Qualified immunity needs to end yesterday

Why do police officers get legal indemnity when they choose to go around and routinely violate the rights of citizens?

I would hope this is one issue that we liberals and conservatives could come together on.

Officers should individually be legally liable anytime they violate the rights of a citizen.

They should not be shielded by the concept of qualified immunity.
What this does is let officers know they are not going to be individually held liable for their own individual actions......

Like the average citizen will for his own actions....

And then when they are found to ultimately be in violation for their blatantly rights disregarding actions.... Now the taxpayer gets to pick up the tab.

If they're not at the very least going to make officers individually liable...
What they should do is make lawsuits come from the police officer's pension fund.

This might give them a little financial incentive not to be tyrants that crample the constitution at every chance they possibly get.

Have any of y'all noticed how differently police officers act once they realize they're being recorded by a citizen?

Have any of y'all noticed during a police officer's body camera interaction when they are clearly doing wrong that they go to talk to the supervisor.... And they so conveniently cut the audio feed on their body camera?

If you elect fat back for president.... I will immediately pass a law that all police officers body camera footage needs to go to a completely unrelated third party control by the citizens...

And it would be a crime punishable by dismissal and subsequent prosecution to cut the audio or the video feed on a police officer's body camera.

It's time for us to start recording those son of a b****** too.
Like they like to say.... If you don't have anything to hide you won't mind being recorded

 

This guy asked police to leave his private property several different times. They refused for at least 15 minutes.
I'm no lawyer but I've been watching a lot of videos like this and researching citizens 4th amendment right for many years now.

This case represents a blatant violation of at least two rights, if not more.

 

My view of the "qualified" immunity concept is not a "yes" or "no" view.

I think there needs to be a sensible view somewhere in the middle.

These are people that are just trying to do their jobs, but at the same time, there needs to be some sort of accountability.

In other words, punish them, but punish them less (much less).

If an ordinary person does any job, there's a fairly high chance that a mistake will occasionally be made.

The notion that law enforcement should always get blanket immunity is just as wrong and dysfunctional as claiming they should be held fully accountable for any mistake, in my opinion.

I also think records of any misconduct or grievous mistakes by officials need to be kept, so that if they make another mistake later, it can be viewed together with the totality of their past mistakes to help decide whether they should be permanently kicked out of that career.

In other words, make a mistake, you will not necessarily be fired or criminally prosecuted, but it could result in you being fired or help support a criminal prosecution later, if other mistakes are made again.

 

Here is another great example of how qualified immunity needs to have a tombstone in the nearest local graveyard

 

In addition to immediately filming and asking name and badge number you should also be requesting the incident number so that these cases can be immediately reviewed.

 

I don't care if it's your church wife grandmother..... Every citizen needs to be trained to be recording the police officers pulling them over before they ever even do the deed.

They all tend to act so much different when they understand they're being recorded and they can't take the citizens phone away from them and smash it underneath of their jackboot

 

Any cop who forcibly removes by force any citizens phone... should have to go to prison for a period of at least 15 years

 

Going southbound on a three Lane, three-way highway today.

A cop pulls out today and does not bother to use a turn signal and begins to immediately grow much faster than the 35 mph speed limit and then I saw him change lanes again without a signal

He changed lanes twice without a signal and exceeded the speed limit for a good distance.

But of course they feel like they are entitled to do such things

 

This video is particularly sad to me.

This is the area where I was born and raised until I was 16.

 

I see that YouTube has made the video unavailable.

One wonders why.

 

Hi, FatBack.

Your case would be better presented were you to post specific sections of laws which grant immunity.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Great, a conservative acting like a BLM activist. Who knew?

Personally, qualified immunity is not unlimited. In the normal routine case of police work or duties, having qualified immunity allows them to do their job. Second, if a police officer arrests you based on the prima facie evidence, you go to trial, and win, you cannot sue or should sue after the fact. That is well-established law. That is why police departments, especially large one, should have an outside review board to decide police misconduct. If police misconduct is determined, then qualified immunity should not be allowed and that officer, or ex officer, can be sued legally. But then again, it is like getting blood out of a turnip.

As for recording, it is part of the job and police officers should deal with it. However, how would you act if someone recorded you 24/7? Would you act the same if someone was not recording you? Or will you change your behavior?

 

Alaska Game and Wildlife are state troopers, along with any state Alaska Game and Wildlife wardens can and do have the right to enter private property open fields doctrine. And the other issue is that there was a probable cause of the fire. And it is quite obvious there was some sort of probable cause. But he escalated the whole situation to begin with. Matt is a complete dumbass.

 

It's called qualified immunity and it Shields dirty cops from the consequences of their actions when they are caught.

I'm sure if you're unfamiliar with the concept Google will come in handy.

Regards and have a good day and all of that there

 

So expecting police to respect people's constitutional rights means I'm "acting like a BLM activist" ?

That's a big steaming pile of male bovine fecal matter.

I'm not calling to defund the police and I'm not calling for violence against them and I'm not going out rioting in the streets or beating people up.

I only think they need to start respecting people's rights. And a lot of them do but there's a good percent that routinely ignore people's rights and they get away with it and that's the entire point.

If an officer does eventually get let go from the force often times they'll just go to the next county over and get a job

 

did you miss the part of the video where every single aspect of his fire was in compliance and there was no reason for them to be there anyway?
I thought the police are supposed to be the professionals who deescalate situations?

Any police can approach your property on the stop and knock concept but as soon as you tell them that you want them to leave they are required to leave if they don't have a warrant or no extingent circumstances are present.

As soon as they determine that the fire was in compliance they should have immediately left his property no matter what his demeanor was. Especially since he told them to vacate several different times

Now we have a BLM activist acting like it's a citizens duty to be as meek as possible

 

There are 13 cameras on the property where I work at I don't get to turn them on and off when I think I should.

The problem is qualified immunity is abused

 

Very true, but the reverse problem also exists.
(an example is officer Derick Chauvin, whom the media claimed was a "murderer" but the truth was not that simple)

You can't just make this into an all simple black & white issue.

 

They use it as a black and white issue to cover their ass for anything.

 

That's not how it works with game wardens dude.

Please don't tell me you've been listening to the sov cits.

 

So game wardens can legally trespass on your property, out of uniform no less?
I don't think so

 

Didn't miss that. The Game Warden was there following up on a complaint. Matt could have let him inspect the fire and offer suggestions. Did you miss the part about Matt saying "I don't need you to protect me and the other foul language he was using? There is a right way and a wrong way, and given his attitude, I can guarantee that the game warden was thinking he was going to get shot, and in which the commentator on the video made that very same veiled threat.

 

the complaint gave him probable cause to enter the property. All Matt had to do was comply instead of being a jerk and escalating the situation from the very get-go. If someone was telling me to get off their property even though he was there to check out a complaint and was escalating the situation from the get-go, my gut instinct would tell me something more than a simple fire that needed investigation. Bear in mind, this was simply a fact-finding call. The police got one side, and now they are there to check the other side which can be probable cause. That's it in what this whole thing was about. And because of the escelation, two or three officers were there. One Captain, one Sergeant, and another officer who was off duty I believe and a neighbor trying to help out.

 

the neigbor was there to help. the game warden was the Captain who was answering a complaint.

 

It's a choice based on facts and circumstances.