Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
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
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What is the state law on producing I.D. on demand from law enforcement
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 4109595" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>That's fine, if the officer is 100% in the right. What if the officer is 100% wrong? Therein lies the rub. The citizen is told "ignorance of the law is no excuse". The LEO is told "you got the law wrong but no worries, you have QI so ignorance of the law IS an acceptable excuse". That is NOT acceptable! <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>LOL, no. There are far too many documented cases where LEO mistakes or bad faith acts are either swept under the rug, or minimized to a point no citizen would be afforded under equal circumstances. Yes there are individual agencies who hold their LEOs to high standards and yes, there are improvements being made across the board. That doesn't mean there isn't room for more improvement and as stated above, ignorance of the law by LEO's should not be an acceptable condition. </p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't quite understand this situation. How did you lose your Qualified Immunity? Why didn't your department or DA's office represent you? If the plaintiff's case was so flimsy, how did it survive all the way to a civil trial? Please elaborate. </p><p></p><p></p><p>You're new here so you haven't learned yet, but you need to cool your jets and control your emotions if you plan on being around for long. No one's gonna miss you if you catch a ban. <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe you should tell your SIL she's getting fat while you're at it. <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>(old thread joke btw) <img src="/images/smilies/smile.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-shortname=":)" /> <a href="https://www.okshooters.com/threads/should-i-tell-my-sister-in-law-shes-getting-fat.116114/" target="_blank">Should I tell my sister in law she's getting fat?</a></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, which is a double-edged sword. It protects officers from wrongful litigation payouts. It also insulates them from rightful litigation payouts. Instead, the taxpayers indemnify the wronged, while the bad actor either goes on to violate people's rights in the same agency, or hops around from agency to agency doing the same. Wash, rinse, repeat. We don't need to eliminate QI, but we do need to implement significant reforms to QI. What that might look like is up for debate, but the status quo continues to erode public faith in the profession.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 4109595, member: 1132"] That's fine, if the officer is 100% in the right. What if the officer is 100% wrong? Therein lies the rub. The citizen is told "ignorance of the law is no excuse". The LEO is told "you got the law wrong but no worries, you have QI so ignorance of the law IS an acceptable excuse". That is NOT acceptable! :( LOL, no. There are far too many documented cases where LEO mistakes or bad faith acts are either swept under the rug, or minimized to a point no citizen would be afforded under equal circumstances. Yes there are individual agencies who hold their LEOs to high standards and yes, there are improvements being made across the board. That doesn't mean there isn't room for more improvement and as stated above, ignorance of the law by LEO's should not be an acceptable condition. I don't quite understand this situation. How did you lose your Qualified Immunity? Why didn't your department or DA's office represent you? If the plaintiff's case was so flimsy, how did it survive all the way to a civil trial? Please elaborate. You're new here so you haven't learned yet, but you need to cool your jets and control your emotions if you plan on being around for long. No one's gonna miss you if you catch a ban. ;) Maybe you should tell your SIL she's getting fat while you're at it. ;) (old thread joke btw) :) [URL="https://www.okshooters.com/threads/should-i-tell-my-sister-in-law-shes-getting-fat.116114/"]Should I tell my sister in law she's getting fat?[/URL] Yes, which is a double-edged sword. It protects officers from wrongful litigation payouts. It also insulates them from rightful litigation payouts. Instead, the taxpayers indemnify the wronged, while the bad actor either goes on to violate people's rights in the same agency, or hops around from agency to agency doing the same. Wash, rinse, repeat. We don't need to eliminate QI, but we do need to implement significant reforms to QI. What that might look like is up for debate, but the status quo continues to erode public faith in the profession. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
What is the state law on producing I.D. on demand from law enforcement
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
