Trump demands immunity for police

[jmdrake]

Sorry but a hard no for this jackass. And yes I know this is a act, but the act ain't funny.

[spudea]

How does he "give" them something they already have?

Rand says law enforcement need qualified immunity and doesn't believe in federal reforms.

https://www.wbko.com/2021/06/17/sen-...police-reform/

[TheCount]

Oh well you see what he really meant was the opposite of that but he had to say it because otherwise

[TheTexan]

Strong police makes strong freedoms

[dannno]

Oh well you see what he really meant was the opposite of that but he had to say it because otherwise

This is what he meant.

Qualified immunity is a legal principle that protects government officials from lawsuits for damages if they perform discretionary duties and don't violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. This doctrine protects state and local officials, including law enforcement and prison officials, from personal liability unless they violate the law.

Am I guessing? No. I just listened to what he said. He said immunity "for doing their job". The part in quotes is a qualifier. Just switch the words around.

The fake Chauvin trial included a witness who testified that the police were not trained in the tactics that were used that day, but other officers have come forward and shown the public their training manual, including Chauvin's mother, which shows that is precisely how they were trained.

Considering Floyd died of a drug overdose, was almost twice the size of Chauvin, and had been fighting with police for about 20 minutes already, I don't think what Chauvin did was outside of what they were trained to do, nor do I think it was unreasonable. Floyd physically threatened a convenience store employee after handing off a fake $20 and being called out, then stealing the merchandise.

That's what he is talking about.

[jmdrake]

This is what he meant.



Am I guessing? No. I just listened to what he said. He said immunity "for doing their job". The part in quotes is a qualifier. Just switch the words around.

The fake Chauvin trial included a witness who testified that the police were not trained in the tactics that were used that day, but other officers have come forward and shown the public their training manual, including Chauvin's mother, which shows that is precisely how they were trained.

Considering Floyd died of a drug overdose, was almost twice the size of Chauvin, and had been fighting with police for about 20 minutes already, I don't think what Chauvin did was outside of what they were trained to do, nor do I think it was unreasonable. Floyd physically threatened a convenience store employee after handing off a fake $20 and being called out, then stealing the merchandise.

That's what he is talking about.

As @spudea pointed out, they already have enough immunity not to be prosecuted if they are legitimately doing their job. They times police have been successfully prosecuted they have gone beyond what is reasonable for doing their job. Take Derek Chauvin for example. It wasn't his job to sit on George Floyd's neck / back for 2 minutes after Floyd no longer had a pulse. Even the expert that was brought in to {b]defend[/b] Derek Chauvin couldn't answer that question. His job once George Floyd was not responsive was to administer CPR. The police officers who murdered Tommy Timpa and Kelly Thomas (H/T to @Anti Federalist for the "white George Floyd" thread) should have been prosecuted but were not. I am struggling to think of a successful prosecution of a police officer for doing his or her job. I can think of many examples of police brutality against black and white people that should have been prosecuted. The cop that killed the white guy who was on his knees begging for life comes immediately to mind.

[dannno]

As @spudea pointed out, they already have enough immunity not to be prosecuted if they are legitimately doing their job. They times police have been successfully prosecuted they have gone beyond what is reasonable for doing their job. Take Derek Chauvin for example. It wasn't his job to sit on George Floyd's neck / back for 2 minutes after Floyd no longer had a pulse. Even the expert that was brought in to {b]defend[/b] Derek Chauvin couldn't answer that question. His job once George Floyd was not responsive was to administer CPR. The police officers who murdered Tommy Timpa and Kelly Thomas (H/T to @Anti Federalist for the "white George Floyd" thread) should have been prosecuted but were not. I am struggling to think of a successful prosecution of a police officer for doing his or her job. I can think of many examples of police brutality against black and white people that should have been prosecuted. The cop that killed the white guy who was on his knees begging for life comes immediately to mind.

Where does that 2 minute figure come from? Was Chauvin aware of this?

You do know that a common tactic for people being under control by police is to fake being non-responsive so they back off for a second and they try and get away?

How do we know how much pressure he was putting on his neck, which was actually mostly on the back of his shoulder? Was it 80% of his weight or 20% of his weight? It looked to me like he was putting less weight, but it made it look like more weight by bracing against a possible attempt to flee.

Do you think the crowd standing around and threatening the police caused Chauvin to not be as focused on the Floyd and his well being and be more focused on the crowd's threats of pending action?

[jmdrake]

Where does that 2 minute figure come from? Was Chauvin aware of this?

You do know that a common tactic for people being under control by police is to fake being non-responsive so they back off for a second and they try and get away?

How do we know how much pressure he was putting on his neck, which was actually mostly on the back of his shoulder? Was it 80% of his weight or 20% of his weight? It looked to me like he was putting less weight, but it made it look like more weight by bracing against a possible attempt to flee.

Do you think the crowd standing around and threatening the police caused Chauvin to not be as focused on the Floyd and his well being and be more focused on the crowd's threats of pending action?

You must not have actually watched the trial which is typical of you to talk about things that you have no knowledge of. All of this was covered by the prosecutions expert witness who went into great detail of when Floyd was no longer breathing and the paramedic who was on site who testified that Chauvin stopped her from administering CPR. It doesn't matter how much pressure was put on Floyd's neck. Once Floyd was no longer breathing and no longer had a pulse the ONLY proper course of action was to uncuff him, turn him over and start administering CPR. I bet you think the white guy on his knees who was murdered by a cop who was never prosecuted deserved to be shot too right? And Kelly Thomas beat himself to death. Police have TOO MUCH immunity and don't get prosecuted nearly enough. Full stop.

[Anti Globalist]

Clearly he only said that because he needs to get the cops to vote for him.

[sam1952]

First of all I am not a defund the police guy. That said the police are out of control, ( hut hut, because “$#@! you that’s why” militarization tactics) and need complete reform and training from within. Qualified immunity needs reexamined. The statement Trump made is a cop sucker statement.

[devil21]

There are federal statutes that provide for the criminal prosecution of "public officers", which includes police, along with civil lawsuit remedies, for violations of an individual's constitutional rights.

18 USC 241 and 242
42 USC 1983

I don't know specifically what comments by Trump jmdrake is referring to but qualified immunity isn't blanket immunity for all actions while acting as a "public officer". If Trump wants to repeal those federal statutes outright then yes that's definitely a big problem.

It's also worth remembering that police departments in this country are not constitutional offices. They are commercial businesses and police officers are merely corporate agents of the business.

[Occam's Banana]

This is what he meant.

Qualified immunity is a legal principle that protects government officials from lawsuits for damages if they perform discretionary duties and don't violate clearly established constitutional or statutory rights. This doctrine protects state and local officials, including law enforcement and prison officials, from personal liability unless they violate the law.

Am I guessing? No. I just listened to what he said. He said immunity "for doing their job". The part in quotes is a qualifier. Just switch the words around.

First, that does not make any sense.

Police already have so-called "qualified immunity". There is no need to "give" it to them. They presently have it (and have had it for a long time now) by automatic default. It is only denied to them as a result of explicit court rulings in favor of motions filed specifically for the purpose of removing that immunity. (Thus, Trump cannot have been referring to "qualified immunity" - or else his reference to "giv[ing]" it to them was just meaningless rhetorical fluff intended to blow sunshine up the asses of ignorant "back the blue" cop-suckers who don't realize that cops already have such immunity.)

Second, the description of "qualified immunity" as a "doctrine [that] protects [cops] from personal liability unless they violate the law" is simply wrong - and obviously so. If a cop (or anyone else, for that matter) did not violate the law, then there is properly nothing for which to hold him personally liable. A cop (or anyone else, for that matter) is properly subject to liability if and only if he has, in fact, violated the law. The purpose and effect of "qualified immunity" is to void that liability when such violations occur. There is no point or purpose to granting immunity from the consequences of breaking the law to people who have not broken the law.

The article cited by spudea has a better description of "qualified immunity":

https://www.wbko.com/2021/06/17/sen-...police-reform/

From which (bold emphasis added):

Paul says officers’ and deputies’ biggest concern is losing what is called ‘qualified immunity.’ That law protects state and local officials, including police officers, from personal liability unless they are determined to have violated what the court defines as an individual’s “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights.”

The problem here is that the phrase "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" does not mean "clearly established" in reference to the law itself (as it is explicitly written in statutes or the Constitution). Instead, it means "clearly established" in the limited context of previous court rulings and already-existing case law (and with reference to the standard of what some generically hypothetical "reasonable person" would know or be aware of - rather than to a standard of, say, what a "law enforcement" officer ought to know). This creates a "catch-22" in which it's so hard to get around "qualified immunity" because there is little or no "clearly established" case law, and there is little or no "clearly established" case law because it's so hard to get around ""qualified immunity".

Thus, if a cop violates your civil rights, but there is no already-"clearly established" case law concerning the violation of those rights by cops, then you're pretty much just $#@!-out-of-luck when it comes to getting around "qualified immunity" in order to hold the cop liable. This is why it is (relatively) easier to get a cop's qualified immunity removed in cases involving "excessive force" than for many other civil rights violations - before and since the implementation of "qualified immunity" by SCOTUS in the late '60s, there has been plenty of already-"clearly established" case law concerning excessive uses of force by cops.

But for many (most ?) other civil rights violations? Not so much. As an utterly mundane & routine example, consider this case:

Florida Man's Huge "I EAT A**" Sticker | Free Speech?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41xXr3PHspI
{The Civil Rights Lawyer | 30 August 2023}

[blog: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/202...r-free-speech/]

See @ 12:35 and on, especially the following: (bold emphasis added)

@ 14:17: "[...] likewise, qualified immunity was granted on the First Amendment retaliation claim because there was no Supreme Court or 11th Circuit case that was analogous to this one and the facts."

IOW: This cop got away with it because no other cops had previously failed to get away with it.

@ 14:43: "There was a 2019 Supreme Court that could have saved this lawsuit on the grounds that the cops don't normally arrest people for the obscene sticker statute, and they just did so here because they were retaliating against Webb's protected speech. However, the judge in this case held that that case was too recent to the Webb incident, and that therefore that holding wasn't clearly established under the law, so qualified immunity was granted."

IOW: If you are a "law enforcement" officer, then laws and court rulings don't really count until they've been around long enough. (How long is that? Who the hell knows ...?) But if you are not a "law enforcement" officer, then I have a sneaking suspicion that they start counting as soon as they are made, and you or I would be laughed out of court if we tried such a "but I didn't know about it yet!" defense. ("Ignorance of the law is no excuse", after all! Well, not unless you're a "law enforcement" officer, anyway ...)

@ 15:15: " ... the lawsuit was not successful and [...] the police officers were granted qualified immunity. However, that doesn't mean that if they did it again that the results would be the same. Just because qualified immunity was granted does not mean that the First Amendment was not violated. It just means that there was not a prior sufficiently similar case before this one occurred. The [plaintiff was] right that there was a successful First Amendment defense to prosecution, but that's not the same thing as a successful lawsuit, because of the judicial activism that is the doctrine of 'qualified immunity'. But if you're in Florida, and you really want an 'I EAT A-S-S' sticker on your truck, you may get a different result now in 2023, since the right to do so may now be clearly established [...] Maybe. Who knows?"

Qualified immunity should be abolished. Full stop.

Cops (and other government officials) should be no more "immune" from the consequences of their violations of civil (or criminal) law than any other random schmuck (like you or me). In fact, if anything, cops should be held to an even higher standard than the rest of us schmucks. As "law enforcement" officers, it is quite literally their job to know and understand what the law is or isn't at any given time. Otherwise, they have no business trying to enforce it. And when they violate the law (civil or criminal) - whether ignorantly or knowingly - they should be held fully and personally accountable for doing so, just like the rest of us.

[acptulsa]

Cops (and other government officials) should be no more "immune" from the consequences of their violations of civil (or criminal) law than any other random schmuck (like you or me). In fact, if anything, cops should be held to an even higher standard than the rest of us schmucks. As "law enforcement" officers, it is quite literally their job to know and understand what the law is or isn't at any given time. Otherwise, they have no business trying to enforce it. And when they violate the law (civil or criminal) - whether ignorantly or knowingly - they should be held fully and personally accountable for doing so, just like the rest of us.

And "they need to do certain things to do their job blah blah" should cut no ice with anyone. They love passing laws. The thickness of the legal code is already measured in feet. If the legislatures suddenly had to amend everything with stuff like, "... may not exceed the posted speed limit except emergency vehicles with disco lights and siren on..." that might keep them busy enough to stop them from making more trouble for us for some time.

[Intrepid]

Isn't that video from several years ago? When all the libtards were screaming "Defund the police!!" ?

In my opinion it's not really fair to insert that context into today's Israel/Palestine context.

[dannno]

You must not have actually watched the trial which is typical of you to talk about things that you have no knowledge of. All of this was covered by the prosecutions expert witness who went into great detail of when Floyd was no longer breathing and the paramedic who was on site who testified that Chauvin stopped her from administering CPR. It doesn't matter how much pressure was put on Floyd's neck. Once Floyd was no longer breathing and no longer had a pulse the ONLY proper course of action was to uncuff him, turn him over and start administering CPR. I bet you think the white guy on his knees who was murdered by a cop who was never prosecuted deserved to be shot too right? And Kelly Thomas beat himself to death. Police have TOO MUCH immunity and don't get prosecuted nearly enough. Full stop.

Was the "paramedic on-site" part of the mob that was threatening the cops?

[dannno]

First, that does not make any sense.

Police already have so-called "qualified immunity". There is no need to "give" it to them. They presently have it (and have had it for a long time now) by automatic default. It is only denied to them as a result of explicit court rulings in favor of motions filed specifically for the purpose of removing that immunity. (Thus, Trump cannot have been referring to "qualified immunity" - or else his reference to "giv[ing]" it to them was just meaningless rhetorical fluff intended to blow sunshine up the asses of ignorant "back the blue" cop-suckers who don't realize that cops already have such immunity.)

You are correct, his statement doesn't make a whole lot of sense, I'm just saying what he said. He didn't say police should have complete immunity, he said they should have immunity for doing their job, aka "qualified immunity". Perhaps he believes it should be strengthened.

All I know is cops all over the country are terrified of doing their job because they believe by doing so it will result in them being plastered all over the national news as a racist killer, then prosecuted in an unfair criminal trial where the jury believes if they vote not-guilty their house will be burned down by antifa. Therefore, many of them quit, and the rest just stand by as criminals destroy our inner cities, and even some smaller towns if they happen to be upset by something.

Maybe that's why Trump is concerned.

[dannno]

The police officers who murdered Tommy Timpa and Kelly Thomas (H/T to @Anti Federalist for the "white George Floyd" thread) should have been prosecuted but were not. I am struggling to think of a successful prosecution of a police officer for doing his or her job. I can think of many examples of police brutality against black and white people that should have been prosecuted. The cop that killed the white guy who was on his knees begging for life comes immediately to mind.

Prosecuted by the courts, maybe, I would have to look back to see the results of the court cases as I don't recall all of them.

I think they are more concerned about being prosecuted by and plastered all over national media. This has happened many, many times. For example, the case that happened just before the Kenosha riots. Then there was the cops who shot the guy who wrestled them and stole their taser gun. There are at least a half dozen or so incidents where cops were convicted in the court of public opinion, which caused rioting, further endangering the police, where it was clear the police acted both legally and rationally.

I'm not saying whether Trump is right or wrong, I don't know the solution. I'm not a big fan of the cops either, but I do think they should be able to arrest and prosecute violent criminals. Many who have end up wrongly demonized and this has had a huge impact on the ability for police to do their job of arresting violent criminals.This combined with defunding of police has turned the inner cities into complete hell holes and Trump wants to fix that. I understand his frustration, it's not an easy fix.

I do know it would be a lot easier to defend the cops if we didn't have a bunch of laws against victimless crimes, and they were only going after violent criminals. The cases where I am most concerned about police being convicted by the court of public opinion tend to be those where we see violent criminals being "mis-treated" in the heat of a violent confrontation where the cops lives are very much at risk.

If I'm on the jury, and the cop was arresting a violent criminal who was trying to murder them, I'm giving them more leeway - not complete immunity - but definitely more leeway.

[JoshLowry]

1. End war on drugs (its a war against liberty)

2. Start war on child trafficking (it's a war against slavery)

3. Give police immunity

Can't just be skipping to 3.

[jmdrake]

Was the "paramedic on-site" part of the mob that was threatening the cops?

Nope. Nobody even made that claim. Three different paramedics (at least) testified at the trial. One was off duty and the other two were own duty. And there's no actual evidence presented that the crowd ever threatened Chauvin anyway.







Edit: And here's the breathing expert from the Derek Chauvin trial:



From his testimony and the testimony of the paramedics it's clear that Floyd dead for several minutes while Chauvin was still on top of him. How is a dead man "resisting?"

[jmdrake]

1. End war on drugs (its a war against liberty)

2. Start war on child trafficking (it's a war against slavery)

3. Give police immunity

Can't just be skipping to 3.

Why do you need to "give the police immunity" when they already have it?

[acptulsa]

Why do you need to "give the police immunity" when they already have it?

There's only one possible reason -- that you're personally planning on ordering them to do things which are even more illegal (unconstitutional) than what they already do.

Couldn't help but notice that it wasn't Biden saying it...

[jmdrake]

Prosecuted by the courts, maybe, I would have to look back to see the results of the court cases as I don't recall all of them.

I think they are more concerned about being prosecuted by and plastered all over national media. This has happened many, many times. For example, the case that happened just before the Kenosha riots. Then there was the cops who shot the guy who wrestled them and stole their taser gun. There are at least a half dozen or so incidents where cops were convicted in the court of public opinion, which caused rioting, further endangering the police, where it was clear the police acted both legally and rationally.

You know I'm talking about cops who killed white people right? They were not "plastered all over the media" which is why you can't remember whether or not they were prosecuted which was kind of my point. There are many more cases of police brutality that never get covered then the small number of cases that do get covered. Hell, the cousin of one of the founder's of BLM was killed by cops after Trump was out of office and it didn't get a lot of press. There were no riots. There were no mass protests. Why the tepid response? Because BLM was a means to an end as opposed to a real movement. And immunity or no immunity has nothing to do with the court of public opinion! The Kenosha cop was never prosecuted in real court or in the court of public opinion. His "guilt" was transferred over to Kyle Rittenhouse. Nobody knows that cop's name. Everybody knows who Kyle is.

Back to my actual point. Tell me why THIS COP should have immunity.



Tell me why THESE COPS should have immunity.



Tell me why they don't deserve to be "plastered all over the media." Tell me why it's okay for people to not know who they are unlike Dereck Chauvin.

I'm not saying whether Trump is right or wrong, I don't know the solution. I'm not a big fan of the cops either, but I do think they should be able to arrest and prosecute violent criminals.

They are able to do that.

Many who have end up wrongly demonized and this has had a huge impact on the ability for police to do their job of arresting violent criminals.

Name, without looking it up, five cops who have been "wrongly demonized." Just five. How many "demonized cops" are household names. How many more deserve to be demonized and are not? The cop that murdered this white kid on the way home from a church basketball game deserves to be demonized. But I bet you don't know his name.



Violent criminal? Really? The cop wasn't charged.

This combined with defunding of police has turned the inner cities into complete hell holes and Trump wants to fix that. I understand his frustration, it's not an easy fix.

The cops were never actually defunded. That was nothing but a slogan. The cops already have immunity. So...they get even more immunity? Trump is only "frustrated" that BLM cost him votes after he actually did something about criminal justice reform. I understand and share that frustration. But this is BS.

[acptulsa]

Many who have end up wrongly demonized and this has had a huge impact on the ability for police to do their job of arresting violent criminals.This combined with defunding of police has turned the inner cities into complete hell holes and Trump wants to fix that. I understand his frustration, it's not an easy fix.

The cops were never actually defunded. That was nothing but a slogan. The cops already have immunity. So...they get even more immunity?

And of course that's the entire point. Police are being ordered to stand down (unless VIPs are coming from China) for a reason, and this is it -- to get people to demand totalitarianism, to trade liberty for safety.

Step one: BLM, a known agent of the psyop, hollers, "Defund the police!"

Step two: Everything is deliberately allowed to go to hell.

Step three: Even California stoners who think they're no friend of government wind up screeching for storm troopers.

Any fledgling conspiracy theorist can see that, if they're worth their salt. The ones that can't are just useful idiots selling the soap opera (and not even getting Soros money for it).

[Anti Federalist]

There's only one possible reason -- that you're personally planning on ordering them to do things which are even more illegal (unconstitutional) than what they already do.

Couldn't help but notice that it wasn't Biden saying it...

This is a theory I agree with.

[dannno]

This is a theory I agree with.

Mass arresting illegals?

[acptulsa]

Mass arresting illegals?

Do you honestly for one second think that's my theory, or that he's dumb enough to think that's my theory?

Mass arrests of lawbreakers isn't illegal, Einstein.

[Occam's Banana]

[bold emphasis added]

[...]

The problem here is that the phrase "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" does not mean "clearly established" in reference to the law itself (as it is explicitly written in statutes or the Constitution). Instead, it means "clearly established" in the limited context of previous court rulings and already-existing case law (and with reference to the standard of what some generically hypothetical "reasonable person" would know or be aware of - rather than to a standard of, say, what a "law enforcement" officer ought to know). This creates a "catch-22" in which it's so hard to get around "qualified immunity" because there is little or no "clearly established" case law, and there is little or no "clearly established" case law because it's so hard to get around ""qualified immunity".

Thus, if a cop violates your civil rights, but there is no already-"clearly established" case law concerning the violation of those rights by cops, then you're pretty much just $#@!-out-of-luck when it comes to getting around "qualified immunity" in order to hold the cop liable. This is why it is (relatively) easier to get a cop's qualified immunity removed in cases involving "excessive force" than for many other civil rights violations - before and since the implementation of "qualified immunity" by SCOTUS in the late '60s, there has been plenty of already-"clearly established" case law concerning excessive uses of force by cops.

But for many (most ?) other civil rights violations? Not so much. As an utterly mundane & routine example, consider this case:

[...]

More "qualified immunity" shenanigans (and in this case, there already is "clearly established" case law, and it still didn't matter to these clowns in gowns):

SWAT Raid on 'WRONG HOUSE!' Dragging Through the Courts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK9og5O8S1Q
{Steve Lehto | 05 May 2024}

And very well could end up in the Supreme Court.

@ 1:14: "... the 5thc Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a SWAT commander couldn't have known that he had to make sure he had the correct house before ordering a raid on a house."

@ 3:55: "... the lieutenant [...] admits that his raid violated the 4th Amendment rights of [the family, yet] a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit still held that he's immune from accountability."

@ 7:03: "The panel's decision departs from previous 5th Circuit precedent and four other circuit courts that have ruled that [Maryland v.] Garrison, a Supreme Court case, is the law of the land and should be followed."

And yet ...

Trump demands [more ?] immunity for police

THREAD: "wrong house" police raids

[Anti Federalist]

Mass arresting illegals?

Illegals have broken the law, so I have no issue with arresting and deporting them.

[TheCount]

Illegals have broken the law, so I have no issue with arresting and deporting them.

Which is why they're the perfect tool to get a fair percentage of "conservatives" in this country to support an expansion of government power