Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009

[Billybob]

Unfortunately you've confused sovereign immunity for qualified immunity. Try this link instead!

http://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/immunity.html

Not sure what I've confused, the point made at the link I posted is that immunity was not in the Constitution to begin with and has been expanded to cover more actors since it's inception.

I would add though that in my opinion if any Gov. agents deserve any type of immunity it would be LEO's, by the nature of what they do they have to make split second decisions which could be life or death. Judges, prosecutors, and other state actors do not.

 

[Glocktogo]

Not sure what I've confused, the point made at the link I posted is that immunity was not in the Constitution to begin with and has been expanded to cover more actors since it's inception.

I would add though that in my opinion if any Gov. agents deserve any type of immunity it would be LEO's, by the nature of what they do they have to make split second decisions which could be life or death. Judges, prosecutors, and other state actors do not.

You posted a link to a partisan article about sovereign immunity when we were discussing the qualified immunity afforded LEO's in performance of their duties. I posted a non-partisan link that distinguishes the difference between multiple types of immunity. That immunities aren't codified in the COTUS is irrelevant. They exist and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Keep in mind that if you removed QI from LEO's, you'd quickly expend all the LEO's willing to put their butts on the line for us and wind up with officers too afraid of litigation to set foot out of their patrol cars.

I'll also add that your link includes this piece of tripe: http://www.justicelives.com/GRANT OF IMMUNITY.htm which is meaningless, carries no weight of law whatsoever and is one of the goofiest things I've ever read. That is unless your link is actually to a parody site akin to a legalese version of The Onion.

 

[Billybob]

You posted a link to a partisan article about sovereign immunity when we were discussing the qualified immunity afforded LEO's in performance of their duties. I posted a non-partisan link that distinguishes the difference between multiple types of immunity. That immunities aren't codified in the COTUS is irrelevant. They exist and that isn't going to change anytime soon. Keep in mind that if you removed QI from LEO's, you'd quickly expend all the LEO's willing to put their butts on the line for us and wind up with officers too afraid of litigation to set foot out of their patrol cars.

I'll also add that your link includes this piece of tripe: http://www.justicelives.com/GRANT OF IMMUNITY.htm which is meaningless, carries no weight of law whatsoever and is one of the goofiest things I've ever read. That is unless your link is actually to a parody site akin to a legalese version of The Onion.

I concede to your points about the link posted and differences in types of immunity.
But the fact remains that the idea of sovereign immunity originates from the maxim that "the king can do no wrong" and the extension of that making British officials in the colonies immune was one of the causes of the revolution, that was my point about code enforcement officers getting immunity.

Here are a couple of articles that might better reflect some of the issues of immunity.

Against Sovereign Immunity

http://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1685&context=faculty_scholarship

RESOLVING THE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY DILEMMA: CONSTITUTIONAL TORT
CLAIMS FOR NOMINAL DAMAGES

[Scholars have criticized the Court’s qualified immunity decision in
Pearson v. Callahan on the ground that it may lead to stagnation in the judicial
elaboration of constitutional norms. Under current law, officers sued in their
personal capacity for constitutional torts enjoy qualified immunity from liability
unless the plaintiff can persuade the court that the conduct in question violated
clearly established law. Pearson permits the lower courts to dismiss on the basis
of legal uncertainty; it no longer requires the courts to address the merits of the
constitutional question.]

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...cgi?article=1012&context=facultyworkingpapers

 

[Glocktogo]

What Pearson V. Callahan did was make the previous 2 step process in Saucier v. Katz advisory rather than mandatory. It streamlined the process, which the plaintiff lawyers don't like because it puts them on the short track to dismissal in obvious tort overreaches. In the specific case we're discussing, it will work against Mr. Draco Toter, as it should.

 

[jcizzle]

Funny thing is. Some of the folks on this thread think that this guy carrying the ak pistol is as ridiculous as some people I know think I am for carrying my XD. I don't need that they say. I just want to carry it for attention and to stir them up bc I know it makes them uncomfortable to be around my gun.

If the law allows him to do it, who gives a crap if you think it's necessary or not. If you think it's for attention or not doesn't matter. The comments about his being a jackass would cause them to amend the law are the best. Basically saying he shouldn't exercise his right bc someone might notice and revoke that right. If he's not gonna use it what would it matter if the law was amended or not?


I also had no problem with the way the cops handled it. Sure they didn't know that portion of the law. Big deal. They checked it out and sent him on his way. Next guy carrying an ak pistol won't get stopped so easily. If he's fine with wasting some time when stopped carrying the ak pistol, and it's within the law where he lives. Let him carry the damn thing.

It's not cop baiting either. Or, maybe it is but who cares. If he's doing something legal and baits the cops and catches the interaction recorded, is that really much different than an unmarked police car sitting behind a bridge burm right at a speed limit reduction and stopping speeders while recording their interactions with mics and dash cams. Not much different other than when the cop records you for your mistake, you're fined and when you record the cop for their mistake they say oops sorry about that and you are referred to as an asshat.

 

[Werewolf]

...It's not cop baiting either. Or, maybe it is but who cares. If he's doing something legal and baits the cops and catches the interaction recorded, is that really much different than an unmarked police car sitting behind a bridge burm right at a speed limit reduction and stopping speeders while recording their interactions with mics and dash cams. Not much different other than when the cop records you for your mistake, you're fined and when you record the cop for their mistake they say oops sorry about that and you are referred to as an asshat.

QFT...

And that's the way it is. Goodnight Virginia, where ever you are.

 

[Glocktogo]

Funny thing is. Some of the folks on this thread think that this guy carrying the ak pistol is as ridiculous as some people I know think I am for carrying my XD. I don't need that they say. I just want to carry it for attention and to stir them up bc I know it makes them uncomfortable to be around my gun.

If the law allows him to do it, who gives a crap if you think it's necessary or not. If you think it's for attention or not doesn't matter. The comments about his being a jackass would cause them to amend the law are the best. Basically saying he shouldn't exercise his right bc someone might notice and revoke that right. If he's not gonna use it what would it matter if the law was amended or not?


I also had no problem with the way the cops handled it. Sure they didn't know that portion of the law. Big deal. They checked it out and sent him on his way. Next guy carrying an ak pistol won't get stopped so easily. If he's fine with wasting some time when stopped carrying the ak pistol, and it's within the law where he lives. Let him carry the damn thing.

It's not cop baiting either. Or, maybe it is but who cares. If he's doing something legal and baits the cops and catches the interaction recorded, is that really much different than an unmarked police car sitting behind a bridge burm right at a speed limit reduction and stopping speeders while recording their interactions with mics and dash cams. Not much different other than when the cop records you for your mistake, you're fined and when you record the cop for their mistake they say oops sorry about that and you are referred to as an asshat.

Again, it's not that he was carrying a Draco, it's everything else he did along with it. A single factor alone is not worth mentioning. A cluster of factors is a clue to his intent. Again, it wasn't the act, it was the intent most of us take issue with. Had he not intentionally gone out of his way to creat an aura of suspicion for the purpose of creating a big stir, the LEO's would've come to the exact same conclusion they did anyway. What wouldn't have occured is Mr. Draco Toter becoming a bigshot on a quest to become famous in his own way. IF Tennessee revokes that right, they will have done so because of his actions outside of carrying it and they will have SCOTUS precedent to back them up. All the other actions will be the focus and the gun will simply be the excuse.

Oh, and he's not a jackass. He's a *********. There is a difference!

 

[doctorjj]

Again, it's not that he was carrying a Draco, it's everything else he did along with it. A single factor alone is not worth mentioning. A cluster of factors is a clue to his intent. Again, it wasn't the act, it was the intent most of us take issue with. Had he not intentionally gone out of his way to creat an aura of suspicion for the purpose of creating a big stir, the LEO's would've come to the exact same conclusion they did anyway. What wouldn't have occured is Mr. Draco Toter becoming a bigshot on a quest to become famous in his own way. IF Tennessee revokes that right, they will have done so because of his actions outside of carrying it and they will have SCOTUS precedent to back them up. All the other actions will be the focus and the gun will simply be the excuse.

Oh, and he's not a jackass. He's a *********. There is a difference!

I think you could easily make the case that if law enforcement officers actually knew the law properly, there never would have been any issue or detainment of any kind and this clown would have missed out on his 15 seconds of fame because they simply would have let him pass on by (as they should have).

Not to keep hammering on the QI issue, but I firmly believe that those who enforce the law should know the law. As we already hashed out, QI comes into play for something that isn't spelled out in the law or a grey area that hasn't been determined by the courts. Ignorance of the law by a LEO is not the same as QI and should not be tolerated. What other profession would this be acceptable? Medicine? "Well, I know I'm a doctor, but I just don't know much about this stuff your honor."

 

[Glocktogo]

I think you could easily make the case that if law enforcement officers actually knew the law properly, there never would have been any issue or detainment of any kind and this clown would have missed out on his 15 seconds of fame because they simply would have let him pass on by (as they should have).

Not to keep hammering on the QI issue, but I firmly believe that those who enforce the law should know the law. As we already hashed out, QI comes into play for something that isn't spelled out in the law or a grey area that hasn't been determined by the courts. Ignorance of the law by a LEO is not the same as QI and should not be tolerated. What other profession would this be acceptable? Medicine? "Well, I know I'm a doctor, but I just don't know much about this stuff your honor."

So you know everything contained in the 3,000+ pages of the Physicians' Desk Reference by heart? You know every drug interaction and contraindication? You never have to do any research when someone comes in with something you've never seen before? How about all the applicable regulations governed by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority? The Oklahoma Board of Medical Licensure and Supervision?

Which is more prevalent, harm caused by misapplication of criminal law or medical misadventure?

I very highly doubt that every officer in Oklahoma knows all 610 pages of O.S. 21, all 981 pages of O.S. 47 and every applicable case precedent. We're not machines. What you deserve from law enforcement is a good faith effort to enforce the applicable laws in a fair and equitable manner, based on the standards set forth by CLEET and the State of Oklahoma. When those good faith efforts don't pan out, you determine whether it was a single point failure (which you address) a systemic issue (which you also address) and apply corrective measures. The agency is still responsible, and to the extent allowed by law, redress is available to the injured party.

I fail to see how as a professional, you fail to recognize this system as viable and agreed upon by the standards of the community and the state? The same applies to the other 49 states.

 

[doctorjj]

I don't know everything but I still have to make split second decisions all the time regarding EVERY aspect of medicine yet I am not given any special legal treatment or immunity if I screw up. In fact, physicians are frequently the targets of frivolous lawsuits. I never said the system isn't viable. I'm just saying that its broad brush application could be quite dangerous. That's all.