from the "don't-do-the-crime-if-you-can't-do-the-time"-is-that-just-for-citizens? dept.
Virginia House of Delegates Passes Bill to Eliminate Qualified Immunity for Police:
The Virginia House of Delegates passed a bill that would eliminate qualified immunity for police officers in the commonwealth in a narrow vote on Tuesday, setting up Virginia to become the first state in the union in which police officers could be sued for a wide variety of conduct standard to legal law enforcement work.
The bill passed when it was voted upon for the second time, after a provision that would've held police departments accountable for behavior of off-duty police officers was stripped from the legislation.
Chesterfield, Virginia Police Chief Jeffrey Katz criticized the legislation, stating that it would lead to a climate in which Virginia police officers decline to respond to public emergencies, criminal acts and threats to public safety out of fears that they'll face years of costly litigation, potentially from criminals who have demonstrably committed crimes.
[...] "What you're going to have is officers making the decision, that I better wait," he explained in an interview on Wednesday. "When you start to look at legislation of this nature... you have to make that calculated decision whether it's worth it to come to work everyday and subjecting yourself not only the possibility of physical injury, but years and years of litigation."
[...] The legislation will lower the burdens for potential lawsuits against law enforcement officers in Virginia, and will allow them to be filed in any court in the state.
The bill would still need to pass the Virginia Senate. It would then go to the Governor who may, or may not, sign it into law.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:18AM (15 children)
Maybe if you can't respond without committing assault, we don't want you responding.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:37AM (4 children)
Yeah screw some poor woman being beat up by her drunk boyfriend. She can fend for herself.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:51AM (3 children)
Yeah, screw... actually, no, kill her immediatelly if she calls 911 [wikipedia.org], that's the only way to be sure you won't be sued. Oh, wait [abc.net.au]...
Now, I wonder how police manages to still do their job in other countries with similar laws? They must be super-humans, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @12:45PM
No, they're just properly educated.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @01:59PM (1 child)
Point of note: that case was about a black cop convicted for shooting a white citizen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:18PM
She was Australian. That doesn't qualify as white, does it?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:21AM (3 children)
Maybe certain people need more policing. The riots sure do make that plain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:38AM (2 children)
If Trump loses even with the law and order strategy, it wasn't plain enough. It could still go either way.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @01:19PM (1 child)
The Democrats are literally the party of cancelling holidays, closing all non-corporate businesses making you lose your job, pedophilia, dementia, rioting in the streets, and hypocritical prosecution of pot smokers.
All they needed to do was nominate someone normal with some popularity like Sanders, but no. This is what they chose instead. Makes one think.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 13 2020, @04:19PM
Democrats -- the party of war and wall street, with a peace sign lapel pin to remind you who the good guys are.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by driverless on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:00AM (4 children)
Let's see how it works out. Every time there's some change like this whoever the entrenched interest is prophecies fire and brimstone coming down from the skies, rivers and seas boiling, forty years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes, the dead rising from the grave, human sacrifice, and dogs and cats living together. Then after a few years with nothing bad happening it becomes "how could we ever have had it any other way?". So I'm inclined to see how it works out instead of the usual knee-jerk response based mostly on a strong entrenched interest wanting to protect their turf.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:29PM (3 children)
Coddling criminals and punishing the victims was already tried in the US in the 70s and 80s.
It got so absurd that in Democrat controlled cities, if a robber in your house slipped and fell, he could sue YOU for damages!
This left wing idiocy got people so fed up they went hard on crime in the 90s with bipartisan support. Not surprisingly, with more criminals locked up, crime fell. A lot.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:00PM (2 children)
oh no no no it was the falling levels of lead. /s
The stats prove that 1% of the crime committing public are habitual. In that they commit crimes at increasing levels until they are punished. You remove that 1% of the 3% and crime falls. It has been proven over and over. But apparently we get to re-learn the same lesson again. There is a reason the 'vigilante' media such as the death wish movies and punisher comics became popular. Because people wanted to do just that. The #1 item that reduces crime? Jobs. But apparently we get to learn that lesson again too.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by hemocyanin on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:23PM (1 child)
I'm partial to the lead hypothesis but the data is polluted with the "get tough on crime" legislation that occurred concurrently. Looks like we'll get to run the experiment again though, this time with unleaded. Crime in Pacific NW cities is surging recently at the same time that soft prosecution has become the norm. Of course, that recent crime data is polluted perhaps with all the pent up energy the lockdowns have created. A few years down the road though, we should have better insight into this experiment. Hopefully, it was just the lead because otherwise, there will be a lot of death, destruction, and misery rooted in current ideological trends.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @12:33PM
If you look at international data, crime rates always drop after the switch to unleaded gas. The ban dates and the crime rate peaks vary from country to country, but the ban is always followed by a drop in crime.
(Score: 2) by istartedi on Monday September 14 2020, @02:40AM
Come on now. We need to be better than that. This kind of legislation is the thing I've been looking for. I looked in vain to see any signs at the protests saying: REPEAL LEOBRs NOW.
I bet most people in the street don't even know what LEOBRs are, and the history of how they've expanded over the past few decades.
Of course that cop is fill of s***. The cops did their jobs for many decades without powerful public-employee unions (FDR warned us), and they'll do their jobs again if we get them back under the control of civil authority.
The pen makes the pig. Reform the system, and you won't have so many pigs. Not ACAB. Some at least go in with high ideals, and the system changes them. This is a step towards changing that system, and if we can hold fast to the reform impulse, the S in SCAB will get smaller and smaller.
It's going to take time though. Nothing happens over night.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:28AM (72 children)
Qualified immunity is probably the leading cause of deadly interactions between police and black people.
If you turn loose an armed force, and tell that armed force that they are immune from prosecution for any misdeeds they might commit, you can expect atrocities to happen. Qualified immunity IS the "systemic racism" that everyone is bitching about. If nothing else in this nation were to change, in regards to law enforcement, race relations would begin to improve in rather short order.
We WANT cops to be fearful on the job. We WANT cops to reconsider before pulling a weapon. And, we most definitely WANT cops to think twice before pulling the trigger. And, finally, we WANT cops to be thinking really hard before firing that second, third, or twentieth shot.
When cops fire 20, 50, or 100 shots into a car, then the cops clearly intend to insure that only corpses are pulled from that car. When the infamous "gun battle" between Bonnie & Clyde and police took place, the cops didn't intend to take either Bonnie or Clyde to trial. We see the same thing repeatedly, today. When that cop in Kenosha pulled the trigger 7 times, he didn't intend to testify at Blake's trial. That much is obvious.
Let's repeal qualified immunity across the nation, then step back and wait to see what happens.
I guarantee that the number of unarmed suspects killed will plummet in no time at all. The more cops who are successfully prosecuted, the faster those numbers will plummet.
What's that? A lot of people will retire, and/or not even apply to be cops? That's good. Along with others, I have often noted that police work attracts the wrong kind of people. We don't need, we don't WANT the kind of cop who gets off on authoritarian bullshit!
Repeal immunity, step back, and watch. The police will begin to police themselves. No cop is going to want to be involved with a damned trigger happy fool. The liability will be too likely to spill over on anyone who defends the psycho authoritarian asshole.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:54AM (37 children)
When anyone pulls a trigger on a firearm not loaded with plastic or rubber bullets, or in fact when you move your finger from alongside the trigger [kotaku.com] to onto the trigger, I believe general firearm training tells you that you are committing to kill [sic, for clay pigeons or whatever], not disable or maim, whatever your firearm is pointed at.
I think I read somewhere that a single bullet is pretty much not guaranteed to stop someone, and cops pretty much always empty their entire pistol magazine into a single target whenever they discharge their firearm. So the high bullet count during these news reports is just standard practice.
As long as "it looked like a firearm" doesn't hold up in court. But if the departments' and unions' lawyers read the writing on the wall, and start re-instructing their members on how it'll go down, I can see that happening.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:58AM (26 children)
A matter of training, rather.
Of course training for shooting to disable is going to cost more and, without an incentive to do it, it's not going to happen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:09AM (11 children)
Well, TBH, if I have to fire a weapon at someone, I'm going for center of mass - the heart. If I miss my target, there's still a good chance that I'll hit a more peripheral portion of the torso. You may or may not have time for a second shot if you miss entirely with the first shot.
My problem is with the "empty your weapon, reload, empty again, reload, then pause to see if the target is destroyed" mentality. Firing twenty more shots at an obviously incapacitated suspect is wrong, in all cases. Military personnel with such poor fire discipline would be on trial for war crimes.
(Score: 5, Informative) by driverless on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:47AM (10 children)
And training like this does actually work. The German police are required to publish data on any use of firearms by police, this made the news a few years ago because the entire number of shots fired by all police in all of Germany [theatlantic.com] was less than the number of shots fired in a single incident (at an unarmed man) by LA police [latimes.com]. In the German case referenced above, 49 of the shots were warning shots and only 36 shots were fired in anger.
That's the difference that training makes [dw.com]:
Also:
And just for reference, German police haven't had "qualified immunity" since 7 May 1945, and it hasn't led to any of the dire effects predicted by Virginia Police Chief Jeffrey Katz.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:06PM (6 children)
American occupation keeps the peace in Germany, and the rest of Europe also. The entire continent will crumble into total chaos if we pull out. The cops in those parts are more like meter maids. They do little more than custodial work and give tourists directions
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @05:20PM (5 children)
How delusional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:01PM
it's pretty funny though.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:43PM (3 children)
Laugh away, monkey boy! Europe never enjoyed a moment's peace before 1945. And it takes the American superpower to keep that peace today. what do you think would have happened in Bosnia if the Americans weren't there? It was World War 1 all over again, only this time we stamped it out! Like the Russians did to its client states during the Soviet era. That all collapsed, and now look! War in Ukraine, Chechnya, Georgia, etc etc etc! That is what will happen to Europe if the Americans leave them to themselves. They are the same primitive savage white trash they always were, only more hoity-toity, bunch of fascist emos!. It's all enjoying a mini revival right now as their version of Trump takes over each country.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:30PM (2 children)
The reason everyone is laughing at you is that you seem to be confusing US military presence (which deals with the possibility of a foreign power invading) with a local police force, who look after the citizens and ensure that the laws are maintained. US soldiers are not involved in policing European citizens. Either you know that and you're being deliberately provocative (i.e. a dick), or you can't tell the difference (i.e. an idiot). So which is it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @12:00AM
Only because they are compliant and still show up for work on Monday morning after their weekend riots. The Europeans cannot handle a crowd without devolving into total warfare. The same thing happens every time they tried, and nothing was achieved until the yanks showed up to stamp out the fire in the 40s. Thank the Soviets too, eh? Europeans are savages, never encountered civilization until they discovered Africa and the Middle East. And look what they did to it! They have poisoned the entire planet! And so ugly! Like hairless rats! Gross!
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday September 14 2020, @12:23AM
That is the flat earth A/C. I'm going for "can't tell the difference (i.e. an idiot)".
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:46PM (2 children)
But it seems to go further than that absense of explicit liability (and thus implicit immunity), as this single sentence from Art 34 GG spells it out clearly:
"If any person, in the exercise of a public office entrusted to him, violates his official obligations to a third party, liability shall rest in principle on the State or the public body which employs him."
That is *explicitly* a qualified immunity.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by driverless on Monday September 14 2020, @02:35AM (1 child)
You're looking at the wrong thing, the GG sets out basic rights and freedoms for all Germans, but doesn't cover specifics, and that one is specifically to protect e.g. tax officials from frivolous lawsuits. To see what the police can and can't get away with you'd need to look at the laws for each of the sixteen states, since they're all different when it comes to the police.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 14 2020, @06:57AM
And that would be you.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:15AM (6 children)
Thing is, I don't think it's actually *possible* to train for that. Robots, maybe, that can image-recognize a moving limb (or firearm), adjust their aim, and fire within the space of human motion/reaction time, but what I've read (which is definitely not comprehensive) indicates that if you want to disable, you fire a non-lethal-projectile weapon/taser/chemical weapon instead. Which may happen with more regularity if qualified immunity is watered/struck down.
If it can be trained for, I definitely want to see some pointers/references to that info.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:28AM (5 children)
Well, it's not a clear cut. If the guys is facing you and the intention to harm you is clear, what I read on internet (following your comment) seems to indicate that aiming for the torso is unfortunately the best.
However, I can't believe there are circumstances in which shooting to kill in the back is justified.
A list that took me 3 mins to put together:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Jacob_Blake [wikipedia.org]
https://www.denverpost.com/2019/08/15/devon-bailey-autopsy-colorado-springs-police-shooting/ [denverpost.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Charles_Kinsey [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Walter_Scott [wikipedia.org]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:29PM (4 children)
Over the years, I've read the term "fleeing felon" a number of times. That is, a fleeing felon can be shot at, no matter which way he is facing. To me, that would mean an escaping prisoner, or some such. Or a wanted man discovered by a manhunt or such.
It seems that police are prone to defining "fleeing felon" as anyone who tries to avoid detainment, arrest, or questioning. I've never read anything that justifies shooting some random dumbass in the back just because he is avoiding police.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 14 2020, @12:31AM (2 children)
I have multiple problems with that:
1. no need to shoot to kill for a fleeing felon, disable him is enough
2. catching him can be achieved by other means, maybe you - the policeman - should cut the donuts and exercise more; maybe you should take some martial arts training too it may help applying physical force instead of just fire power
3. are you - the policeman - the speediest judge and jury able to say the suspect is a felon worth of death sentence, all in a time of few seconds?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @12:51PM (1 child)
You have to interrupt a felony in progress to claim fleeing felon. The original (and proper) definition of a felony is any crime for which killing the perpetrator to stop it is automatically self defense. It isn't supposed to apply to fishing without a license, or other such foolishness.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 14 2020, @01:07PM
Since the felon is fleeing, the felony is interrupted. What is the self-defense excuse then?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @12:48PM
Fleeing felon is the law in Texas, and it doesn't just apply to police or to convicts. A citizen can claim it for shooting a perpetrator fleeing the scene of a felony. For example, if you interrupt a rape-in-progress and the perpetrator runs, you can shoot them in the back to prevent their escape. If it was applied fairly I would even say it is a good law, because it encourages criminals to sit tight and wait for the cops to come arrest them. A high clearance rate has a far greater effect on crime rates than harsh sentences.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:33PM (1 child)
"Shoot to disable." Let me guess, the extent of your experience with guns is limited to Hollywood movies, right?
Shooting people in real life is not like target practice at a shooting range. Thus, when you commit to shooting, you commit to killing if that's how it turns out.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 14 2020, @12:34AM
Doesn't it strikes you as weird that it turns out frequently enough for the people to start looking at police as thugs rather than men in the service of the community?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:44PM
Nobody is trained to kill -- the training emphasizes stopping. You shoot to stop the assault and that is all.
There's some pretty thorough data on the effectiveness at stopping an attack by caliber here: https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/alternate-look-handgun-stopping-power [buckeyefirearms.org] If you look at extremity shots (shooting to disable) you can see they are remarkably ineffective:
(Score: 2, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:38PM
In the case of a properly trained police force this isn't relevant. The simple act of drawing a gun from its holster is admission that everything else has failed and the ONLY response left is the use of deadly force to protect other lives.
More simply for the benefit of US police, drawing a gun is admission of failure.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @12:39PM (2 children)
There is no such thing as 'shooting to disable'. That is Hollywood garbage. Pointing a gun at someone is intent to kill. No excuses. And this is from someone who strongly believes in the right to be armed for the purpose of self defense.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 14 2020, @01:04PM
Then avoid as much as possible pointing the gun at someone, especially if you are a police person. Deescalate as the first priority.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @05:48PM
how many bullets has your gun stopped in "self defense"?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:03AM (9 children)
And, that is a problem. I've already mentioned those times when fifty or more shots have been fired. At some point, the process has moved from the realm of "kill" to "execution". The use of deadly force does not require you to continue shooting after the suspect has fallen over.
Not going searching for it, but I watched a video recently. Female cop was being threatened by dumbass with a knife. Two shots put dumbass on the ground, obviously incapacitated. Dumbass fumbles around, and may or may not have been reaching for the knife again, so two more shots fired. Dumbass is flopping around, and almost certainly not reaching for the knife anymore, but she fires twice more. That's six bullet holes in the suspect. As I've already stated, the first two shots put him on the ground, and caused him to drop the knife. The remaining shots? WTF? The fifth and sixth shots were most definitely unnecessary.
There needs to be liability, at some point.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:19AM (8 children)
https://www.youtube.com/embed/PtSSNn_0GCU?start=333&feature=oembed [youtube.com]
That was a flat out execution. She was a pretty good shot too, to hit him from that far away.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:48AM (7 children)
Really? I'm not an expert but it looked pretty reasonable to me. All happened very quickly and no extra shots were fired after he stopped moving. Later on in the video you see that he had the box cutter still in his hand and also appears to have been hacking at his own wrists. I actually suspect this was a case of "suicide by cop".
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:18AM (6 children)
It was three separate shootings of two shots each. The first pair would qualify under the bullshit 30 foot rule, but he drops to the ground and start flopping around. She waits long enough to see he's no longer a threat, then puts two more bullets into a man on the ground. Waits again, and puts in two more to make sure he's dead. Even the second pair would probably be excused, she will claim the flopping around was an attempt to "continue to advance", but the last pair are definitely fired after he was no longer a threat.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:30AM (5 children)
This is why you keep shooting while the attacker is holding a knife and also why you don't fire one shot and wait: https://www.youtube.com/embed/8MWrUvaC8Ks [youtube.com]
If a person charges a cop with a weapon, it's not the cop's fault that person dies -- it's theirs. Or I suppose in a perfect antifa/BLM world, we just let the criminals rampage and prosecute anyone who defends themselves.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @04:12PM
In that video, we see superb restraint on the cop's part. Seriously, you don't see such restraint very often when you browse those videos. They did a great job to start off with.
One problem is seen early on. Lethal force was used first, THEN they start talking about less lethal. There is no such thing as an ideal situation, but ideally, the less lethal would have been deployed first, and lethal would have been used after the less lethal failed.
The second problem is, the cop was pretty obviously not trained in hand-to-hand combat. He seemed to be protecting his weapon, instead of defending himself. Luckily, his partner was there to put an end to the threat.
And, it all comes back to training. This pair of cops had good training, they worked hard to deescalate, only using force when the situation moved into a major street. Overall, both cops deserve a commendation for the incident.
Body cameras are wonderful, aren't they? 100 times better than cell cams - they stay focused on the immediate subject, without lapses. Go-Pro cameras are even better, but you can't burden every cop with a helmet and a camera growing off the top of their heads.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @05:15PM (2 children)
That cop did the right thing all the way through except for his lack of combat skills. It looked like he was trying to put the gun back in its holster. He should have kept firing if he still had rounds, and dropped it when empty. A very justified shooting, and either an insane knife-wielder or a suicide by cop.
That is very different to the woman cop up higher. She dropped hers then executed him on the ground.
ps. What sort of little popguns do they give cops? They should up the caliber and the FPS and make them hollow-point. That guy wasn't even noticing them.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:56PM (1 child)
They're almost certainly hollow points because full metal jacket rounds tend to over penetrate and endanger bystanders by going all the way through the target or barriers -- hollow points lose energy much faster and tend to be safer for bystanders. As for the gun, it'll be .9mm or .40 S&W which really are about the best balance you can get for a handgun (some would say even the .40 has a bit too much recoil and degrades performance). More oomph than those and the time between shots increases while accuracy decreases.
The fact is, handguns aren't great weapons -- they're a compromise that emphasizes portability and controlability when constrained by the physics of shooting. I'm sure you've heard this in other contexts -- for example, the best camera is the one you have with you. A Leica and telephoto lens weighing 10 pounds might be a better camera than what's on the back of your phone, but it doesn't do you any good if you've left it at home because it weighs so much and takes up so much space. Rifle is the Leica. Pistol is the cell phone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @01:51PM
I second this. The majority of people shot with a handgun survive.
I read an article where they quoted an emergency room physician who said that you should think of handgun wounds as similar to icepick wounds (probably a bit bigger than an icepick, but still). Unless shot in the dead, someone hit by a handgun bullet is unlikely to just "drop" with a single shot if he is a determined attacker. It takes a while to bleed out, and that person could still attack you and kill you while wounded. If all you know about guns is what Hollywood taught you, you have been seriously misinformed.
A rifle or shotgun wound though, can drop you with one shot. Or not. But the odds of a one stop drop are far, far higher than with a handgun. As the parent poster said, handguns actually suck. They are simply more carriable and far, far less likely to kill an unintended target downrange.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday September 14 2020, @05:33PM
Antifa/BLM didn't cause cops to shoot to kill. That dog whistle has been overused.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:55AM (4 children)
That's probably the underlying problem, yes.
But, no, that's not the same with the "systemic racism", the later only finds in qualified immunity a facile way to manifest itself.
For the rest of your comment, I'm inclined to agree, but only the time will tell.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:45PM (3 children)
Humor me for a few moments, for the sake of argument.
YOU are a racist. You positively hate $ group. And, you want to be a cop. You get the training, you get the job. You are a cop, and you are a racist.
Given qualified immunity, you will likely find situations in which you can abuse people of $group with impunity. In this case, the racism becomes systemic. It isn't necessary that "the system" hates $group, it is only necessary that "the system" protects you, the racist, for the problem to be systemic.
Without qualified immunity, you are still a racist, you're still a cop, but if you abuse $group, you can and will be sued for violating those people's rights. In this case, the racism is no longer systemic - it becomes just one individual with attitudes incompatible with police work. Society can deal with one hateful individual pretty easily.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 14 2020, @12:23AM (2 children)
Nope. I can abstain from intervening, or take 10 seconds longer reaction time when needed, or close the eyes "I saw nothing, your honor". The result is a more subdued systemic racism, but I can guarantee you the result will be a category of people being less protected than others based on the race.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @12:52AM (1 child)
"Less protected" is to be preferred to "actively abused".
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday September 14 2020, @04:18AM
I get you agree with "Defund the police", then? (very large grin)
True, but note that this doesn't extinguish the "systemic racism" - which was your initial thesis (Qualified immunity IS the "systemic racism")
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:26AM (5 children)
> And, we most definitely WANT cops to think twice before pulling the trigger
The standard for self defense as a civilian is usually (as laws vary) that one's life must be in immediate danger. That is to say, when you don't have time to think twice or even once. A common counterexample is if you shoot someone running away from you (where you have time to think twice), then it is murder and not self defense. Best practice is to empty your magazine, for a number of reasons. One reason is that getting shot, even multiple times, is not sufficient to stop someone from being a threat. The other reason is that if you have time to calculate how many shots you're going to need, then it may not count as self defense. This is also why warning shots are discouraged by self defense trainers; if you have the luxury of firing warning shots, you are not in immediate danger and you may be convicted for assault, brandishing a weapon, and irresponsible discharge of a firearm.
So it sounds like you're asking cops to commit murder instead, or you're ignorant about firearms, law, and reality. Neither is a good look for someone blasting their opinion on politics.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:40AM (4 children)
Cops need to be held to the same standards to which you or I would be held. The list of people shot by cops who did NOT meet those standards is long.
My position is, we remove immunity, then allow criminal prosecutions and civil suits to work their way through the court system. Standards will begin to be established. We already see police departments rethinking their protocols and policies. Cops who would never have been prosecuted a decade ago, are facing charges today. Many, if not all, of those cops, will cite their immunity. Remove that immunity. The theory is, no one in this country is above the law. Make the cops answer for their actions in court. If their actions are defensible, then they are good to go. If their actions are indefensible - they go to prison and/or pay severe fines and penalties and civil claims.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:43AM (1 child)
Police have some obligation to the public that a self-defender does not. So if some dude is running away from the police with a gun in his hand and there is reason to believe he is a danger to the community -- say he shot at someone -- the police absolutely can shoot the person in the back and make the world a safer place. The same is not true of a non-police self-defender. For the regular Joe, deadly force requires imminent danger of death or great bodily harm to oneself or to others in your company, but a more remote general danger to the public does not provide a basis, and so a non-police person shooting at a the fleeing person with a gun would be a crime even if the guy had shot at the self-defender previously. Once the attacker breaks off the attack, there is no self-defense basis to shoot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:51PM
You're on the right track here, but wrong on the specifics.
It's absolutely true that police frequently go into dangerous situations where a civilian under a self-defense standard would be expected to retreat or just stay out of it. We're kind of testing the limits of this now where militia members go out and confront criminals, provoking violence where no violence was necessary, but then claim self defense at the point of the shooting. This is definitely not what self-defense is for. But while it's wrong for militia members to do this, it's literally the job of police officers to do it. We need to change the self-defense rules more than we need to change the policing rules. The militia, of course, would not be there in the first place if the police were protecting society from the mobs, but the politicians won't let them do their jobs, so instead of tear gas we get people killing each other. Progress! Well, progress if you're a lefty who wants to start a full-on race war, anyway.
None of this makes it OK for the police to shoot fleeing suspects. If a suspect is technically running away, but firing back at the police officer, then force is justified. If a suspect is just flat out running away, then no, the police cannot shoot him, even if it "makes the world a safer place." Upthread listed four different police shootings, all with different circumstances, in fact - every shooting has different circumstances. Some of them are justified and some of them are not. It is not as simple as "shooting race X good, shooting race Y bad." Anyone who thinks that has already committed genocide in their heart. And yet, all over, you find people saying "I'm not interested in the details, I picked a side and I'm good with that."
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Sunday September 13 2020, @10:34PM (1 child)
Since cops would likely run into these situations far more often than non-cops, it is impractical to apply the same judicial proceedings. Going through court is a very long, laborious, and expensive process (which is paid for by taxpayers). We'd have to hire more cops to make up for all of the existing cops stuck in litigation, and more cops means more money and less/worse training, which is unlikely to improve the situation.
Have you heard of unintended consequences? Confidently presuming that a simple policy change will have the exact narrow effect that you predict it will have and no other effects is foolishly ignorant. See: all of human history.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:00PM
Bill Clinton hired those extra cops already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:22AM (3 children)
"Qualified immunity is probably the leading cause of deadly interactions between police and black people."
It's pretty hard to argue with your reasoning in this post, but I don't think you've made the case you state in the first sentence. Racism of some police officers could well continue to be a problem if it isn't specifically addressed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:54AM
Racism will still be a problem, sure, but will it be a /deadly/ problem?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:10PM
He's right you know: this stuff is the main manifestation of systemic racism in police/citizen interactions. It doesn't matter that he's normally ratshit insane, truth is truth wherever and whenever it shows up. I'm in almost 100% agreement with that GP post and am hoping this creates nationwide precedent (and laws!) along the same lines.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:08PM
There's nothing wrong with "racism", unless you're White of course. /s At any rate, "racism" shouldn't matter because cops shouldn't be allowed to violate any citizen's rights.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SpockLogic on Sunday September 13 2020, @01:59PM (16 children)
Agreed.
I think a more fundamental question we need to ask is what type of policing do we as a society want. Do we want warrior or guardian policing. Do we really want or need a paramilitary police force in full body armor arriving in an MRAP. Should police forces limit the number of ex-military they recruit.
How do we keep both police and public safe. When a law enforcement officer encounters a member of the general public they have to assume that they could have a firearm. Isn't it time for a fundamental re-evaluation of our gun culture?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190226155011.htm [sciencedaily.com]
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:25PM (14 children)
Make our black citizens full citizens. Give them the right to keep and bear arms. Put an end to Democrat plantations, where everyone except criminals are stripped of the right to defend themselves. Gun laws in this nation have alwasy been racist laws.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:53PM (11 children)
And that will prevent police officers from having shoot first itchy trigger fingers how?
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @04:27PM (10 children)
An armed society is a polite society. - Robert Heinlein
If everyone is armed, society changes pretty drastically. For starters, street toughs don't become street toughs in the first place. Kid didn't wander the streets playing that knock-out game fifty years ago, because someone would have been likely to shoot. It wouldn't even necessarily be the victim - anyone in the immediate vicinity might have been armed, and killed the perp immediately. But, in gun-free zones, no one is armed, or if they are armed, they can't risk pulling their weapon out.
If kids aren't free to do stupid shit like knock-out games, if they know the consequences are likely to be immediate and deadly, the street toughs disappear in just months or years. It matters little to you or to me whether the toughs self-select for Darwin awards - over time they just disappear. MOST of them will simply decide that they don't want to be "that guy" who choked out his final moments, lying on the hot pavement bleeding to death.
The "polite" part goes both ways, of course. If the cops aren't doing "stop and frisk" down in the 'hood, the kids aren't growing up filled with resentment. If they aren't being ticketed for walking while black, they don't develop the (justified) hatred of cops and whitey.
Arm all heads of households, and permit them to carry. Open carry or concealed shouldn't matter in the least. You presume that everyone around you is armed, visible or not.
Cops will be just as polite as anyone else, I promise. No one, uniformed or otherwise, is going to want to infringe on your rights, if you are presumed to be armed.
(Score: 2, Informative) by SpockLogic on Sunday September 13 2020, @05:22PM (9 children)
Empirical evidence seems to refute your hypothesis.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219 [wiley.com]
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:35PM (8 children)
I'm headed off for a nap - maybe I'll read that link when I get up. I'm more than satisfied with Lott's studies, to be perfectly honest.
It is an undisputed fact that the highest crime rates in this nation, are in democrat controlled cities with draconian gun laws. It's hard to imagine how any study can change that basic fact.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by SpockLogic on Sunday September 13 2020, @07:49PM (7 children)
Shame he isn't honest.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/2003/02/01/scholar-invents-fan-to-answer-his-critics/f3ae3f46-68d6-4eee-a65e-1775d45e2133/ [washingtonpost.com]
You can do better than Lott, a discredited and debunked charlatan.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130304061928/http:/www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/guns/lindgren.html [archive.org]
Please ask yourself why you are satisfied with Lott's studies. Do you really believe they were conducted with rigorous scientific honesty or is it that they confirm your own personal biases.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:52PM (6 children)
OK, I read the link. I read both of your newer links. Sorry, I'm not inclined to dig very deep into the allegations. I can't tell at first reading whether Lott is admitting to fucking up, or he's just a target of character assassination.
The fact is, the CDC concluded independently that DGU (defensive gun use) is a common occurrence. Strangely enough, the CDC never published it's own work. Some details here -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/04/30/that-time-the-cdc-asked-about-defensive-gun-uses/#230f684299aa [forbes.com]
My attitudes and opinions on guns don't depend on Lott, of course. There are many other studies that support Lott's conclusions, no matter how accurate that 98% figure is, or isn't.
Bottom line, more guns, less crime. Again, the highest crime rates in this nation are experienced in those locations with the most draconian gun laws.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @01:52AM (3 children)
Do those places have high crime rates because of draconian gun laws or do they have draconian gun laws as a reaction to high crime rates?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @03:02AM (2 children)
Irrelevant. The laws are ineffective, in addition to being unconstitutional.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @03:59AM (1 child)
Not irrelevant. You said "Bottom line, more guns, less crime." If those high crime areas had high crime rates before the gun laws were enacted then your hypothesis is invalid. If those areas had low crime before the laws and high crime after, then your hypothesis is supported. Your comment about them being ineffective and unconstitutional is irrelevant and goalpost moving. And if the laws are really ineffective then that also undermines your hypothesis.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @04:22AM
For starters, I've not moved any goalposts. I've always held that an unconstitutional law is just that - unconstitutional, and therefor, invalid.
Laws aren't written in response to crime, so much as they are written in response to public perception of crime. There is little indication that crime increases or decreases as a result of new laws, repealed laws, stricter or laxer policing policies, or even the amount of money thrown into crime prevention and/or law enforcement. Over the decades, crime has risen and fallen, completely independent of crime policy.
If there is any governmental policy or governmental action that affects crime rates, that policy or action can be attributed to a reduction in the poverty level of the population in that area. The more productively employed citizens, the lower crime rates go. The more unproductive layabouts in the population, the higher the crime rates go.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Monday September 14 2020, @02:03AM (1 child)
I was hoping for more than a link to an op-ed to back your assertion. Arming everyone to the teeth will make us all safer? Show me the evidence, show me the data.
I don't want you to think I'm anti gun per se. My father, a fighter pilot, taught me to shoot and my formal firearms training was from military instructors as a cadet. You never forget that, ever. I'm still a fairly good shot but not as good as I used to be. I am however vehemently anti gun violence and see it as plague that infects this country yet strangely fails to infect other developed nations to anywhere the same degree. Why is that? I don't believe that the people of this country are any more prone to violence or mental illness than any other developed nation but we do have a shit load more guns. Hmmm ...
I know that many people find gun ownership comforting and sincerely believe they are safer. My next door neighbor's wife was talked into getting a pistol and has only shot it once when she bought it five years ago. I think she's a danger to herself and everyone around her but she fell for the lie that the NRA, the propaganda arm of the small arms manufacturing industry, has been pushing for the last forty years. Fear sells, frightened people are controllable. I haven't found scientific evidence to support the NRA's position. In fact they fought to suppress research on gun violence, what does that tell you.
You might find this paper published in the BMJ of interest https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542 [bmj.com] but overall scientific research seems to be thin on the ground. I'd like to see more and in depth work done.
If you want to have a safer police force (and consequently less likely to shoot civilians) then live in a state with fewer guns. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749 [aphapublications.org]
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 14 2020, @04:09AM
I've given both of those papers the once-over. That is, I've read them through. I've NOT digested them.
One problem I see with the BMJ paper, is, no reference is made to gun free zones, anywhere in the paper. Whether the mass shooting takes place in a gun-friendly state, or a gun-hostile state, it is very common for these mass shootings to take place in a gun free zone. In fact, it seems that as gun free zones increase, the likelihood of a mass shooting goes up. It's almost like gun free zones attract nutcases.
The second paper regarding job related deaths. I always find fault with any paper that details how dangerous police work is, when they fail to point out that police work is safer than many other professions. Hollywood and most of America romanticizes police work, making it seem like very dangerous work. Yet, there are a number of professions with higher mortality rates on the job. Even considering that a cop is much more likely to meet a homicidal maniac than any commercial fisherman, police work is much safer than commercial fishing.
You might consider both of those complaints as being petty, or even spiteful. But, papers that purportedly attempt to understand the problems of police work should probably consider both of those factors.
Oh - digestion is taking place as I sit here. The Swedley and company paper makes zero attempt to correlate community relations, and/or community resentment to police mortality on the job. We have had a number of police homicides in the past 5 years or so. As one might assume, a large number of those homicides have taken place in cities with legitimate complaints about the police. No, of course I haven't researched that, but right off the top of my head, I can name New York, Dallas, Baton Rouge, and Los Angeles. Each of those cities has their own peculiar community relations problems. Chicago? I don't remember a police homicide recently, but that would be worth checking out.
Thanks for the links. I don't know if or when I'll dive deeper into them, but I'm considering what I've read.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:31PM (1 child)
Multiculturalism is a cover for White genocide and doesn't work. Balkanize the former USA. It's already lost, as it is. We (Whites) gave it away through greed and stupidity. Time to get real and stop letting the enemy raise our children to commit racial suicide. 14/88.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @06:45PM
I read the Turner Diaries. I didn't make it my bible, thank you very much. Have you not noticed that white people are genociding themselves? Dem/lib/progressives/fascist/antifa/black/Russian/Jew conspiracies can't compete with our own declining fertility rates.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @01:00AM
But require them all to undergo Military Police training before being allowed to train under the civilian police program.
Why? Because Military Police actually sets a higher bar than civilian police does. Most MP duties involve the non-deadly handling and apprehension of military personnel, many of which are considered valuable assets of the government and not to be harmed. As a result military police are actually less likely to react with deadly force, most likely to react with deescalation and following that restraining force (which might result in non-life threatening but still damaging injuries to weaker civilians, if it came to that.) But by and large it would be a dramatic improvement compared to modern civlian policing standards in the US, unless the military itself has been compromised in years since I last spoke with anyone enlisted or who were/had altercations with MPs. They actually got a great deal of respect from the people I knew although many of them said you didn't want to be interacting with them if you didn't have to. But also that if they misbehaved or injured someone in the course of their duties, there was a good change of them being either brought up on charges or discharged over it, which meant many MPs tread carefully in their duties, since even following all their training they might still end up on the chopping block through no fault of their own.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 14 2020, @02:26AM
Immunity from prosecution and immunity from lawsuits are not the same thing. But the new law appears to have conflated them.
If lawsuits are widely allowed, I predict this will lead to cops being sued subsequent to every arrest, and a mass exodus from the profession.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by Spamalope on Monday September 14 2020, @02:30PM
It's part of it. Prosecutors and the bosses of the police bear responsibility too, and need their immunity stripped. Especially prosecutors. These events have showcased prosecutors tampering with evidence to support political prosecutions, basing charging on the political tribe of the accused (a violation of multiple sections of the Constitution), you can easily find cases where evidence was hidden illegally to convict folks who aren't guilty (look for Brady violations - this too is often political)... this is at least as big a problem as QI for police.
(Score: 4, Touché) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:24AM (17 children)
I expect Trump will get "qualified immunity" for police and other law enforcement officers codified into Federal law shortly.
Hells, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden did something like that too once he gets into office.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:44AM (13 children)
Trump didn't have anything to do with qualified immunity. The Supreme Court did that. It was never codified into law, it is merely a warped doctrine approved by the Supreme Court. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Pierson_v._Ray [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Sunday September 13 2020, @09:11AM (8 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by rondon on Sunday September 13 2020, @01:03PM (7 children)
Which means that I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for the crimes committed by Police. And I do mean crimes, not just mistakes. I've never seen the police manual that says shoot unarmed people in the back, which should be a crime, every damn time.
(Score: 1, Troll) by FatPhil on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:21PM
The hilarious thing is that I can tell how your libertarian suffocate-ones-own-brain-in-anger reflex kicked in whilst you were writing your response. Read my post again, then read yours, do you not see how silly your post now looks? Thanks for some afternoon entertainment!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:45PM (5 children)
Yes, combining removal of qualified immunity and also making a significant percentage (possibly 100%) of settlement costs for police misconduct to be funded from police pensions (without any increase in government contribution to those pensions; only a reduction in benefits), and I'm betting that suddenly homicide rates, among strangers, will drop by around one third.
In the US, one third of homicides (committed by people the victim did not know) are committed by the police.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @04:35PM (4 children)
There's something like 14.5k killings with a gun per year, and about 1100 of those are by police. Turn in your geek card, you can't do math nor provide citations.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/ [pewresearch.org]
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1124036/number-people-killed-police-ethnicity-us/ [statista.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by Mykl on Sunday September 13 2020, @11:41PM (3 children)
You didn't read the post that you replied to - it explicitly states that they are only looking at shootings where the victim didn't know the shooter.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Monday September 14 2020, @02:30AM
Which is also a corner case, but as the other response shows -- designed to elicit the impression that cops just randomly shoot people.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday September 14 2020, @06:51AM (1 child)
Make points badly, get misunderstood.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday September 14 2020, @08:28AM
You are technically correct.... the best kind of correct! [youtube.com]
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 13 2020, @03:13PM (2 children)
Well, he's certainly in a damn good position to speak up against it! People already believe everything else he says.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 13 2020, @04:34PM (1 child)
Yes, he is in a great position to do that. Just as Obama, Bush, Clinton, and a dozen other men have been since the Supreme Court ruled that government employees are immune to prosecution.
Personally, I find it amusing that Obama did NOTHING to address the issues of piss-poor police work. He was the hopey-changey guy, but he did nothing to directly address the injustices built into the criminal system. Trump? I never expected him to address anything like this. He's just another rich fuck who has benefitted from the system all his life. Clinton? Somehow he gets credit for all kinds of shit - yet he actually contributed to the problems in the justice system. "We're going to put 100,000 more cops on the streets!" What horse shit. 100,000 more people with license to kill is just what we needed.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 13 2020, @05:31PM
*sigh* yes, we know all that, it's why Trump is prez today, but since he is the president, he can speak up now. But we also know he is a dreadful fascist prick who sides with the cops, so nothing like that will ever happen. That anybody on this planet supports him is totally shameful
But... None of it matters, the numbers are holding steady for another 90% reelection rate, so just keep the beer cold
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday September 14 2020, @12:09AM
I didn't say Trump did.
SCotUS invoked it 50 some years ago. And pretty much every SCotUS since has refused to hear any cases related to it.
What I said in my comment was the I expect Prez Trump to try and get qualified immunity codified into Federal law during his remaining time in office. Federal law can trump (pun intended) state level laws in many instances. so it could render the Virginia law moot.
Any lawyers want to chime in about when Federal law can supersede State level ones? Its been so long since I studied law I've forgotten the specifics.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2020, @08:04PM (2 children)
Biden at this point is just doing what someone else is telling him to do. Whoever is on the other end of his teleprompters.
Does this strike you as someone who is all there? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DbE2SmV2bs [youtube.com]
Do we honestly think this man is a better choice? At least one is willing to fight for us. The other voted against school desegregation.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Monday September 14 2020, @02:33AM (1 child)
My impression is that running for president has been Biden's retirement hobby, and when he won the nomination, no one was more surprised than himself.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 14 2020, @01:09PM
It really says something about current US politics that not only was Donald Trump was elected President but he actually has a decent shot at a second term. Not because he is a good president, far from it, but because neither major party seems to be able to field a candidate capable of beating even his low standard, either in the primaries or in the general election. Seriously, what the hell?!?