Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
This is why we don't defund police
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="rjs330" data-source="post: 75793803" data-attributes="member: 377008"><p>The law was not the issue in that case. It was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. The officers executed the warrant and siesed the property legally. The fact that they kept some if it was not a violation of fourth amendment. </p><p></p><p>That's what the court ruled on. The officers could still be prosecuted for theft. And the court could order restitution. </p><p></p><p>You may disagree with the case, but it doesn't mean qualified immunity is a bad thing. It's a good thing. </p><p></p><p>No cops are not indemnified personally. Once they lose qualified immunity their entire financial life is at stake. They could personally lose everything. Sometimes that's okay. But in most cases the cops were acting according to established laws and procedures which gives them the cover. It would be totally wrong to remove their immunity in those cases. It's just patently stupid. </p><p></p><p>And your standard you want IS in place right now. If a cop acts in knowing violation of a person's rights they could lose their immunity. Cops don't get to go out and do whatever they want. No matter what you think. If they have been found to have violated someone's right and they knew it, then they lose their immunity.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="rjs330, post: 75793803, member: 377008"] The law was not the issue in that case. It was the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment. The officers executed the warrant and siesed the property legally. The fact that they kept some if it was not a violation of fourth amendment. That's what the court ruled on. The officers could still be prosecuted for theft. And the court could order restitution. You may disagree with the case, but it doesn't mean qualified immunity is a bad thing. It's a good thing. No cops are not indemnified personally. Once they lose qualified immunity their entire financial life is at stake. They could personally lose everything. Sometimes that's okay. But in most cases the cops were acting according to established laws and procedures which gives them the cover. It would be totally wrong to remove their immunity in those cases. It's just patently stupid. And your standard you want IS in place right now. If a cop acts in knowing violation of a person's rights they could lose their immunity. Cops don't get to go out and do whatever they want. No matter what you think. If they have been found to have violated someone's right and they knew it, then they lose their immunity. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
News & Current Events (Articles Required)
This is why we don't defund police
Top
Bottom