George Floyd Toxicology Report

[Tanis143]

Anti-gun nuts are talking about suing manufacturers for actions taken by others. Getting rid of qualified immunity is about making people be held responsible for their own actions. Those two positions are about as opposite as you can get.

No, getting rid of qualified immunity is making them responsible for actions they didn't take. They are still responsible for their actions, as evidenced by how many officers we see put on trial and how many police departments are taken to court in civil suits. How the hell can a cop do his/her job if they have the threat of a civil suit against them anytime they pull over some media maligned segment of society?

Cop: "I pulled you over for doing 60 in a residential...."
<insert minority here> : I'm suing you for discrimination!

And you know lawyers will line up for that bread line. It will be a tool to reduce the police force, just like they are trying to use civil suits to reduce the amount of gun manufacturers that do business with the public.

If you want to make changes to it to make it easier to sue when its clear civil rights have been violated, sure, I can support that. But getting rid of it? That will make cops a target for extortion via civil suits.

 

[TedKennedy]

No, getting rid of qualified immunity is making them responsible for actions they didn't take. They are still responsible for their actions, as evidenced by how many officers we see put on trial and how many police departments are taken to court in civil suits. How the hell can a cop do his/her job if they have the threat of a civil suit against them anytime they pull over some media maligned segment of society?

Cop: "I pulled you over for doing 60 in a residential...."
<insert minority here> : I'm suing you for discrimination!

And you know lawyers will line up for that bread line. It will be a tool to reduce the police force, just like they are trying to use civil suits to reduce the amount of gun manufacturers that do business with the public.

If you want to make changes to it to make it easier to sue when its clear civil rights have been violated, sure, I can support that. But getting rid of it? That will make cops a target for extortion via civil suits.

You've changed my mind. Cops do need to be in a protected class, different than the rest of us, same as poor performing ethnic groups need different rules.

 

[Tanis143]

You've changed my mind. Cops do need to be in a protected class, different than the rest of us, same as poor performing ethnic groups need different rules.

 

[Aries]

 

[SoonerP226]

No, getting rid of qualified immunity is making them responsible for actions they didn't take.

Uh huh.

 

[dennishoddy]

Do they ever put former jurists in witness protection? I wouldn't want to be any of them if he's found guilty of anything other than the highest charge. Much less not guilty.

They might need to in this trial if they find him innocent. The media doxxed every one of the jurors to intimidate them so they would convict.

 

[Tanis143]

Uh huh.

Uh huh, clickbait. He never once listed the case he talked about in the first part of the video. All he did was repeat "he was trying to get into his own house..." over and over. Then he said it quite clearly "Lets talk about the facts of the case... no lets not <chuckle chuckle>". Yeah, without the case we, the viewers, don't know WHY the guy was trying to get into his own house. He makes it sound like the guy was just randomly attacked by some cops for no reason. Then he uses that lack of context to bash the SCOTUS and erroneously say QE is shielding some thugs who are cops. BS. Without context we have no clue WHY the guy was being detained, WHY he was trying to get into the house, and IF the police intervention was lawful. So again, clickbait video with no actual facts and you are trying to use that to prove your point? Fail. Try again.

 

[SoonerP226]

Uh huh, clickbait.

Not really, but try this. And Lehto explained why the facts of the case don't matter in the case he's discussing.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/usa-police-immunity/

 

[Tanis143]

Not really, but try this. And Lehto explained why the facts of the case don't matter in the case he's discussing.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/section/usa-police-immunity/

No, he left out the facts so you won't see how idiotic his argument is. Like I said, without the facts of the case you have no idea why the person was being detained, you don't know if he was under arrest and was resisting, you don't know anything about it. Which is what he wanted so he can tell you a story and make it seem believable.

And reuters do an unbiased investigation? We would have a better chance at having Biden reverse his stance on firearms and push to remove the NFA.

And again, you have not stated how cops will deal with the threat of a lawsuit on every interaction. You get pulled over, you would be able to sue the cop in civil court. You might not win, but you'll drain the cops resources in defending himself. How many times will they get sued before they quit? You won't address those questions because you know its relevant and detrimental to your argument for abolishing qualified immunity.

 

[trekrok]

Senior Special Agent defines what magazines are for jurors: 'it's what holds the bullets'.

Also just heard that Chauvin weighs 140lb. Not sure how much it matters, but first I'd heard it mentioned.