Ninth Circuit Lets Trump Supporters Hurt in San Jose Riot Sue Police

[RugersGR8]

WOW!!! What has the Ninth Circuit Court been smokin' lately???? First the open carry thing and now this?

https://www.breitbart.com/californi...-supporters-hurt-in-san-jose-riot-sue-police/
Ninth Circuit Lets Trump Supporters Hurt in San Jose Riot Sue Police
by Joel B. Pollak 27 Jul 2018

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Friday that a lawsuit by supporters of Donald Trump against San Jose police officers who allegedly failed to protect them from an anti-Trump riot in June 2016 could proceed, defeating the city’s appeal."

 

[MacFromOK]

WOW!!! What has the Ninth Circuit Court been smokin' lately???? First the open carry thing and now this?

No kiddin' ... makes ya wonder if there's an ulterior motive somewhere.

Or maybe they just stopped smokin' ...

 

[ignerntbend]

Of course they can sue the PoPo. Who caint? Doesn't mean they can win. Doesn't mean they can't win. Federal Court Does Its Job. Routine piece of business.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

What a bunch of snowflakes.

 

[ignerntbend]

LOL

 

[Dave70968]

This is actually a really big deal. The introductory paragraph:

The three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s decision that the officers were not entitled to qualified immunity from suit because they “violated clearly established rights” — assuming, for the moment, that the plaintiff’s factual claims against them were true.​

The "qualified immunity" bit means that the suit is against the officers personally, not their department. Based on the article, I'd say the officers had filed a motion to dismiss, which is considered in with the claims viewed in the light most favorable to the non-movant. It looks like the plaintiffs are saying the police deliberately directed them into a violent mob, which--if true--is certainly inappropriate (and, according to the article, a violation of departmental policy).

This isn't a hearing on the merits, but just the fact that a suit against the officers personally is being allowed to proceed is a big deal.

 

[dennishoddy]

just the fact that a suit against the officers personally is being allowed to proceed is a big deal.

That is a good deal? I can see a lot of negatives as well in other issues when LEO interacts with those they are pledged to serve and protect.

 

[Dave70968]

That is a good deal? I can see a lot of negatives as well in other issues when LEO interacts with those they are pledged to serve and protect.

Yes, allowing officers to be sued personally for deliberate malfeasance is a good thing. It's called "accountability."

But that's not what I said. I said a "big deal," as in "significant," not a "good deal," as in a value judgment.

 

[dennishoddy]

Yes, allowing officers to be sued personally for deliberate malfeasance is a good thing. It's called "accountability."

But that's not what I said. I said a "big deal," as in "significant," not a "good deal," as in a value judgment.

Thanks for clarifying that. Nice spin.

 

[Dave70968]

Thanks for clarifying that. Nice spin.

...what spin? Are you saying that piercing qualified immunity isn't significant? Do you even understand what "qualified immunity" is?

(For the record--and as I clearly stated--I do think it's a good thing to hold officers personally accountable for deliberate malfeasance. But I don't see the spin there, either.)