Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguably the court's most liberal justice, has repeatedly dissented when her colleagues have excused police misconduct in police brutality cases. In one dissent, she said the court "displays an unflinching willingness" to reverse lower courts when they refuse to grant qualified immunity to police officers. In contrast, she said, the court "rarely intervenes" when lower courts wrongly grant qualified immunity to police officers. This "one-sided approach" transforms qualified immunity into "an absolute shield for law enforcement officers," she wrote.
9500 ... what is the name of the case in which the SCOTUS is "weighing" in on "qualified immunity" for the police? And if you have a SCOTUS case number for the pending case it would be helpful.
I believe that Tennessee vs. Garner discussed excessive force and constitutional rights with respect to police action and that decision pretty much sets the foundation for liability based upon a civil rights violation of fundamental rights. Fat-lips Sotomayor can whine all she wants, but she's making a useless point.
The primary issue with respect to "qualified immunity" is civil liability in damages .... let me repeat "DAMAGES"! Money!!! You won't find many patrol officers who are flush enough with cash or property with which to pay a judgment even if one is obtained.
Quote:
There are currently eight qualified immunity cases now pending before the Supreme Court. The facts of the cases are varied. They range from the shooting of a 10-year-old boy when police pursued an unarmed suspect into a yard where children were playing, to the apparently needless destruction of a house with tear gas grenades when police were given the house keys to look for a suspect after the homeowner had told police the suspect was not there, to other cases involving deaths and profound injuries stemming from police misconduct.
Each case will turn on the underlying facts. A blanket elimination of qualified immunity would not be appropriate ... it disregards the fundamental basis for the existence of the principle in the first place ... and using extreme facts in cases is not an appropriate basis to eliminate it.
And nobody mentioned it was a black gal that helped her up.
Also, anyone else catch the coochie itch scratch at 18 sec mark? Need to slow down play back and then move to 0:18 min.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnadfly
Forward to about 30 seconds into the vid. Pelosi hadn't thought this through.
9500 ... what is the name of the case in which the SCOTUS is "weighing" in on "qualified immunity" for the police? And if you have a SCOTUS case number for the pending case it would be helpful.
I believe that Tennessee vs. Garner discussed excessive force and constitutional rights with respect to police action and that decision pretty much sets the foundation for liability based upon a civil rights violation of fundamental rights. Fat-lips Sotomayor can whine all she wants, but she's making a useless point.
The primary issue with respect to "qualified immunity" is civil liability in damages .... let me repeat "DAMAGES"! Money!!! You won't find many patrol officers who are flush enough with cash or property with which to pay a judgment even if one is obtained.
Each case will turn on the underlying facts. A blanket elimination of qualified immunity would not be appropriate ... it disregards the fundamental basis for the existence of the principle in the first place ... and using extreme facts in cases is not an appropriate basis to eliminate it.
Staub was on his knees on the ground and still had Jones in a choke hold when he felt “like a scratch on my hand,” which he initially “didn’t think much of” because they “were rolling around on the concrete.” Then, “a second or two later,” at approximately the same time that Officer Neely tased Jones, Staub felt “a sharp poke in [his] side,” which “alarmed” him. Staub reported that he then “saw the subject’s right hand with a fixed blade knife in his hand” and shouted, “He’s got a knife! He’s got a knife!” Neely also reportedly saw “a weapon in [Jones’s] right hand.” At least one officer called to “Get back, get back!”
ESTATE OF WAYNE A. JONES BY ROBERT L. JONES AND BRUCE A. JONES, Administrators of the Estate of Wayne A. Jones,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CITY OF MARTINSBURG, WEST VIRGINIA; PFC. ERIK HERB; PFC. DANIEL NORTH; PTLM. WILLIAM STAUBS; PTLM. PAUL LEHMAN; PFC. ERIC NEELY,
Defendants - Appellees.
"This Has To Stop": A Court Invoked George Floyd's Death In Denying Qualified Immunity To Cops Who Shot A Man 22 Times
Judge Henry Floyd of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit wrote on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel that to dismiss the case against officers who shot and killed Wayne Jones in 2013 "would signal absolute immunity for fear-based use of deadly force, which we cannot accept."
The primary issue of qualified immunity is reasonable assumption. In my non-legal opinion. Sir.
9500 ... what is the name of the case in which the SCOTUS is "weighing" in on "qualified immunity" for the police? And if you have a SCOTUS case number for the pending case it would be helpful.
I believe that Tennessee vs. Garner discussed excessive force and constitutional rights with respect to police action and that decision pretty much sets the foundation for liability based upon a civil rights violation of fundamental rights. Fat-lips Sotomayor can whine all she wants, but she's making a useless point.
The primary issue with respect to "qualified immunity" is civil liability in damages .... let me repeat "DAMAGES"! Money!!! You won't find many patrol officers who are flush enough with cash or property with which to pay a judgment even if one is obtained.
Each case will turn on the underlying facts. A blanket elimination of qualified immunity would not be appropriate ... it disregards the fundamental basis for the existence of the principle in the first place ... and using extreme facts in cases is not an appropriate basis to eliminate it.
What about "No Knock Warrants"? I've read about a case recently were the police where at the wrong house and the suspect was already in jail. The wife was killed by the police. What is the probability (and legal basis) for recovering damages from the police and the judge who signed the warrant and the city?
