Official Trump Thread - Winners only

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

They should be forced to wear body cams, of course (plus it'll save their department money in the long run). How exactly do you think they should be held more accountable though without a punishment shift? Ultimately it's a legal issue. The police department fired them almost immediately, it's about the law not holding them accountable. Before their indictments they could have easily gotten another job at a different police station nearby.

If you're going to shoo away qualified immunity as a non-factor then you're going to need to bring in a brand new law or structure like abuse of power crimes or at the very least a license-based qualification to be a police officer that gets revoked the moment they commit a crime. There are alternatives, but qualified immunity is much easier to go after and even judges are starting to get sick of how powerful it is legally speaking. The case law for it is always making it stronger, never weaker so even with new laws it's always going to have to be rereviewed eventually by the supreme court or chopped out completely by congress.

If there's anything I know about congress it's that they usually miss the mark because they're out of touch bureaucrats. I trust them to revoke something harmful WAYYYYY more than I trust them to pass something new that's not harmful.

I just think the cops will be more aware of their actions if a body cam is constantly rolling. I've seen videos of cops telling people to raise their hands, but the people reach into their pants instead. Then, the cops shoot the guy, only to find out later that the guy was reaching for his I.D. What should the penalty be to the cop in a situation like this?

 

[Lasherž]

I just think the cops will be more aware of their actions if a body cam is constantly rolling. I've seen videos of cops telling people to raise their hands, but the people reach into their pants instead. Then, the cops shoot the guy, only to find out later that the guy was reaching for his I.D. What should the penalty be to the cop in a situation like this?

In George Floyd's case there was someone holding up a phone obviously recording derek chauvin, he looked right at the camera like a minute into the murder. They also had bodycams on while it was happening. They help, and many departments actively want them because it protects them too when they do nothing wrong.

In the case of the person reaching into their pocket, how about identifying whether it's a gun or not before shooting? Hell, in the marines they aren't allowed to fire until the bullets are already flying, regardless of whether the enemy is HOLDING a gun. Another way to look at it, open carry states where there's a bunch of white dudes walking down the street with assault rifles you don't see cops shooting them because they're scared. Why is it so scary when they pull a wallet out?

When a cop approaches my window, I'm pretty much always getting my wallet out and those cops really like to say "put your hands up" and "show me your id" at the same time, if they shoot me for reaching for my wallet regardless of whether they tell me not to that's cowardly.

Put simply, my life shouldn't end because they were scared. It's a risky job but these ones out there shooting unarmed people aren't taking any risk, it's the citizens who are having to deal with their mental health that assume all the risk... It's like they think, "I'll shoot them just in case" That's not a good enough reason to kill someone... Not even close.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

In George Floyd's case there was someone holding up a phone obviously recording derek chauvin, he looked right at the camera like a minute into the murder. They also had bodycams on while it was happening. They help, and many departments actively want them because it protects them too when they do nothing wrong.

In the case of the person reaching into their pocket, how about identifying whether it's a gun or not before shooting? Hell, in the marines they aren't allowed to fire until the bullets are already flying, regardless of whether the enemy is HOLDING a gun. Another way to look at it, open carry states where there's a bunch of white dudes walking down the street with assault rifles you don't see cops shooting them because they're scared. Why is it so scary when they pull a wallet out?

When a cop approaches my window, I'm pretty much always getting my wallet out and those cops really like to say "put your hands up" and "show me your id" at the same time, if they shoot me for reaching for my wallet regardless of whether they tell me not to that's cowardly.

Put simply, my life shouldn't end because they were scared. It's a risky job but these ones out there shooting unarmed people aren't taking any risk, it's the citizens who are having to deal with their mental health that assume all the risk... It's like they think, "I'll shoot them just in case" That's not a good enough reason to kill someone... Not even close.

By the time you identify it is a gun, you're already shot. One cop pulling over a car full of people has to be stressful if you are the cop. Especially, if they start reaching for stuff. Why aren't people protesting in Chicago? People get shot and killed there daily, multiple times. 12 year olds running around with guns and selling drugs.

 

[Lasherž]

By the time you identify it is a gun, you're already shot. One cop pulling over a car full of people has to be stressful if you are the cop.

Then call for backup before you approach the car. Also, what did you pull them over for? Do you think they want to turn that speeding ticket into a 2nd degree murder against a police officer? When they get scared and murder people they walk away, when they're murdered by people the people get maximum sentence and the whole police force combs the desert looking for the perpetrator(s). Also, not for nothing.. but it's the 18th most dangerous job in the US and 12 of the top 17 earn less per year average than cops.

The most dangerous jobs in the US include electricians, firefighters and police officers

To determine the 25 most dangerous jobs, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed fatal injury rates for 72 occupations from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Then call for backup before you approach the car. Also, what did you pull them over for? Do you think they want to turn that speeding ticket into a 2nd degree murder against a police officer? When they get scared and murder people they walk away, when they're murdered by people the people get maximum sentence and the whole police force combs the desert looking for the perpetrator(s). Also, not for nothing.. but it's the 18th most dangerous job in the US and 12 of the top 17 earn less per year average than cops.

The most dangerous jobs in the US include electricians, firefighters and police officers

To determine the 25 most dangerous jobs, 24/7 Wall St. reviewed fatal injury rates for 72 occupations from the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries.

www.usatoday.com

I think being a cop is pretty dangerous. And, a majority of the people that you pull over already hate you. It's a thankless job, no doubt. I would much rather be a fireman. Everybody seems to love them.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Not blind at all bro, I just think black lives matter. It's okay if you don't, you should still want qualified immunity revoked regardless. We don't need to agree on anything except for that. Should the police be more immune than soldiers in a warzone? Should police be immune from prosecution so long as they "were scared"?

You never answered my questions before, which is why I'm going to be short with you now.

So if someone argues with you or anyone and the black race is part of the argument, automatically if a person makes a statement and uses skin color in anyway, by default they are a racist or are against black people completely.

I said black criminals are pieces of shit.
I said BLM people are stupid racist.

The Black criminals are taking advantage of a bad situation for their own selfish wants.

Black lives Matter people just want to blame Government, Cops and White people for everything.

Neither one of those two situations help the memory of George Floyd and both of those groups have their own agenda.

On to the 'Qualified Immunity" Doctrine of 1967. It should stay with amendments to the using of excessive and or deadly force. This is an important document because without some kind of protection for law enforcement, everyone and their grandmother would be suing them for every little infraction they get. It is the job of Law Enforcement to protect the citizens of these United States and uphold the law.

Removing this doctrine will have law enforcement in the courtrooms all day long disputing every little interaction with the public and off the streets where they are needed to do their jobs. Maybe that is what some of you want to happen but it will cause way more harm than good. Example: A man breaks into a house, he rapes a woman that is inside. He leaves and cops find him. He punches one of the cops and runs. He is tackled and they break his arm restraining him. Now he sues them for excessive force and these 5 police officers are in a courtroom being sued for the next 4 months.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

In George Floyd's case there was someone holding up a phone obviously recording derek chauvin, he looked right at the camera like a minute into the murder. They also had bodycams on while it was happening. They help, and many departments actively want them because it protects them too when they do nothing wrong.

In the case of the person reaching into their pocket, how about identifying whether it's a gun or not before shooting? Hell, in the marines they aren't allowed to fire until the bullets are already flying, regardless of whether the enemy is HOLDING a gun. Another way to look at it, open carry states where there's a bunch of white dudes walking down the street with assault rifles you don't see cops shooting them because they're scared. Why is it so scary when they pull a wallet out?

When a cop approaches my window, I'm pretty much always getting my wallet out and those cops really like to say "put your hands up" and "show me your id" at the same time, if they shoot me for reaching for my wallet regardless of whether they tell me not to that's cowardly.

Put simply, my life shouldn't end because they were scared. It's a risky job but these ones out there shooting unarmed people aren't taking any risk, it's the citizens who are having to deal with their mental health that assume all the risk... It's like they think, "I'll shoot them just in case" That's not a good enough reason to kill someone... Not even close.

Really? Identify the weapon first? Why would a cop be on guard approaching a car? All that was in this car was some weed.... this is how little a police officers life means to criminals. Watch it, all of it.

 

[Lasherž]

On to the 'Qualified Immunity" Doctrine of 1967. It should stay with amendments to the using of excessive and or deadly force. This is an important document because without some kind of protection for law enforcement, everyone and their grandmother would be suing them for every little infraction they get. It is the job of Law Enforcement to protect the citizens of these United States and uphold the law.

Removing this doctrine will have law enforcement in the courtrooms all day long disputing every little interaction with the public and off the streets where they are needed to do their jobs. Maybe that is what some of you want to happen but it will cause way more harm than good. Example: A man breaks into a house, he rapes a woman that is inside. He leaves and cops find him. He punches one of the cops and runs. He is tackled and they break his arm restraining him. Now he sues them for excessive force and these 5 police officers are in a courtroom being sued for the next 4 months.

Your example is flawed. Even citizens can arrest people who have committed felonies, and obviously police should be able to. You screwed up further when you said he punches one of the cops, which means he forfeits his right to self defense (which he didn't have anyways because of the felony ****), when they tackle him he was escaping an arrest, another valid reason that would allow anyone to arrest him using force. If they break his arm it was within their right of self defense. Try another one because there probably is an edge-case that's ambiguous to everybody. See the thing about Qualified immunity is that it's been modified every single time someone's invoked it. That's how case law works, and this is one of the most heavily burdened laws in the entire country. If it was reset that would be okay too, and effectively that's what the supreme court's job is when a law becomes too muddied by case law. For whatever reason they haven't, and it's fully within congress's right to do it for them.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Your example is flawed. Even citizens can arrest people who have committed felonies, and obviously police should be able to. You screwed up further when you said he punches one of the cops, which means he forfeits his right to self defense (which he didn't have anyways because of the felony ****), when they tackle him he was escaping an arrest, another valid reason that would allow anyone to arrest him using force. If they break his arm it was within their right of self defense. Try another one because there probably is an edge-case that's ambiguous to everybody. See the thing about Qualified immunity is that it's been modified every single time someone's invoked it. That's how case law works, and this is one of the most heavily burdened laws in the entire country. If it was reset that would be okay too, and effectively that's what the supreme court's job is when a law becomes too muddied by case law. For whatever reason they haven't, and it's fully within congress's right to do it for them.

Flawed because you don't agree with my point of view.
The point went WAY over your head.
All of your arguments are ones that would be made in the courtroom... which IS MY POINT. They don't need to be arguing it in the courtroom and the doctrine is there to help keep that from happening. The point is, if it goes away, then they have to waste time arguing about it!!!!!! Jesus Christ.

 

[Lasherž]

Really? Identify the weapon first? Why would a cop be on guard approaching a car? All that was in this car was some weed.... this is how little a police officers life means to criminals. Watch it, all of it.

We all know who you'd rather put at risk, because "innocent people don't interact with the police." How would you feel about marines shooting civilians just in case they had a weapon under their clothes?

I mean once again you claim it's impossible to stay safe but it always is. There's a balance of risk and it should lean on the people who chose the profession and are trained, not these randos on the street who haven't been convicted of anything. You're basically suggesting they should treat every criminal like a vengeful Ernie Hill.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

We all know who you'd rather put at risk, because "innocent people don't interact with the police." How would you feel about marines shooting civilians just in case they had a weapon under their clothes?

I mean once again you claim it's impossible to stay safe but it always is. There's a balance of risk and it should lean on the people who chose the profession and are trained, not these randos on the street who haven't been convicted of anything. You're basically suggesting they should treat every criminal like a vengeful Ernie Hill.

Why the hell are you even arguing!?!?!?!

If a cop pulls you over and begins to investigate then you cooperate. PERIOD. If you have nothing to hide then you will be fine. When you start talking shit to the officer, not listening to commands like "Keep your hands out of your pockets" YOU are escalating the situation.

I will answer you hypothetical and not relevant question. Marines don't police civilians.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Ok everyone, I got the answer!!!

Abolish all law enforcement and let the people police each other. Let's go back to the Wild West where everyone can do what they want.

 

[Lasherž]

A fair reading of the text of Qualified Immunity even including Harlow vs Fitzgerald 1982 doesn't allow for many of the exceptions it's been used for. You can come at it from any angle, based on everything you've said obviously you wouldn't do it from a racial profiling standpoint, but at least from a legal standpoint it's something congress has sat on their ***** over since its inception, allowing the judicial branch to legislate. If they want there to be a law they should make one, if they don't want there to be a law they should abolish it and fill in the crucial gaps to keep everything running. If you propose some other way to make them accountable then by all means say it. Obviously you think they should be immune if it's within an incredibly vague sense of what a reasonable officer would do. How do you then change the system to still hold them accountable?

I don't think 1966 was the wild wild west days.

 

[Bobbytwonames 5,000+ posts]

Your example is flawed. Even citizens can arrest people who have committed felonies, and obviously police should be able to. You screwed up further when you said he punches one of the cops, which means he forfeits his right to self defense (which he didn't have anyways because of the felony ****), when they tackle him he was escaping an arrest, another valid reason that would allow anyone to arrest him using force. If they break his arm it was within their right of self defense. Try another one because there probably is an edge-case that's ambiguous to everybody. See the thing about Qualified immunity is that it's been modified every single time someone's invoked it. That's how case law works, and this is one of the most heavily burdened laws in the entire country. If it was reset that would be okay too, and effectively that's what the supreme court's job is when a law becomes too muddied by case law. For whatever reason they haven't, and it's fully within congress's right to do it for them.

Go try to do a citizen's arrest on that drug dealer around the corner for felony trafficking. Let me know how that works out for you.

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

A fair reading of the text of Qualified Immunity even including Harlow vs Fitzgerald 1982 doesn't allow for many of the exceptions it's been used for. You can come at it from any angle, based on everything you've said obviously you wouldn't do it from a racial profiling standpoint, but at least from a legal standpoint it's something congress has sat on their ***** over since its inception, allowing the judicial branch to legislate. If they want there to be a law they should make one, if they don't want there to be a law they should abolish it and fill in the crucial gaps to keep everything running. If you propose some other way to make them accountable then by all means say it. Obviously you think they should be immune if it's within an incredibly vague sense of what a reasonable officer would do. How do you then change the system to still hold them accountable?

I don't think 1966 was the wild wild west days.

Well first, friend, we have to get ignorant people to STOP BREAKING THE LAW!!!
I will say it again, it is sad that we have to babysit all these criminals.
I am not a government official. They are elected to make these decisions, create these laws for us for the greater good of ALL citizens. When you have people constantly violating the law with no regard for other citizens then there will be tension for everyone. What we don't need is a bunch of ******* coddling these criminals because the interactions with them may get rough. Police should have some immunity as it is necessary to do their job. Use your common sense.

Most crimes are committed by what race? That is not racial profiling, those are statistics.
Inner city crimes are more common. Most inner city residence are what color? This too is not racial profiling, these are statistics.
Describing a suspect and including skin color is not racial profiling, this is called a description of a suspect.

I never once mentioned 1966. The wild west was between the 1860's and 1890's.