Qualified immunity needs to end yesterday

I agree with you on most issues @FatBack, but this one is hard issue to pin down.

Yes, I have met and have dealt with some police officers who were bullies. They abused the power that the state gave them and acted like jerks.

At the same time, there needs to be some qualified immunity. If there were none, every criminal would claim that they had been abused, and the police would not be able to do their jobs. Ultimately there would be no police because no one could afford the lawsuits, and possible jail time, that would come with the job. Civilization would break down, and everyone would need to get a gun and take law and order into their own hands.

Doing away with qualified immunity has been one of the tactics that the "defund the police" crowd has used. It is a slippery slope if you throw in with the anti-police mob. Those people only care about criminals and not victims of crime.

 

One, it's a two-way street. The state game warden was there following up on a complaint by another person. The police do not take sides, they are there to get the facts. Matt should have allowed the state game warden to ask questions and show that the fire is contained and go on from there. But he did not do that. In fact, he told the officer to leave, cursed at him, and so forth, which escalated the entire situation. The worst thing you should say to an officer is to leave or get a search warrant. And they can do exactly that, especially at traffic stops in which the officer "smells" illicit drugs., If you say no, then a k-9 unit can be called and you are further detained. And that is all perfectly legal.

BTW, the commentator did make a veiled threat against him. That commentator was Matt himself who said "I could have gone the 1a or 2a. But I was reasonable and went with the 1a approach." And yes, that is a veiled threat because in that person's mind he was already thinking about killing the officer but didn't because, ironically, he was being recorded. But it is still a veiled threat nonetheless.

 

I agree they are an absolutely vital part of society as we know it.

The thing that pisses me off is it's basically a part of police culture to lie to people and to trick them into giving up their rights and preying upon their ignorance.

And apon further thought.... I do agree about the qualified immunity part but I think that when an officer is clearly and egregiously wrong.... The taxpayer should not be responsible for it. They should be held personally liable. They should be responsible for their own individual actions at that point.... And that point should be anytime they begin to violate someone's rights or deviate egregiously outside of department policy.

Other than that there's no real consequences for their actions so there's no real motivation for them not to just trample all over your rights whenever they get ready.

Taxpayers already pay their salary so they shouldn't have to pay the lawsuits too.

I think they should be recorded every moment of their day just like me at work, when I'm working.

There should be severe consequences for when they turn off their body cameras and audio feeds. And I don't believe the police department should have access to those videos.

They should upload to a cloud that they do not have access to.

I have all the respect in the world for the ones that do their job properly and the ones that abuse people's rights I hold beneath contempt. Those are the worst criminals of all acting under the color of law

 

So you are arguing do as i say and not as I do then?

 

Yeah, they can essentially.

Certainly I don't take your boat captain's word for it that he didn't do anything for them to investigate.

 

In the beginning of the video it clearly says that there was no burn ban in effect and he had the fire in a container visible from the street.

That right there should have been the end of it. And there was no reason whatsoever for the neighbor who wasn't off duty cop who had Matt trespassed from his property.... To come and involve him or herself in it. I'm pretty sure that's against department policy. You're not on duty, you call the cops on your neighbor and then you go over there and involve yourself in it.

While it is the intelligent and courteous thing to do, Matt has no obligation to be pleasant or cooperate to any degree.

And I'm glad you brought up the whole "I smell marijuana" thing. All the crooked cop has to do is make that claim which cannot be proven or disproven.... And then your Fourth amendment right goes right out the window.

I had a cop personally tell me once but if he wants to pull someone over all he has to do is follow them long enough and he will find a reason. I bet that same cop would not hesitate to lie and claim he smelled marijuana.

It's s*** just like that right there that pisses off the citizens and makes them have no trust in the integrity of authority figures.

Also was the veiled threat you speak of stated during the interaction or was it simply the video commentary ?

 

You don't have to take my word for it you can watch the video. That was his whole reason for being there was a fire, it was completely contained and there was no burn ban.

I agree there could be more to the story and the video only presents a certain amount. But it also says right there in the video that's the reason he was there. From the horse's mouth.

While I am sure there are some scenarios where a game warden can come on to your property without a warrant I don't think he's allowed to remain there without a warrant unless he has further legitimate cause, especially when he has been told he needs to leave.

 

I don't know how on Earth you came to that conclusion.

I clearly stated there are 13 cameras and I am on film the entire time I am working.

Do you think cops should be able to turn their body camera video and audio feed on and off whenever they feel like it?

 

You said you can't turn them off, and you clearly want police officers to be recorded while on the job, which is technically 24/7/365. So again, if there were no cameras at your work, would you work differently?

 

I personally would not but then again I'm not a cop so the comparison is completely ridiculous.

I have no problem being on film the entire time I am working. Is there some reason the police should be against such a thing?

And you're 24/7/365 thing is also ridiculous. Obviously my meaning is when they are on shift in uniform.

 

I am sure that is what is stated, but that is not who determines the facts of the case. The officer does this when responding to said call. Again, when the State Game Warden arrived, it was simply a fact-finding call. It could have been handled better. Instead, you have Matt, who is probably a member of the Alaskan Independence Movement, pretty much from the get go told the state trooper to leave. Period. He escaleted the entire situation on himself and the officer responded in kind. The only thing I saw that the State trooper should not have done is take the phone away but that was after the officer was being harassed, cursed at, etc, by Matt himself. I am not arguing how many officers are bad cops, but in this case, I saw very little wrong in which the state trooper was there. And again, should have been handled better by Matt on his side. At best, the state trooper may get a reprimand or something similar after taking the phone away, but nothing more will come of it because of how Matt acted.

The veiled threat was this: "I had two options, the 1a and the 2a. I chose to go with the 1a instead of the 2a." The 2a means that he was willing to "defend" himself by shooting the police officer on his property who was performing his job. Sorry, but no jury is going to see that as self-defense if the officer is in uniform and was there on official business.

 

Police officers need to deal with that type of situation and assume they are being recorded by third parties. I did not notice any body cam on the state game warden, but we do have police officers with body cam while on the job in most law enforcement agencies. That is how some officers are charged with murder and some are not if a shooting is involved because of that body cam.

But it is not ridiculous. Part of a police officer's job is that they are on call if they are not in uniform. There are procedures in every law enforcement agency I know, from Federal to state, that have this. If an off-duty officer witnesses a crime or if another officer while in uniform needs assistance, they are to report it and intercede if necessary. Most do when off duty. So, your recording while on the job would literally mean a 24/7/365 type of thing.

 

He did not threaten the officer you are referring to narration from the video which is completely not relevant.

When officer friendly found out there was no burn ban that meant that it was time for officer friendly to get the hell off of the property especially after he had been told to.

But instead officer friendly there takes the phone and beats the guy with his phone. As you can see it makes them incredibly angry to be filmed.

 

Maybe I need to be more specific. I'm referring to when they are in uniform and on shift..... I'm not talking about some small one or two percent of the time when they may be called into action off duty

 

If the narration is not relevant, then neither is all the stuff that he said the facts were indisputable about the fire then.

 

When they are on shift, many police officers have body cams. So they are being recorded. But for private citizens, that is their choice, is it not? As I have stated in my first reply, officers need to deal with this type of situation, and pretty much ignore it as much as possible.

 

Of course the video doesn't show everything unless it was on the whole time of course.

But it does show officer friendly taking the man's phone and the man says that he was beat with the phone.

If officer friendly there would have had a body camera we wouldn't have to ask what may or may not have happened

 

Again, that is the only mistake I see the officer doing. However, if you notice, Matt was escalating the situation the whole time as well. So any complaint Matt shows will also show what his actions will be. And that is why at best the Game Warden Captain may be reprimanded at the most, or a good talk to at the very least.

 

Matt is under no obligation to be polite and to be told what to do on his own property.

The officer took his phone and allegedly beat him with it.

That's not a "mistake" that's criminal theft and assault. If you were I do that to someone we would likely be charged with strong armed robbery

I'm always polite and courteous anytime I interact with police but then again that's the way I am in general.

But any citizen is not under any obligation to act a certain way. Wether Matthew was polite or not should have no effect on the officers ability to do his job professionally.

They specifically take de-escalation training.

I like how the cop also threatened to have a hundred uniformed officers out there in 3 minutes..... Very professional of him

 

Emphasis mine. No context and an honorable boat captain type? Obvious bullshit.
You think this is my first rodeo?

They had cause to investigate the fire dude. They ended up sticking around because the dude acted like a sov cit ******* and prolonged the encounter thereby.

 

What do you think is b*******? Be specific.

 

Washington is a two party consent to filming state dude.

 

That was Alaska.

 

The complete and total lack of context leads me to believe that prior to recording we would see he's not so blameless as he bitches he is. He's a boat captain posting **** on youtube, its basically a no brainer.

 

That's a distinct possibility but at the very least we have video evidence of the cop taking his phone and he alleges that he was then beaten with it.

If I walk up to someone and just take their phone out of their hand I can be charged with strong arm robbery. Or at the very least, theft.

Also of note even though this incident happened in Alaska...... Florida is a two-party state but the courts have ruled that that does not apply to police officers on duty and a public location where there is no expectation of privacy and the person filming is not interfering.

I'm pretty sure that you can legally record in all 50 states. Otherwise when you entered a business that had cameras they would be violating two party consent unless they had it conspicuously posted at entering the property equals consent.

That would be particularly troublesome for anyone whose camera also happens to pick up public property.