Trump demands immunity for police

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/johnbryanesq/status/1817649258851676168
to: https://x.com/johnbryanesq/status/1817663956434960493
{The Civil Rights Lawyer @johnbryanesq | 28 July 2024}

The Supreme Court already gave it to them, and they’ve had it since 1967. Also this is authoritarian garbage that you would find in both communist and fascist regimes around the world.

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1817371097366667605

And police have treated us well from 1968 to present, have they not?

Now TAKE AWAY their federal immunity and see how they start respecting our rights again…

As the law currently exists, in order to sue a police officer for violating your constitutional rights, you have to not only prove that they violated the Constitution, but ALSO be able to point to prior case law with facts nearly identical to what they did to you.

Thus it’s already almost impossible to sue cops already. In the rare cases where you can, in my almost 20 years of doing it, I’ve never had an actual police officer have to pay even a single dollar out of their pocket. Total 100% nonissue.

What IS an issue currently: it’s so difficult to sue cops (ie, your government) that they can do things that they ADMIT violated the Constitution, like flashbang a baby in a crib, or steal cash and jewelry during a search, and get immunity for it. There are many more examples.

So what Trump is advocating for is that the government should be able to violate the Constitution, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Ironically, federal officers already enjoy a sort of super immunity that SCOTUS (not Congress) has given them, that makes them entirely unaccountable, except from within. Like if FBI agents try to put you and your supporters in prison, you can’t sue them, even with proof.

I try to respect the fact that I have followers and subscribers on both sides of politics, so I’ll just point out that this is common ground for all of us who want to exercise enforceable constitutional rights. If they’re unenforceable they don’t exist.

[sparebulb]

[SPLIT FROM: Michigan - Harris up 11 points over Trump in latest polling, also behind in AZ WI and NV]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

This poll was taken at the height of the George Floyd protests.

Blacks, by a three point margin, wanted to see more police presence than whites.

81 percent wanted more or the same amount of police presence.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/...gn=syndication

That would gain traction with me and you and a few other freedom folks on the fringe, and it would with white Marxists and Jews, but amongst black voters, as with run of the mill whites, cops are still icons and supported by vast margins.

And I can understand that, if not necessarily supporting it, when you consider that in many urban black communities across the country, more people are shot and killed in a busy weekend then are in my whole state over the course of a year.

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

As I think we all know that he won't deport anybody and won't end birthright citizenship and a whole bunch of other stuff he promises.

I'm just trying to not become Venezuela.

[Snowball]

As I think we all know that he won't deport anybody and won't end birthright citizenship and a whole bunch of other stuff he promises.

I'm just trying to not become Venezuela.

He would deport some, probably in the low hundreds of thousands at most, and only from friendly red states.

What he won't do (we already know this) is force law-breaking governors, sheriffs or mayors to comply with Federal laws, and his own, at least nominal, powers.

He didn't do that when he easily could have. Trump is not a serious leader.

[oyarde]

As I think we all know that he won't deport anybody and won't end birthright citizenship and a whole bunch of other stuff he promises.

I'm just trying to not become Venezuela.

At this point , Im saying Venezuela is coming.

[sparebulb]

This poll was taken at the height of the George Floyd protests.

Blacks, by a three point margin, wanted to see more police presence than whites.

81 percent wanted more or the same amount of police presence.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/...gn=syndication

That would gain traction with me and you and a few other freedom folks on the fringe, and it would with white Marxists and Jews, but amongst black voters, as with run of the mill whites, cops are still icons and supported by vast margins.

And I can understand that, if not necessarily supporting it, when you consider that in many urban black communities across the country, more people are shot and killed in a busy weekend then are in my whole state over the course of a year.

Your thoughts are well regarded.

I keep falling into my own echo chamber without regard to how others roll.

It is probably fact that people in the hood call the police with far greater frequency than I do, therefore, they are dependent on the po-po in either reality or perceived reality.

I will only call the kops if I will be in greater trouble for not calling them.

[Anti Federalist]

Your thoughts are well regarded.

I keep falling into my own echo chamber without regard to how others roll.

It is probably fact that people in the hood call the police with far greater frequency than I do, therefore, they are dependent on the po-po in either reality or perceived reality.

I will only call the kops if I will be in greater trouble for not calling them.

Exactly right...and I have closely researched the law in NH as to when you are required to notify police of certain things.

[Anti Federalist]

At this point , Im saying Venezuela is coming.

I am afraid you are right...

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Exactly right...and I have closely researched the law in NH as to when you are required to notify police of certain things.

Would you be kind enough to share some of the times a person is required to call the police?

I would imagine if you find someone dead on your property. If I stopped at a friends and the door was unlocked/open and my friend was dead, I probably would document my visit and leave.

It seems that the person that calls the police is often the prime suspect.

[Anti Federalist]

Would you be kind enough to share some of the times a person is required to call the police?

I would imagine if you find someone dead on your property. If I stopped at a friends and the door was unlocked/open and my friend was dead, I probably would document my visit and leave.

It seems that the person that calls the police is often the prime suspect.

Without getting into every single permutation you must notify cops of:

Any traffic accident with more than $1000 in damage or that results in injury or death.

This also applies to ATVs, boats in NH waters only, snowmobiles etc.

Any known or suspected child or elderly abuse.

Death that occurs in your home or on your property.

Discovery of human remains on your property.

There is also a reporting requirement for damages to your home, but I cannot recall the dollar amount.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Without getting into every single permutation you must notify cops of:

Any traffic accident with more than $1000 in damage or that results in injury or death.

This also applies to ATVs, boats in NH waters only, snowmobiles etc.

Any known or suspected child or elderly abuse.

Death that occurs in your home or on your property.

Discovery of human remains on your property.

There is also a reporting requirement for damages to your home, but I cannot recall the dollar amount.

Wow so if I bump your car and you and I agree that there is $3,000 damage and I whip out cash so we can settle on the spot, that is not good enough. It needs to be reported. I would guess if I hit your car on your property, or private property, maybe then we could settle. I wonder if one could argue that if you are made whole with cash there is no damage.


Thanks for the response.

[Anti Federalist]

Wow so if I bump your car and you and I agree that there is $3,000 damage and I whip out cash so we can settle on the spot, that is not good enough. It needs to be reported. I would guess if I hit your car on your property, or private property, maybe then we could settle. I wonder if one could argue that if you are made whole with cash there is no damage.


Thanks for the response.

Yup, by law, that must be reported.

Now, IRL, do people do it, especially in a situation you just mentioned?

No.

But that's "the law", and there are similar laws in all 50 states.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Yup, by law, that must be reported.

Now, IRL, do people do it, especially in a situation you just mentioned?

No.

But that's "the law", and there are similar laws in all 50 states.

I think I will just plea ignorance.
If a Supreme Court Justice cannot decipher what a woman is, how can I know what the law is? The law and Government never knows an answer. Look at Congress or the Senate, they need to consult with the law in real time on how to conduct sessions.
I think a fresh dead corpse on my property would mandate a call to the popo.
If I was out back digging with the excavator and hit some bones, I don't know that I would call anyone. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

[jmdrake]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

This poll was taken at the height of the George Floyd protests.

Blacks, by a three point margin, wanted to see more police presence than whites.

81 percent wanted more or the same amount of police presence.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571/...gn=syndication

That would gain traction with me and you and a few other freedom folks on the fringe, and it would with white Marxists and Jews, but amongst black voters, as with run of the mill whites, cops are still icons and supported by vast margins.

And I can understand that, if not necessarily supporting it, when you consider that in many urban black communities across the country, more people are shot and killed in a busy weekend then are in my whole state over the course of a year.

Wanting more police presence != supporting summary execution of a woman wielding a pot of hot water. I know...I know....it might seem counterintuitive. But people would like to think that they could actually call the cops if they believe they hear a prowler outside and be pretty much guaranteed that when the cops leave they're still alive. And yes, I would say the same about the white Austrailian woman who got killed by the African immigrant cop. And...here's the crazy thing. Achieving such a result would cost more per cop. Cops would need to be trained better and paid better and there would need to be more of them. So it's the opposite of "defund the police." Better training means cops knowing when their own partner is out of control. When the one cop said "I'll shoot you in your F-ing face" it would have been nice if his partner had said "Excuse me mai'am. My partner and I need to step outside for a minute" and then once outside he should have told a$$hole cop to wait in the squad car.

[oyarde]

Wow so if I bump your car and you and I agree that there is $3,000 damage and I whip out cash so we can settle on the spot, that is not good enough. It needs to be reported. I would guess if I hit your car on your property, or private property, maybe then we could settle. I wonder if one could argue that if you are made whole with cash there is no damage.


Thanks for the response.

im just not seeing anything on that list that seems that pressing. lol

[jmdrake]

Your thoughts are well regarded.

I keep falling into my own echo chamber without regard to how others roll.

It is probably fact that people in the hood call the police with far greater frequency than I do, therefore, they are dependent on the po-po in either reality or perceived reality.

I will only call the kops if I will be in greater trouble for not calling them.

Yes. Higher crime rates mean higher need to call the cops and greater anxiety if it takes longer for them to respond. When they do show up people expect them to do their job correctly. Sonya Massey believed there was a prowler outside. She most likely didn't have a gun. She didn't expect to get shot in the face. There have been times that I've had to call the cops and didn't have any negative experiences from that. I have had a few from being pull over or "called over" but whatever. Back to Trump, he should if he debates Kamala Harris ask her why she fillibustered Tim Scott's 2020 police reform bill even though the Democrats were offered amendments. And everybody would benefit from demilitarizing the police. If Trump really wanted to shake up things he could run a TV ad with the video of Sonya Massey along with this video:



Caption the video "All people deserve to be treated with respect by police regardless of race. Pass the Tim Scott bill."

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Yes. Higher crime rates mean higher need to call the cops and greater anxiety if it takes longer for them to respond. When they do show up people expect them to do their job correctly. Sonya Massey believed there was a prowler outside. She most likely didn't have a gun. She didn't expect to get shot in the face. There have been times that I've had to call the cops and didn't have any negative experiences from that. I have had a few from being pull over or "called over" but whatever. Back to Trump, he should if he debates Kamala Harris ask her why she fillibustered Tim Scott's 2020 police reform bill even though the Democrats were offered amendments. And everybody would benefit from demilitarizing the police. If Trump really wanted to shake up things he could run a TV ad with the video of Sonya Massey along with this video:



Caption the video "All people deserve to be treated with respect by police regardless of race. Pass the Tim Scott bill."

Extremely poor protocol.
They could have simply had the guy lie spread eagle prone on the ground with orders to not move and kept a weapon pointed at him and had someone search him for weapons.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Yes. Higher crime rates mean higher need to call the cops and greater anxiety if it takes longer for them to respond. When they do show up people expect them to do their job correctly. Sonya Massey believed there was a prowler outside. She most likely didn't have a gun. She didn't expect to get shot in the face. There have been times that I've had to call the cops and didn't have any negative experiences from that. I have had a few from being pull over or "called over" but whatever. Back to Trump, he should if he debates Kamala Harris ask her why she fillibustered Tim Scott's 2020 police reform bill even though the Democrats were offered amendments. And everybody would benefit from demilitarizing the police. If Trump really wanted to shake up things he could run a TV ad with the video of Sonya Massey along with this video:



Caption the video "All people deserve to be treated with respect by police regardless of race. Pass the Tim Scott bill."

But SS doesn't have good protocol to protect Former President from rooftop sniper fire 150 yards away.

[Anti Federalist]

Wanting more police presence != supporting summary execution of a woman wielding a pot of hot water. I know...I know....it might seem counterintuitive. But people would like to think that they could actually call the cops if they believe they hear a prowler outside and be pretty much guaranteed that when the cops leave they're still alive. And yes, I would say the same about the white Austrailian woman who got killed by the African immigrant cop. And...here's the crazy thing. Achieving such a result would cost more per cop. Cops would need to be trained better and paid better and there would need to be more of them. So it's the opposite of "defund the police." Better training means cops knowing when their own partner is out of control. When the one cop said "I'll shoot you in your F-ing face" it would have been nice if his partner had said "Excuse me mai'am. My partner and I need to step outside for a minute" and then once outside he should have told a$$hole cop to wait in the squad car.

I agree.

It comes down to whether cops are truly servants of people or servants of the state.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

I agree.

It comes down to whether cops are truly servants of people or servants of the state.

Ultimately they serve their superiors and those that sign their paycheck.

[Occam's Banana]

Ultimately they serve their superiors and those that sign their paycheck.

Speaking of which ...

The Political Economy of Policing | Tate Fegley
https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-poli...icing-tate-2:e
{Mises Media | 31 July 2024}

Comparative institutional analysis of both policing provided by government bureaucracies and by private enterprises that can engage in economic calculation.

Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on July 31, 2024. Includes audience question and answer period.

[Anti Federalist]

I think I will just plea ignorance.
If a Supreme Court Justice cannot decipher what a woman is, how can I know what the law is? The law and Government never knows an answer. Look at Congress or the Senate, they need to consult with the law in real time on how to conduct sessions.
I think a fresh dead corpse on my property would mandate a call to the popo.
If I was out back digging with the excavator and hit some bones, I don't know that I would call anyone. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

What kind of excavator do you have and how much did it cost?
@GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

What kind of excavator do you have and how much did it cost?
@GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Bobcat E35 I think 2017 bought used around $40k with enclosed cab.

[Anti Federalist]

Bobcat E35 I think 2017 bought used around $40k with enclosed cab.

Nice machine...wish I could afford one.

I've done a lot of work with JD 310A but after operating an excavator you appreciate how very limited a backhoe is.

[sparebulb]

I don't know what I was expecting from Trump on this issue, but I guess this is exactly what I expected.

MAGA

[fisharmor]

I think I will just plea ignorance.
If a Supreme Court Justice cannot decipher what a woman is, how can I know what the law is? The law and Government never knows an answer. Look at Congress or the Senate, they need to consult with the law in real time on how to conduct sessions.
I think a fresh dead corpse on my property would mandate a call to the popo.
If I was out back digging with the excavator and hit some bones, I don't know that I would call anyone. Nothing to gain and everything to lose.

That doesn't work.
Nobody cares that you haven't memorized the tens of thousands of statutes on the books.
Cops don't even pretend to know what they are. The reason we see so many audit videos of cops making $#@! up on the spot and getting shut down by their supervisors and/or sued is because it's not even possible to know what the law is, so they just bluster their way through encounters.
Oh, and the state attorney who is prosecuting your case certainly isn't going to care either - mens rea effectively does not exist in our current legal system.
Nope, you have to sink $10k into lawyering up to have someone with a JD and connections go into a court room and pull everyone behind closed doors and pull a deal with his drinking buddies.

The smartest thing to do if you get caught in their crosshairs is what defense attorneys are practically begging people to do in youtube video after youtube video: Shut the $#@! up.
Say nothing. Make them go through the process, cough up the money for a defense attorney, and have him sort it out. Because he's the only person who can.
Nothing you say or do prior to that is going to help the situation, and is likely to make it worse.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know what I was expecting from Trump on this issue, but I guess this is exactly what I expected.

MAGA

Yeah, it was ridiculous to think he meant absolute immunity in any and all circumstances.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't know what I was expecting from Trump on this issue, but I guess this is exactly what I expected.

MAGA

Yeah, it was ridiculous to think he meant absolute immunity in any and all circumstances.

Then what did he mean?

Given that (1) cops already enjoy "qualified immunity", and (2) any kind of "immunity" is by definition prophylactic against consequences for committing wrongful acts, from what consequences for what wrongful acts does Trump think cops should be further "immunized" (beyond and in addition to the ones for which they already enjoy such "immunity")?

I doubt Trump himself could answer that question - because he didn't actually mean anything at all. [1]

He was just spouting vacuous blather meant to pander to the "back the blue" cop-suckers among his base.

IOW: His "immunity" gibber-jabber is of a piece with his "flag burning" argle-bargle - and the remarks I previously made about the latter also apply to the former:

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

The "chumps" (left or right, progressive or conservative) eat that $#@! up. (If they didn't, politicians wouldn't keep feeding it to them.)

Trump is nothing special in this regard.

And I would add that the part of his base that does know better are apt to just gloss it over and shrug it off, because they know [nothing will come of it].

[1] And on the off-chance that he did really mean something in particular, what was it? What wrongful acts does Trump think cops should be granted further "immunity" for (beyond and in addition to the "immunity" they already enjoy)? His complete lack of any substantive specificity in this regard invites the very kind of open-ended speculation you describe as "ridiculous". It may indeed be "ridiculous" - but it is no more so than Trump's own empty, hand-waving vagueness, which invited it.

[Occam's Banana]

I don't know what I was expecting from Trump on this issue, but I guess this is exactly what I expected.

MAGA

THREAD: Black woman calls 911 for help, gets killed by white cop, and nobody cares...