Duluth police ignore Rule #4: Be sure of your target and what is beyond it.

allen-1 said:
Shooting through a closed door because he thought he heard gunshots...

www.twincities.com

Video shows Duluth officer shooting man through door

The body camera clips were filed in response to a defense request to dismiss felony firearm charges against Officer Tyler Leibfried.
www.twincities.com www.twincities.com
Click to expand...

Makes you kind of wonder what the keystone cops would do if you were at home minding your own business and playing call of duty on your xbox or playstation loudly and the cops decided to knock on the door?
 
FiremanBob said:
This is why the whole debate about modifying qualified immunity is so difficult.
Click to expand...

But it's not difficult. It's pretty damned simple.

Police department hired a moron. Knowingly hired a moron. Did not train him properly. Knew he wasn't cut out for the job and just crossed their fingers. They put him into a situation that he was ill-prepared to handle.

This ain't kindergarten. These men and women need to be trained. It's lazy administration to blame. The only way to stop this is to sue the municipality into the Stone Age. It gets their attention and they stop the bad selection and bad training. Maybe. . . .MAYBE. . . . it will reduce the strength of the unions and allow police septs to get rid of bad cops on the roles now. (Hey - wishful thinking)

The guy didn't say anything to his partner. He just backed up, called it in, waited a few seconds, THEN STARTED SHOOTING! That guy shouldn't be a cop. And before you say it, if he wasn't, he wouldn't be knocking on doors in the first place, so comparing him to a private citizen is not a true point.

Although that could be pretty funny. Knock-knock "Avon calling. . . (SLAM)." BANGBANGBANGBANGBANG!!!!!!!
 
I was talking about the debate over bills introduced in many states to modify qualified immunity because of situations like this one, or others involving malfeasance by cops that all too often get dismissed or nolled because of QI.
 
I know. But as we've seen in many cases in the last 12 months, you CAN charge an officer with a crime in an incident. And he can lose his job. But ultimately the problem here isn't Officer Obie. It's the system that put him there. Did the guy look even a BIT nervous prior to spray-and-pray??? That's a training issue.

There are folks on this board who think every cop should be liable for every single thing at all times. Write up a ticket that gets tossed - he should be charged. Steps on a cat while rescuing a newborn? Charge him with Pussicide. (lol) What they don't realize is that reduced QI is just going to stuff the court with nonsense cases.

Funny is these same guys are usually for restricting the rights of prisoners to appeal and bring forth suits and such. "They are clogging up the courts!" Shocker. This will do the same. And the same people are gonna die. And the same people are gonna get hurt. This is a barn-door issue.
 
Dennis in MA said:
What they don't realize is that reduced QI is just going to stuff the court with nonsense cases.
Click to expand...

That’s such a bullshit excuse. It’s also ironic. The court get filled with nonsense cases BECAUSE OF POLICE MISCONDUCT as it is. So with that logic, we should strip cops of arrest powers. But you aren’t arguing that.

It’s also a bogus claim not consistent with reality. Private citizens have no authority to file criminal charges (in most cases). And qualified immunity does NOT prevent civil lawsuits.

So your claim false flat on it’s face.

Suggesting we should allow police misconduct because if we don’t the courts will have to do their job is patently absurd.
 
I'm not sure we're on opposing sides. Cops ARE charged. They ARE accused. So why a need for reduced QI??? Maybe I missed something. Seriously. Maybe I missed something.

This cop got filmed shooting into a residence. At the very least he's out of a job. Probably charged with reckless dumbness or something. What that has to do with QI for police officers is ???? to me.

I'm not saying we should "allow" police misconduct. I'm saying that opening up a whole new venue is going to do a pile of harm and very little good. Look at today versus 20 years ago. High % of cops are camera'd. Every walking American has a cell phone. There is no getting away from bad behavior. Versus dawn-of-man until 20 years ago when a cop COULD Miss your Conduct and it'd be his word against yours.

Help me out here.
 
didn't we read here recently a similar incident...guy heard noise through the closed door of a bathroom and fired through the door resulting in a dead girlfriend. people will never learn.
 
SKumar said:
He wouldn’t have done it unless he thought qualified immunity had his back. “Door closing sounded like gunshot”. Yeah ok.
Click to expand...
It's like a Simpsons Treehouse of Horror,
guest starring Barney Fife without Andy there to hold his leash.

Dennis in MA said:
There are folks on this board who think every cop should be liable for every single thing at all times. Write up a ticket that gets tossed - he should be charged. Steps on a cat while rescuing a newborn? Charge him with Pussicide. (lol) What they don't realize is that reduced QI is just going to stuff the court with nonsense cases.
Click to expand...
If it proves to be a problem,
then enact Loser Pays.
Or if courts don't like the workload,
maybe they should get serious about sanctions for barratry.

CATI said:
I wonder how this would have been written up before body cameras
Click to expand...
Uh, throwdown gun and it's a justified shoot?

Dennis in MA said:
I'm not sure we're on opposing sides. Cops ARE charged. They ARE accused. So why a need for reduced QI???
Click to expand...
Because the cases are so often broomed?

Dennis in MA said:
This cop got filmed shooting into a residence. At the very least he's out of a job. Probably charged with reckless dumbness or something. What that has to do with QI for police officers is ???? to me.
Click to expand...
What's the final outcome?

People whinge about resurrected necrothreads,
but apparently you'd be surprised about how many police overreach cases
that seem to end in a firing actually have the outcome
that after a year or two of appeals,
the offender is reinstated (w/ back pay).

Dennis in MA said:
I'm not saying we should "allow" police misconduct. I'm saying that opening up a whole new venue is going to do a pile of harm and very little good.
Click to expand...
The ostensible goal is to stop illegal misconduct.
The proposed method is to apply disincentives.
The same disincentives that already keep everyone else from doing those same things.
You know, "obeying the law".
(Except that the police are paid to know the law,
so they're supposed to know better than to break the law).

The fly in the ointment is the alleged potential for unintended consequences.
 
Once again, we see that soldiers do not make good cops!

Totally diff jobs along with totally diff objectives
.
 
AHM said:
It's like a Simpsons Treehouse of Horror,
guest starring Barney Fife without Andy there to hold his leash.


If it proves to be a problem,
then enact Loser Pays.
Or if courts don't like the workload,
maybe they should get serious about sanctions for barratry.


Uh, throwdown gun and it's a justified shoot?


Because the cases are so often broomed?


What's the final outcome?

People whinge about resurrected necrothreads,
but apparently you'd be surprised about how many police overreach cases
that seem to end in a firing actually have the outcome
that after a year or two of appeals,
the offender is reinstated (w/ back pay).


The ostensible goal is to stop illegal misconduct.
The proposed method is to apply disincentives.
The same disincentives that already keep everyone else from doing those same things.
You know, "obeying the law".
(Except that the police are paid to know the law,
so they're supposed to know better than to break the law).

The fly in the ointment is the alleged potential for unintended consequences.
Click to expand...

I get all that. The guy that choke-hold-ed-ed Floyd George - he's up on murder charges, right???

Guys who steal get arrested for stealzing.

I'm trying to figure out WHAT we are immunifying for and what sort of body administers it. Again, body cams and everyone holding a celly solves about 80% of the current problems. Solution presented itself without need for a potential disaster in the making.

Here's another caution: This is government. Once you open a can of worms, you can't close it again. Ever. I recall being SHOCKED the first time I realized the Dept of Education was created in my lifetime by Jimmah Cahtah. Programs never get retired. Even if they suck. You might be 100% right and I'm 100% wrong. But it behooves both of us to look and be sure that I'm not even 2% right before we race down the "git-da-cahpz" road.

And again - I stated it simply days ago: Who will watch the watchmen?
 
Dennis in MA said:
I'm not sure we're on opposing sides. Cops ARE charged. They ARE accused. So why a need for reduced QI??? Maybe I missed something. Seriously. Maybe I missed something.
Click to expand...

In this case, yes, he's being charged with a couple relatively minor crimes for intentionally shooting someone for no reason. What you may have missed are the thousands of examples of police clearly committing misconduct and getting completely away with it because of qualified immunity. I've posted dozens if not hundreds of those examples. When courts can conclude the police in fact violated someone's rights but they cannot be held accountable for it, because of QI, then yes, it needs to be reduced if not removed entirely. And courts ruling just that is commonplace.


Dennis in MA said:
This cop got filmed shooting into a residence. At the very least he's out of a job. Probably charged with reckless dumbness or something. What that has to do with QI for police officers is ???? to me.
Click to expand...

You say that, and I sure hope he's out of a job, but it's not a certainty. But yes, I don't know what that has to do with QI either. Your brought it up.

Dennis in MA said:
I'm not saying we should "allow" police misconduct. I'm saying that opening up a whole new venue is going to do a pile of harm and very little good. Look at today versus 20 years ago. High % of cops are camera'd. Every walking American has a cell phone. There is no getting away from bad behavior. Versus dawn-of-man until 20 years ago when a cop COULD Miss your Conduct and it'd be his word against yours.

Help me out here.
Click to expand...

I know you aren't saying we should allow misconduct. I'm saying the result of QI is that police misconduct is allowed. I phrased it that way because it's a distinction without a difference.

The claim it will somehow cause more harm than good by eliminating this court made fiction known as qualified immunity is baseless and without merit. For one, what harm? You help me out. You can't just say it will be bad without explaining exactly why! If you mean it will make cops be accountable to higher standards, I don't find that to be any harm whatsoever. Holding cops to the same or similar standards as everyone else is, is how it should be.

What do camera's have to do with the applicability of qualified immunity? I'm sorry, but here is where I'm going to have to be critical of you. Saying cops don't get away with things because of cameras is completely ignorant. Again, I've posted hundreds of examples of cops filmed committing misconduct and getting away with it. Your claim has no basis in reality. It's simply false. This is probably why you think QI is fine, you are operating from a false premise.

Again, you are correct 20 years ago cops could lie and get away with it. And again, that still happens all the time today.
 
Bonesinium said:
I

You say that, and I sure hope he's out of a job, but it's not a certainty. But yes, I don't know what that has to do with QI either. Your brought it up.
Click to expand...
Galldangit! I didn't bring it up. I responded to someone else who brought it up. ROFL!!!!!!!
 
You said it in a response to my post and I didn't say anything about it. But in any case, way to touch on the least relevant part of my post.
 
Dennis in MA said:
Help me out here.
Click to expand...

Read this, it has some good information on what QI is, how it was created, and how it works. It should help you out, as you requested.

www.cato.org

Qualified Immunity: A Legal, Practical, and Moral Failure

Qualified immunity is a judicial doctrine that protects public officials from liability, even when they break the law. The doctrine has no valid legal basis, it regularly denies justice to victims whose rights have been violated, and it severely undermines official accountability, especially for...
www.cato.org www.cato.org
 
This brings to mind some training I participated in as .mil some time ago. We trained to do exactly that - to shoot at what you think might be the target, through concealment and/or barriers. It took most team members multiple exercises to get their brain to *not* wait to recognize the actual target before engaging.
 
Dennis in MA said:
I get all that. The guy that choke-hold-ed-ed Floyd George - he's up on murder charges, right???
Click to expand...
David-Lloyd-George-1943.jpg


Dennis in MA said:
Here's another caution: This is government. Once you open a can of worms, you can't close it again. Ever.
Click to expand...
QI was invented out of whole cloth by the Judicial Branch.
Before they invented it, it didn't exist.

So the can of worms used to be open,
then the courts closed the can of worms by inventing QI.

Bonesinium said:
I've posted dozens if not hundreds of those examples.
Click to expand...
^ QFTMFT. (Because you have).

Bonesinium said:
If you mean it will make cops be accountable to higher standards, I don't find that to be any harm whatsoever. Holding cops to the same or similar standards as everyone else is, is how it should be.
Click to expand...
Changing nothing else, eliminating QI means
holding cops to the same standards that they used to be held to
before the courts invented QI.
 

Similar threads

What is your oldest firearm?
2
Replies
41
Views
386
426wedge
426wedge
What kind of Beretta 1934 is this?
Replies
3
Views
194
67ray
67ray
Know your target
Replies
4
Views
386
alx
alx
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
718
chris_1001
chris_1001
state police nipped this one in the bud: wonder what the legal outcome will be?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Back
Top Bottom