An example of not having your constitutional rights violated

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
Or, Qualified immunity strikes again

Not sure how many of you remember or heard about the Robbie Tolan shooting, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon dismissed the driver’s lawsuit against both the cop that fired his gun and the cop who entered the wrong license plate number, citing qualified immunity.

According to Harmon, the officer acted “reasonably,” and moreover, wrongly accusing an unarmed man of stealing a car, pointing a gun at him, then shooting him in the liver, “did not violate [his] constitutional rights.”

Both cops are back on the force. The guy with the bullet in his liver? Tough luck. He’ll be paying his own medical bills.

I gotta go back to a question I posed to the forum last year.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?33367-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop
 
SmarterThanYou said:
Or, Qualified immunity strikes again Not sure how many of you remember or heard about the Robbie Tolan shooting, U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon dismissed the driver’s lawsuit against both the cop that fired his gun and the cop who entered the wrong license plate number, citing qualified immunity. According to Harmon, the officer acted “reasonably,” and moreover, wrongly accusing an unarmed man of stealing a car, pointing a gun at him, then shooting him in the liver, “did not violate [his] constitutional rights.” Both cops are back on the force. The guy with the bullet in his liver? Tough luck. He’ll be paying his own medical bills. I gotta go back to a question I posed to the forum last year. http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?33367-when-should-you-shoot-a-cop
Click to expand...

This is terrible.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
because he sat himself up after being pushed down to the ground to tell the cop to back off his mother. apparently unarmed men sitting on the ground talking forcefully made the tax feeder afraid for his life.
Click to expand...

my understanding of 1983 actions and QI...is that the above definitely does not qualify.

disgusting.
 
none said:
my understanding of 1983 actions and QI...is that the above definitely does not qualify.

disgusting.
Click to expand...

but OUR understanding of those doesn't count, unfortunately. See, in my experience the judge assigns different levels of 'reasonableness' to people. Cops have a much lower bar for reasonableness than non cops do.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
but OUR understanding of those doesn't count, unfortunately. See, in my experience the judge assigns different levels of 'reasonableness' to people. Cops have a much lower bar for reasonableness than non cops do.
Click to expand...

i think it has more to do with deferential attitude toward police in general, in that, QI is often poorly judged and many police get away with crimes that ordinary citizens would be imprisoned for.
 
none said:
i think it has more to do with deferential attitude toward police in general, in that, QI is often poorly judged and many police get away with crimes that ordinary citizens would be imprisoned for.
Click to expand...
due to that 'higher standard' we talked about before?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
due to that 'higher standard' we talked about before?
Click to expand...

i'm not aware that QI has anything to do with higher standard than an ordinary person. there are specific guidelines for it. i read a case on it once, and i don't recall anything about a different standard, rather, what capacity were they acting in, standards among other police officers and were their actions immune. i don't believe their actions are immune here based on the facts you gave. is their a specific case link? here is some more information:

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/02/opinion-analysis-court-gives-police-officers-qualified-immunity/

In the resulting Section 1983 action brought by Ms. Millender and other family members, the en banc Ninth Circuit denied qualified immunity to the officers, finding that under Malley v. Briggs (1986), a reasonably well-trained officer would have known that the affidavit and warrant failed to establish probable cause. But in yesterday’s ruling the Court reversed, holding that the officers are entitled to immunity under Malley.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top