority disassembles their cases

The whole premise behind the legality of a knock and talk is that the police are permitted to do it in that when it is no more than a normal citizen in the course of other non-police business would be allowed to do. i.e. knock on a person's door and engage them in conversation if they choose to answer.

In this case the officers were not there in an hour when any normal person would be expected to visit a residence, they then took up tactical positions with their firearms pointed at the door and deliberately obscured themselves from the view of anyone looking at the porch from inside the residence. They knocked repeatedly and loudly enough to wake up several neighbors who came outside to see what the commotion was. Does that sound like the behavior of an ordinary citizen in their interaction with another citizen?

At the risk of being accused of using inflammatory language: No one with two brain cells would believe them when they say they were just there to conduct a consensual discussion. Without the knock and talk defense, their lawful reason for interacting with the dead guy evaporates.

And if their facts of that interaction differ from what the plaintiff presented, that it becomes a matter to decide at trial. Remember, a motion to dismiss requires assuming the non-moving parties version of events is true. The bar is deliberately set extremely high, because one side is asking to win the case without even having to present evidence and get a jury involved.
 
Another case was where some 13 year old (?) kid won the world championship video game got "swatted", but not murdered luckly

Swatting has become quite popular, and the courts will also immunize the person providing false information in some cases. There were two cases that I think hit the Supreme Court: one was a TSA agent who lied to police that a passenger made a bomb threat, and the other was an airline that reported a disgruntled employee was going to bring a gun onto a plane without any evidence.

In both those cases, the court immunized them from liability because it didn't want to "chill" people from reporting potential aviation security threats. They basically said they didn't care if your constitutional rights are violated if it may serve a greater good. They weren't even very coy about it.
 
Sorry, but I just can't get over your Nutknocka moniker when combined with a discussion about knock and talks.

:s0140:

Just my inner child, nothing to see here, move along...
 
At the risk of being accused of using inflammatory language: No one with two brain cells would believe them when they say they were just there to conduct a consensual discussion. Without the knock and talk defense, their lawful reason for interacting with the dead guy evaporates.
Is there any violation of law to walk up to a house and knock on a door? No
Can be on the property of a person between public property and their door in an open yard? Yes
Did they force any type of entry or anywhere in the 65 pages was the alleged as the intent? No
Since they had the only light on inside, is it reasonable to check with them to see if they saw anything? Of course it is. (And as I noted earlier, events like this often have multiple directions they can go, i.e. there could also be a suspect inside harming the residents or they could be the suspects, so knock on the door and ask.)
I'm sure it happens (this case in point) but during my career I never heard of anyone having an issue knocking on a door. It's always been what happens after the door is opened.

Let me give you a very likely hypothetical on why this would have been a simple consensual discussion had the tragic events not unfolded.
Knock, knock. Door opens. Hello, I'm Officer Sylvester, is that your motorcycle? Nope. I see you are in your PJ's, you GF is sitting on the couch with a game controller, beverage and bowl of popcorn. I see you are not sweaty, you are barefoot and there is not helmet in my view. Do you know who owns the motorcycle? Na...but I've see it around here for a few weeks. Thank you for your assistance Mr. Scott.​
Why do I think this could have been the situation? Because I've been the one knocking on the door before at 1:30 in the morning. Sometimes it ends like above, other times we knock and they don't answer (and with the facts in this case we would have left and gone on to the next call). Other times a sweaty, nervous, completely dressed guy in a leather MC jacket answers the door...now it might go in some different directions. But it all starts with knocking on the door.

they then took up tactical positions with their firearms pointed at the door and deliberately obscured themselves from the view of anyone looking at the porch from inside the residence.
Everywhere in the document it states that the primary officer had his firearm behind him at the door. The entire event took two seconds per the report after the door was opened. The other officers would not have been pointing their guns at the door because there were two officers in this area. On page #9 it state, "Brocato could see only Sylvester's head over the fence," so he clearly would not be pointing a gun in this direction. The girlfriend did not see this either. You are stating facts not in evidence and actually completely contradicted by statements in the report and known LE tactics.

I won't accuse you of being inflammatory. I just have a different worldview from knocking on strange door early in the morning.
 
Everywhere in the document it states that the primary officer had his firearm behind him at the door

The dissenting judges stated in the dissent that the officers were in tactical positions with their guns drawn and deliberately obscured from view. (Page 37 in the decision pdf)

We don't have access to all the statements admitted into evidence, but unless you are willing to believe the judges just made it up, they pulled that from the plaintiffs filing/exhibits.

I think you're missing the point of a motion to dismiss. Everything the non-moving party says happened is assumed to be true. The statements from the officers are not considered if they conflict with the non-moving party's version of events. This is basic trial procedure.

A motion to dismiss is where questions of law are debated. Questions of fact, such as conflicting statements from participants in the event are considered at trial. I can't say that the police's version of events isn't true, but I can say that the correct procedure would be to have a trial to make that decision. The majority erred in not considering all subjective facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
 
Last Edited:
To put it another way, a motion to dismiss, or invoking qualified immunity is basically the moving party's way of saying "pretend I did everything the other guy says I did, so what?"

The moving party is stating that even if the non-moving party proves all of the facts of their case, no law was broken.

When you make a motion to dismiss, you forfeit your right to debate the facts of the case during this stage of the trial. So, wherever the officers account of events differs from the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs version is assumed to be true at this stage.
 
The dissenting judges stated in the dissent that the officers were in tactical positions with their guns drawn and deliberately obscured from view. (Page 37 in the decision pdf)

We don't have access to all the statements admitted into evidence, but unless you are willing to believe the judges just made it up, they pulled that from the plaintiffs filing/exhibits.

I think you're missing the point of a motion to dismiss. Everything the non-moving party says happened is assumed to be true. The statements from the officers are not considered if they conflict with the non-moving party's version of events. This is basic trial procedure.

A motion to dismiss is where questions of law are debated. Questions of fact, such as conflicting statements from participants in the event are considered at trial. I can't say that the police's version of events isn't true, but I can say that the correct procedure would be to have a trial to make that decision. The majority erred in not considering all subjective facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.

Judges would RARELY know anything "tactical" from a hole in the ground.
 
Judges would RARELY know anything "tactical" from a hole in the ground.

You're missing the point again. Do you think they are too stupid to understand the difference if a gun is drawn or holstered?

It's simple: guns out (and hidden from view) equals not a "knock and talk" under multiple legal precedents cited by dissenting judges.

Not a knock and talk raises question of legality regarding the "taking" (killing is a taking under 4th amendment). Illegal taking equals no qualified immunity.

Since there are material facts in dispute that would result in the loss of qualified immunity if decided in the plaintiff's favor, a summary judgment is inappropriate. Note that the cops could still be found not liable under qualified immunity if the jury accepts their version of events. But that is all a matter for trial- which is where this case should have gone.
 
You're missing the point again. Do you think they are too stupid to understand the difference if a gun is drawn or holstered?

It's simple: guns out (and hidden from view) equals not a "knock and talk" under multiple legal precedents cited by dissenting judges.

Not a knock and talk raises question of legality regarding the "taking" (killing is a taking under 4th amendment). Illegal taking equals no qualified immunity.

Since there are material facts in dispute that would result in the loss of qualified immunity if decided in the plaintiff's favor, a summary judgment is inappropriate. Note that the cops could still be found not liable under qualified immunity if the jury accepts their version of events. But that is all a matter for trial- which is where this case should have gone.

Depends on if the contact officer is the one who had the gun drawn and fired. From the article, I couldn't gather that he was. Having security posted when looking for someone who was involved in a violent crime is prudent. No requirement to play quick draw. So, if I'm in pursuit of someone fleeing from a violent crime and he enters a complex, its reasonable to start talking to people. With these circumstances:

1: already hurt someone
2: fleeing (means he doesn't wanna give up)
3: his vehicle, still warm parked by the unit
4: guy comes out with gun

Starts to become more objectively reasonable.
 
I think you're missing the point of a motion to dismiss. Everything the non-moving party says happened is assumed to be true. The statements from the officers are not considered if they conflict with the non-moving party's version of events. This is basic trial procedure.

A motion to dismiss is where questions of law are debated. Questions of fact, such as conflicting statements from participants in the event are considered at trial. I can't say that the police's version of events isn't true, but I can say that the correct procedure would be to have a trial to make that decision. The majority erred in not considering all subjective facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.
The majority states on four separate occasions that when there is a conflict they accept the plaintiff's version including at the beginning of the summary:
In conducting its qualified immunity analysis, the district court's decision viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. When there were disputes in the record, it accepted the plaintiffs' version of these tragic facts as true.
The disagree and point out that the dissent opinion does not use relevant case decisions. Knocking on a door has been ruled as acceptable:
Under Supreme Court precedent, the knock and talk rule permits the police to enter onto private land and knock on a citizen's door for legitimate police purposes, such as gathering information in an investigation. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013).
The majority points out that the cases cited by the dissent resulted in a forced entry:
Instead, relying on cases from other circuits, the dissent argues that it is clearly established federal law that Deputy Sylvester's behavior was "a raid" and exceeded the scope of the permissible knock and talk exception because it was 1:30 a.m., he unholstered his weapon, and he knocked so loudly. In those cases, however, the officers made warrantless entries using a coercive show of force. In contrast, the officers' actions here are dissimilar and do not rise to the level of a "show of force" found impermissible in those other cases. (Emphasis Added)

I understand the purpose and scope of a motion in these cases. I also understand (from reading other qualified immunity cases) that there are tight reigns placed on plaintiffs for allowing a lawsuit to proceed. Some may not like this and I accept this difference in opinion. My view is that the limitations help keep a flood of lawsuits against officers who may have made a mistake during a ugly event or had to make a split second call given the sketchy nature of information which is so common under these conditions. I take your view is different and respect that.

What some don't seem to understand (not directed at you at all as you clearly have an extremely good grasp on all this) is that officers are not always immune from lawsuits. If it can be shown that a reasonable officer would have known that they were in fact violating they law, the immunity can go away.

Thank you for the conversation. I appreciate looking at the case from your perspective.
 
The majority states on four separate occasions that when there is a conflict they accept the plaintiff's version including at the beginning of the summary:
In conducting its qualified immunity analysis, the district court's decision viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. When there were disputes in the record, it accepted the plaintiffs' version of these tragic facts as true.
The disagree and point out that the dissent opinion does not use relevant case decisions. Knocking on a door has been ruled as acceptable:
Under Supreme Court precedent, the knock and talk rule permits the police to enter onto private land and knock on a citizen's door for legitimate police purposes, such as gathering information in an investigation. See Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 1409 (2013).
The majority points out that the cases cited by the dissent resulted in a forced entry:
Instead, relying on cases from other circuits, the dissent argues that it is clearly established federal law that Deputy Sylvester's behavior was "a raid" and exceeded the scope of the permissible knock and talk exception because it was 1:30 a.m., he unholstered his weapon, and he knocked so loudly. In those cases, however, the officers made warrantless entries using a coercive show of force. In contrast, the officers' actions here are dissimilar and do not rise to the level of a "show of force" found impermissible in those other cases. (Emphasis Added)

I understand the purpose and scope of a motion in these cases. I also understand (from reading other qualified immunity cases) that there are tight reigns placed on plaintiffs for allowing a lawsuit to proceed. Some may not like this and I accept this difference in opinion. My view is that the limitations help keep a flood of lawsuits against officers who may have made a mistake during a ugly event or had to make a split second call given the sketchy nature of information which is so common under these conditions. I take your view is different and respect that.

Or made no mistakes at all. I've had several people try to sue me, but all have been dismissed.
 

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