Attached to the red flag law in NM
- Thread starter 7mmSTW
- Start date
Please dont take this as an attack on anyone in law enforcement.
But could this be some type of personal accountability for the actions of officers? I dont know of any industry that has an immunity for particular workers that violate policy, or violate laws.
Im not familiar with LEO policy, or the way they operate internally. And I dont know the context of the bill you posted. But the way Im reading and understanding it, is that they are putting the officers in equal liability and accountability to the actions they perform.
I dont see that as a bad thing. And Im honestly shocked (but not surprised) that they can break laws with immunity in the first place.
But could this be some type of personal accountability for the actions of officers? I dont know of any industry that has an immunity for particular workers that violate policy, or violate laws.
Im not familiar with LEO policy, or the way they operate internally. And I dont know the context of the bill you posted. But the way Im reading and understanding it, is that they are putting the officers in equal liability and accountability to the actions they perform.
I dont see that as a bad thing. And Im honestly shocked (but not surprised) that they can break laws with immunity in the first place.
I wish they would make AGs/Law makers personally liable for Unconstitutional laws..........
Tired of these guys pushing Constitutionality bleeding people fighting for their rights while they use tax money to defend their unjust laws.
Tired of these guys pushing Constitutionality bleeding people fighting for their rights while they use tax money to defend their unjust laws.
I believe the reason for this is last year and this 30 out of 33 Sheriffs in NM petitioned and testified against the "Universal back-ground checks" and this years "red Flag law". They have openly stated that they would not enforce these two unconstitutional laws in their counties.
Maybe you can explain how you could be sued for doing your job? If you are doing your job correctly there should be no fear of any reprisal.
Why should the city/state/community be solely liable for inappropriate actions by an officer?
The concern would be frivolous lawsuits.
With qualified immunity the bar was pretty high to sue, you had to show negligence, intent, criminal activity. Typically those cases are brought by the state. At best the offended gets the second bite of the offending officer in a civil proceeding after he has been convicted.
Now people can just sue because in the eyes of most courts/lawyers no suit is frivolous if it justifies the workings of the bureaucracy.
Lots of cases where even if the officer was 100 percent right the municipality, state, agency just pays out anyway because "Hey, its only tax money"
This may now make the individual officer liable to defend himself.
Not a great proposition when doing good work makes you a target for unscrupulous people.
Hmmmm. I see your point.
But I also see the other side.
Correct, blatant violations of civil rights were never covered. With the current language officers can and likely will be sued for just about every arrest or use of force. Qualified immunity protects officers who are acting in good faith. It's not a get out of jail free card for bad actors.
I may be wrong but I think that over the past few years that there have been some pretty sketchy actions by LE in New Mexico where the Officers walked free and pissed a lot of people off.
Maybe those pissed off people are biting back and using this law to try to hold Officers that do sketchy shit responsible?
Maybe those pissed off people are biting back and using this law to try to hold Officers that do sketchy shit responsible?
Can you stop giving legal advice? You suck at it.
Section 9.86 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Section 9.87 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
You are right in that qualified immunity is for federal law makers so that they can defame people and make unconstitutional laws in the name of doing their job.
Your unqualified statements on the other hand are just troll bait. You throw out an unqualified statement with no real argument or reason other than to bait others into another useless argument wherein you will not back up your bait with any information. Just throw out statements designed to conflate another row. It’s your MO.
lash, I don’t know when I pissed in your wheaties but you’re wrong. Lawmakers have absolute immunity for legislative process and debate. It’s in the constitution. QI is a court doctrine from three decades ago that shields I do visual government agents from liability for unknowingly violating people’s rights, regardless of the reasonableness of their actions or in some cases the reasonableness of knowing better.
Last edited:
I hate BUMS and a lot of the "Homeless"--that said,
How would this law affected the shooting of the "Homeless" BUM N of ABQ a few years ago?
IMO they were somewhat GTG, but I always thought they could have administered a "Hickory Shampoo" as there were enough of them around.
That Bum got shot and I was somewhat OK with that until< They released the Dog
It got excessive then.
How would this law affected the shooting of the "Homeless" BUM N of ABQ a few years ago?
IMO they were somewhat GTG, but I always thought they could have administered a "Hickory Shampoo" as there were enough of them around.
That Bum got shot and I was somewhat OK with that until< They released the Dog
It got excessive then.
So cavity searches on the roadside because the office had reasonable suspicion are now off limits?
I have no specific beef other than I often see you make inflammatory statements without qualifying why you say them. It’s as if you are trying to elicit argumentative responses. It’s not that hard to tell someone that qualified immunity (for our lawmakers) is different than legislated immunity for Leo, which I believe is what was intended.
And I’m not wrong, I simply was stating a simplified perception of how that immunity is used. I understand well what was the intention of the framers of the constitution. Like so many other tenets of that great document that have been bastardized and misused since, it’s all in the actual use as to how things are perceived.
Take a look and read all of it. https://www.inquirer.com/philly/new...fic-stop-joseph-drew-new-jersey-20180407.html
See if you can find the legal term that allows it.
The intention of the framers has no relationship with QI. I’m sorry that you’re a snowflake and short declarative sentences hurt your feelings.
What should be obvious is that it wasn’t allowed. The term you’re hoping for is probable cause, not reasonable suspicion.
Last edited:
Hahahaha!! “...short decorative sentences.” Lolol. Thanks for the laugh. Typical of you to start calling names when a well argued discussion fails your intellect.
????
????
I’m waiting to be informed, but that’s not what you do is it? You bait and wait. I’ve got all night.
Educate me instead of resorting to sophomoric insults. We all are waiting for more decorative statements.
Educate me instead of resorting to sophomoric insults. We all are waiting for more decorative statements.
But you said that a roadside cavity/strip search is unconstitutional.
Reasonable suspicion gives them probable cause.
Maybe I missed it. Could you please show me where it wasn't allowed?
Reasonable suspicion gives them probable cause.
Lol boo hoo.
Gonna have to stop maiming and murdering unarmed people and actively violating the constitution if you want sympathy.
Gonna have to stop maiming and murdering unarmed people and actively violating the constitution if you want sympathy.
You didn't answer the question.
Please quote where "it wasn't allowed".
Please quote where "it wasn't allowed".
Ask any cop if suspicion gives them probable cause. If they deny it they are .... being deceitful.
Still no answer.
"I smell pot" and their off.
You're a joke!!
Tell me how that worked out for the guy getting his nuts groped by a cop on the side of the road for four minutes.
"I smell pot" and their off.
You're a joke!!
Could this be a poison pill someone attached to kill the red flag law?
I bet it got the police unions to change their opinion on the law.
I bet it got the police unions to change their opinion on the law.
Or the 2 women who got back to front fingered on the side of the road
Fuck the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. We would be better off with the druggies and Muzzies. At least we would still have some of our money and freedom.
Usually they get a decent payout.
That officer was fired, convicted of a crime and the state payed $185,000 in settlement.
Look at the video in this news piece....
Police were called by hospital security reporting man with gun threatened them.
Valet is hit by bullet apparently fired by PO.
The DA that covers the area is one of Soros valedictorians. She has declared a number of crimes no longer crimes she will prosecute. She would enjoy a case against the police.
Should the officer be indemnified?
Police were called by hospital security reporting man with gun threatened them.
Valet is hit by bullet apparently fired by PO.
The DA that covers the area is one of Soros valedictorians. She has declared a number of crimes no longer crimes she will prosecute. She would enjoy a case against the police.
Should the officer be indemnified?
Im thinking the DA may go after the cop. She has been itching to get one.
Is the officer criminally liable for the injury to the parking attendant hit down range?
Or is the down range injury not charged against the cop.
The indemnification has nothing to do with the two parties in the video it has to do with a bystander hit by PO down range.
I’m no lawyer but I have slept with one. There’s a legal doctrine called transference of intent. If you shoot in self defense and experience a negative outcome regarding a third party, the law treats that as self defense. Same if you shoot someone with criminal intent—it’s as if you shot the bystander with criminal intent. That was the sweetest where I grew up and I like it. But it does depend on the state.
I kind of look at things through the "reasonableness" clause would the totality of the circumstances make the activity reasonable.
Lots of people buy the fallacy promoted by the anti gun crowd that only the police are so ninja like to be armed.
Im not shitting on the cop. Looks like he is responding to a call. Someone is approaching that he is unsure but doesn't immediately recognize as the subject the call was made on.
That person appears to be giving directions probably trying to say "The bad guy was up there"
The cop realizes at some point the person he speaks with is the subject and the subject also knows he is made.
If there was sound you would hear the "snap" of the cops asshole tightening as he thinks "Oh fuck" and time slows down.
Not a lot of aiming there and his performance is 100 percent in line with the level of training his job likely provides which is to say one qualification a year.
Should he go to jail for shooting the parking attendant with an errant round?
Should we expect people to be 100 percent at a job that has situations that can not exactly be trained for and the suitability of the person can not be judged until they are in the heat of the moment? Add to that the controlling powers refuse to provide funding for better training.
This case was not so "errant" but the same DA is charging this Trooper......
Last edited:
Similar threads
