Calls mount to drop charges against woman who shot leo during raid

[Dennis in MA]

This is just another "they did it because they could and their command chain condones it" situation.

Remove unions and qualified immunity from police. This would sort itself out pretty quickly.

"Help! My gramma's gettin beat! Send someone. Now!"

"Sorry ma'am, all of our officers are in court today. I could send Rusty, the police dog."

While I agree with you, the unintended consequence is that every dirtbag in the world will sue the police. The cost born of that goes on your shoulders and mine, ultimately. (You don't think police officers would work at a department that wouldn't back them 100% on this, do you????)

Even if you removed it only in very narrow cases, it could turn into a s-show. It's like when a guy gets the death sentence. There is an automatic appeal. (Think on that for a second. LOL). This would be the same way. Someone dies during a police interaction, automatic charge of manslaughter/murder. How does anything get done????

Worst - THE WORST - is that the true beneficiaries of this will be the lawyers. It's ALWAYS the lawyers.

And it wouldn't sort itself out. It would just add a level of complexity. That's it. Some good people (like the cop that took down Michael Brown) would be ruined and others would still get away with it.

 

[Dennis in MA]

are you that dumb?? Do you know how often police serve no-knock warrants on the wrong home? Or when the person they are looking for isn't home?

A friend of mine who is a cop is VERY critical of these raids. He calls it boys getting to play soldier.
When you have a really high risk person you watch him and grab him when he comes out of Stop and Shop, or work, or even his home to get into his car. But that takes too long and doesn't involve buying ind playing with Lenco Bearcats and body armor and doesn't give you an excuse to shoot someone's dog.

I'll bite. LOL

Do you????

What %??? How many per year in a given district? How many knock-knock warrants, how many no-knock warrants, how many whoopsies on both counts????

 

[67ray]

Remember when Ragsdale (car dealer) shot a cop in his house? His money was enough to scare off the prosecution, but not enough to get his LTC back.

That isn't a complete characterization of the outcome according to this news item:

Jury awards $1.2M to Shrewsbury officer shot during house call

WORCESTER— A Worcester Superior Court jury returned a $1.26 million verdict against former car dealer Mark P. Ragsdale today in the 2006 shooting of a Shrewsbury police officer who was responding to …

www.telegram.com

.

 

[Kevin_NH]

Remove unions and qualified immunity from police. This would sort itself out pretty quickly.

While I agree with you, the unintended consequence is that every dirtbag in the world will sue the police. The cost born of that goes on your shoulders and mine, ultimately. (You don't think police officers would work at a department that wouldn't back them 100% on this, do you????)

Even if you removed it only in very narrow cases, it could turn into a s-show. It's like when a guy gets the death sentence. There is an automatic appeal. (Think on that for a second. LOL). This would be the same way. Someone dies during a police interaction, automatic charge of manslaughter/murder. How does anything get done????

I don't think we need to do away with qualified immunity entirely, just tweak the definition from "Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. " to strike those loopholes.

Some interesting suggestions based on the common law origins of QU:

many other important features of the Supreme Court's current officer immunity doctrines diverge significantly from the common law around 1871: (1) high-ranking executive officers had absolute immunity at common law, while today they have only qualified immunity; (2) qualified immunity at common law could be overridden by showing an officer's subjective improper purpose, instead of a violation of "clearly established law"; and (3) the plaintiff had the burden to prove improper purpose with clear evidence, while today there is confusion over this burden.

Seems reasonable that if the plaintiff can demonstrate subjective bad faith on the part of a state actor, that should break qualified immunity and expose police and other state actors to civil, criminal penalties. For example, this would have prevented the Ninth Circuit court from granting qualified immunity to a pair of Fresno cops who pocketed $226,380 while executing a search warrant on the basis that the officers "did not have clear notice that (taking money for their own use) violated the Fourth Amendment." (Jessop v. City of Fresno)

 

[Rob Boudrie]

That isn't a complete characterization of the outcome according to this news item:

Jury awards $1.2M to Shrewsbury officer shot during house call

WORCESTER— A Worcester Superior Court jury returned a $1.26 million verdict against former car dealer Mark P. Ragsdale today in the 2006 shooting of a Shrewsbury police officer who was responding to …

www.telegram.com

.

What is incomplete?

His rights were stripped for something he was not even charged with. Civil suits do not establish legal guilt, just fault (and to a lower standard than in a criminal trial).

 

[xtry51]

"Help! My gramma's gettin beat! Send someone. Now!"

"Sorry ma'am, all of our officers are in court today. I could send Rusty, the police dog."

While I agree with you, the unintended consequence is that every dirtbag in the world will sue the police. The cost born of that goes on your shoulders and mine, ultimately. (You don't think police officers would work at a department that wouldn't back them 100% on this, do you????)

Even if you removed it only in very narrow cases, it could turn into a s-show. It's like when a guy gets the death sentence. There is an automatic appeal. (Think on that for a second. LOL). This would be the same way. Someone dies during a police interaction, automatic charge of manslaughter/murder. How does anything get done????

Worst - THE WORST - is that the true beneficiaries of this will be the lawyers. It's ALWAYS the lawyers.

And it wouldn't sort itself out. It would just add a level of complexity. That's it. Some good people (like the cop that took down Michael Brown) would be ruined and others would still get away with it.

Umm no. The police have to pay for their own defense. Not the public.

Also court reform is needed and a separate issue.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Umm no. The police have to pay for their own defense. Not the public.

The public (agency) would be named as a defendant as well. Deep pockets and all.

An attorney might even offer to drop the suit against the officer if he would offer useful testimony establishing departmental negligence.

 

[xtry51]

"Help! My gramma's gettin beat! Send someone. Now!"

"Sorry ma'am, all of our officers are in court today. I could send Rusty, the police dog."

While I agree with you, the unintended consequence is that every dirtbag in the world will sue the police. The cost born of that goes on your shoulders and mine, ultimately. (You don't think police officers would work at a department that wouldn't back them 100% on this, do you????)

Even if you removed it only in very narrow cases, it could turn into a s-show. It's like when a guy gets the death sentence. There is an automatic appeal. (Think on that for a second. LOL). This would be the same way. Someone dies during a police interaction, automatic charge of manslaughter/murder. How does anything get done????

Worst - THE WORST - is that the true beneficiaries of this will be the lawyers. It's ALWAYS the lawyers.

And it wouldn't sort itself out. It would just add a level of complexity. That's it. Some good people (like the cop that took down Michael Brown) would be ruined and others would still get away with it.

Umm no. The police have to pay for their own defense. Not the public.

The public (agency) would be named as a defendant as well. Deep pockets and all.

An attorney might even offer to drop the suit against the officer if he would offer useful testimony establishing departmental negligence.

You can only sue/prosecute people. The gov agency cannot be held accountable for things. That's part of my reform.

People get sued, not places or things. Those people pay for their own defense.

Also if you are accused of something in civil or criminal court and are found innocent, the people who accused and prosecuted you pay for your losses out of their own pockets.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Also if you are accused of something in civil or criminal court and are found innocent, the people who accused and prosecuted you pay for your losses out of their own pockets.

There is no concept of guilt or innocence in civil court - just "findings" for or against.

 

[xtry51]

There is no concept of guilt or innocence in civil court - just "findings" for or against.

No finding against, you pay for the lost money of the defendent.

If you do not force the prosecution or accuser to have skin in the game, the game.turns into what we have today. Over litigious society that thinks gov can dole out responsibility instead of taking responsibility yourself.

 

[EC1]

qualified immunity defense, seems very much like "I was only following orders" defense.

 

[CATI]

Remember when Ragsdale (car dealer) shot a cop in his house? His money was enough to scare off the prosecution, but not enough to get his LTC back.

I can’t find that from searching, I would like to read a out it Do you have his full name ?

 

[GenderBender]

Am I the only one who sends out used motor oil for analysis? I do it every 50K to check wear.

Blackstone Laboratories

Learn what's going on in your engine with oil analysis. Our free kits are easy to use and we explain the results in plain English!

www.blackstone-labs.com

Ask @5w30

 

[Kevin_NH]

qualified immunity defense, seems very much like "I was only following orders" defense.

With a soupçon of the George Costanza defense.

 

[GenderBender]

There is a reason you serve warrants at the house. Stopping a car can lead to all kinds of issues. The whole point is to isolate the person where no one else is in the line of fire.

I'm not saying people don't do it wrong. I've done it both ways, with non-violent offenders, a traffic stop will work. Someone looking at serious time, he's behind the wheel of a 5k pound weapon. At best you have to resort to shooting, at worst he breaks containment and puts others at risk. Yes, I've sat outside a house for 17 hours, it sucks, he eventually just walked out, no injuries to anyone.

 

[AHM]

WTF is the story on that one -
was the LEO having a flashback of
some problem on Gamma Canaris N?

 

[weekendracer]

View attachment 449418View attachment 449415View attachment 449417

What's going on top left? I know top right and bottom were both guns and rather unorthodox methods of dealing with them. Don't think I've ever seen the top left one.

 

[GenderBender]

What's going on top left? I know top right and bottom were both guns and rather unorthodox methods of dealing with them. Don't think I've ever seen the top left one.

Top one is just a mea-culpa-didn’t-see-you-lady

Bottom one is “hold my beer fellas”

 

[weekendracer]

qualified immunity defense, seems very much like "I was only following orders" defense.

It should be 'I was doing things according to established norms, within policy and within law'.

Cops are allowed to make mistakes, to assume otherwise would infer some type of superhuman ability to never make a mistake. It's the actions that lead up to the mistake that matter. The most blatant cases are when someone gets shot, but it's either a fake gun or no gun at all but something that could be 'seen' as a weapon. I remember a case a while back where the guy had an air gun or something similar at night, he pointed it at a cop and got shot. In hindsight, it's a different situation than what the cop encountered at the time it was pointed at him.

Look at the story someone posted about cops stealing money, what twisted logic got QI involved in that one makes my head hurt.

 

[weekendracer]

Top one is just a mea-culpa-didn’t-see-you-lady

Bottom one is “hold my beer fellas”

That requires a Buford T. Justice 'ooomph' for the top one then. Don't know the complete situation though, was there something going on to the right that had his attention while turning left? Not excusing it outright, but don't know the whole deal.

 

[dcmdon]

I'll bite. LOL

Do you????

What %??? How many per year in a given district? How many knock-knock warrants, how many no-knock warrants, how many whoopsies on both counts????

Often enough that a 3 second google search and 60 seconds adding them up got me two dozen separate cases in the last few years. There is no acceptable number. It should be zero.

From a Newsmax article:

In 2003, then-NYPD Commissioner Ray Kelly estimated that 10 percent of the more than 450 no-knock raids his officers carried out every month went to the wrong address. "That estimate came after a wrong-door raid resulted in the homeowner's death: when police broke into the home of 57-year-old Alberta Spruill and threw in a flash-bang grenade, the shock gave her a fatal heart attack,"

 

[AHM]

Top one is just a mea-culpa-didn’t-see-you-lady

Spoiler: I don't want to see any criticism of that

 

[sstom]

If they really wanted to document the truth, they would have at least one officer recording the "announcement". But they don't. Because they don't actually announce themselves. And if they do. They don't wait long enough for someone to let them in.

Be vewy vewy quiet. They're hunting dwug dealers

 

[McReef]

What is incomplete?

His rights were stripped for something he was not even charged with. Civil suits do not establish legal guilt, just fault (and to a lower standard than in a criminal trial).

What the hell? Is there a ventriloquist in the house?