Another Mall shooter finds his destiny... A good guy with a gun...

[woodwork201]

Then who is to judge who is a good cop or bad cop?

In our system of government (and constitution) laws apply to everybody equally. If a police officer is found to have broken the law, they face charges and possible conviction which getting rid if immunity doesn't do crap for. You can't sue somebody sitting in a prison cell.

What this is really about is the Democrats wanting to federalize and control all police in the country. Nobody in their right mind would take a job as a police officer without immunity. Because if they are able to remove that, it means that every police officer who harms an individual right or wrong is subject to a liability suit. It wouldn't matter if they used a firearm or not. If a suspect runs, the cops chase him, and he has a heart attack while running, those officers could be subject to a lawsuit.

The law should apply to everyone equally? Really? And yet you continuously talk about how the law should be targeted unequally against some people, some not getting rights others get and others getting protection from prosecution that others get.

You don't believe at all in equal protection under the law.

 

[woodwork201]

This is true, but criminals also know that committing crime will be much easier with less and less of those cops to respond to the scene and take those reports. Less chance of them getting busted unless you have access to the federal fingerprint database to see if you can find out who broke into your home and killed your dog. You'll get less compliance from businesses who have security cameras in the area than police. The common citizen doesn't have the training or resources to find the person(s) that caused you harm.

If you want to live in an uncivilized society, I'm sure you can find many in the African jungles, but here I want to live in a society where we have systematic ways to address problems in a civilized manor. I pay these people so I don't have to deal with such problems because at the age of 62, I can't beat up my neighbor because he's playing his music too loud or his dog is shitting on my grass. Call the cops and let them handle it.

In no city in America are the cops taking fingerprints in a burglary today. If their war on drugs happens to find someone with a bunch of suspicious stuff, they'll match it to police reports and throw in a burglary charge if appropriate - and then drop all except the charge with the shortest prison time.

Are you really going to argue that Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Minneapolis, are more civilized today than they were in 1967?

To argue that something is constitutional just because the Supreme Court says so is ludicrous. I've laid out the Constitution and the history and you keep hanging on, making completely absurd claims, first complaining about the abuses of truck drivers and then arguing that it's all constitutional because the Supreme Court says so.

You're a gun controller, you're anti-constitution, you're an idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did you just ask me "who is to judge who a good cop is, and a bad cop is" ????

Uhhhhhh their resume maybe, and then their interview maybe, and then if slip through the cracks their actions should tell the rest. Then there has to be the will not to tolerate bad behaviour, and to end/fire the potential problem before it grows to many leg's.

What are you saying about qualified immunity, otherwise that it needs to be up front as a guarantee in order to get people to come to work as a police officer ? If so, what if a new hire sees that, and thinks to himself, hmmmmm if I have that, then sure I'll be a cop, and this way if I mess up then I'll wiggle right out of it ?

Maybe qualified immunity should be an earned thing over time, otherwise after a two year long probation period maybe ??

Not at all. Qualified immunity only apples to civil action. Legal action applies if you have immunity or not.

For instance let's say I'm driving a truck and get into an accident. My employers insurance covers the damages. But what if the person I hit can also sue me for damage done to them or their vehicle? I'm not going to take that job. Or worse yet, somebody hits me and tells authorities it was my fault. The police determine I was not at fault, and the person who hit me can still sue. I don't want a job like that.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In no city in America are the cops taking fingerprints in a burglary today. If their war on drugs happens to find someone with a bunch of suspicious stuff, they'll match it to police reports and throw in a burglary charge if appropriate - and then drop all except the charge with the shortest prison time.

Are you really going to argue that Chicago, LA, Baltimore, Minneapolis, are more civilized today than they were in 1967?

To argue that something is constitutional just because the Supreme Court says so is ludicrous. I've laid out the Constitution and the history and you keep hanging on, making completely absurd claims, first complaining about the abuses of truck drivers and then arguing that it's all constitutional because the Supreme Court says so.

You're a gun controller, you're anti-constitution, you're an idiot.

Yes, that's the way we do things in this society, we let judges make the decisions. I trust their lifetime of studying the constitution over a guy on a blog to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

Yes, police here do take fingerprints in robbery cases. When my sisters house was robbed that's exactly what they did. They had police records of kids in the area that were likely the culprits. They caught them.

Since your comprehension skill suffer, I'm going to type it again: I didn't bring up the situation of truck drivers as a complaint, I brought it up to demonstrate how rights don't come without strings attached. Most if not all of them do.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Demonstrate how laws against criminals having guns has prevented criminals from having guns or has, in any way, reduced crime.

New York city when Bloomberg was Mayor. It was called Stop and Frisk. It lowered shootings and violent crime rates dramatically. When the courts stopped them from using it, crime not only went back up, but surpassed their last high before Stop and Frisk was instituted.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Who decides which are the good cops and the bad cops? Good cops don't need qualified immunity.

That's why we have jury trials. The jury should be the ones deciding which cops are bad and finding them guilty. They decide which aren't bad and find them innocent.

The problem is, most don't get in front of a jury because of qualified immunity and, for those that do go to a jury, the jury is tainted with instructions about qualified immunity.

Qualified immunity has zero to do with charging a police officer or having a trial. Qualified immunity only apples to civil action by the complaining party.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes, that's the way we do things in this society, we let judges make the decisions. I trust their lifetime of studying the constitution over a guy on a blog to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

Yes, police here do take fingerprints in robbery cases. When my sisters house was robbed that's exactly what they did. They had police records of kids in the area that were likely the culprits. They caught them.

Since your comprehension skill suffer, I'm going to type it again: I didn't bring up the situation of truck drivers as a complaint, I brought it up to demonstrate how rights don't come without strings attached. Most if not all of them do.

So the 7 who voted for Roe were brilliant constitutional scholars and nailed it. And the 5 who overturned Roe were brilliant constitutional scholars and nailed it.

What you're proving is that YOU are too fucking stupid to read the Constitution and understand it and you must be told what to think by a bunch of men in black robes who have their own agendas and not your constitutional protections in mind when they decide any case.

I've tried hard to explain it in words that even you can understand but you're determined not to hear. You're a sheep and you want to be told, insist on being told, what to think by the government. You're unbelievably stupid.

With idiots like you and tubefuck defending the 2nd Amendment, we're fucking toast.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So the 7 who voted for Roe were brilliant constitutional scholars and nailed it. And the 5 who overturned Roe were brilliant constitutional scholars and nailed it.

What you're proving is that YOU are too fucking stupid to read the Constitution and understand it and you must be told what to think by a bunch of men in black robes who have their own agendas and not your constitutional protections in mind when they decide any case.

I've tried hard to explain it in words that even you can understand but you're determined not to hear. You're a sheep and you want to be told, insist on being told, what to think by the government. You're unbelievably stupid.

With idiots like you and tubefuck defending the 2nd Amendment, we're fucking toast.

I'm perfectly willing to debate up to the point you use the liberal tactic of personal insults. Goodbye.

 

[woodwork201]

New York city when Bloomberg was Mayor. It was called Stop and Frisk. It lowered shootings and violent crime rates dramatically. When the courts stopped them from using it, crime not only went back up, but surpassed their last high before Stop and Frisk was instituted.

And you think the Founding Fathers would have been OK with the Army or Militia stopping random people on the streets and searching them, and that would have passed muster on the 4th Amendment?

All I can say is that if most who pretend to defend the 2nd Amendment think like you think then our right to keep and bear arms is toast.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes, that's the way we do things in this society, we let judges make the decisions. I trust their lifetime of studying the constitution over a guy on a blog to decide what is constitutional and what is not.

Yes, police here do take fingerprints in robbery cases. When my sisters house was robbed that's exactly what they did. They had police records of kids in the area that were likely the culprits. They caught them.

Since your comprehension skill suffer, I'm going to type it again: I didn't bring up the situation of truck drivers as a complaint, I brought it up to demonstrate how rights don't come without strings attached. Most if not all of them do.

Yes, that's clear now, that you aren't complaining about the searches. To you, there's no such thing as an unreasonable search; no government intrusion that isn't acceptable because law and order.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The cult hates this story. It completely destroys their BULLSHIT narrative.

 

[beagle9]

The law should apply to everyone equally? Really? And yet you continuously talk about how the law should be targeted unequally against some people, some not getting rights others get and others getting protection from prosecution that others get.

You don't believe at all in equal protection under the law.

How do you get that Ray is saying or ever said that he wants the law targeted unequally against some people????? When you say some people, then who are those some people ? The innocent, the criminal's, who ??

 

[beagle9]

Yes, that's clear now, that you aren't complaining about the searches. To you, there's no such thing as an unreasonable search; no government intrusion that isn't acceptable because law and order.

Key words "law and order", otherwise meaning no searches will be conducted illegally outside of proper law and order doing it's due diligence in each case before issuing search warrants ... Uhhhh well unless your name is Donald Trump, then unequal justice and illegal spying was justified for political reason's even though not justified for the justice system to conduct such operations based upon the lie's and scam's that were pulled on it.