Judge rules against Qualified Immunity for police officer who violated man's 4th Amendment rights.

[Delldude]

There are two points there. I was not aware of anyone having their civil rights violated so? Can you be more specific?

Your comment in post #3 to White 6 makes it clear you were commenting on violating someones civil rights having happened.

 

[pknopp]

Your comment in post #3 to White 6 makes it clear you were commenting on violating someones civil rights having happened.

OK, and when did that happen on 1/6?

 

[Delldude]

OK, and when did that happen on 1/6?

You must not be following the DOJ handling of 1/6.

 

[pknopp]

You must not be following the DOJ handling of 1/6.

Nor you as you can not answer.

 

[Delldude]

Nor you as you can not answer.

Several instances where detainees Cotus rights are or have been violated, 6A for one.

 

[pknopp]

Several instances where detainees Cotus rights are or have been violated, 6A for one.

So you say?

 

[Delldude]

So you say?

Violating one's civil rights doesn't become acceptable just because they didn't beat him.

How's 6A working out?

 

[pknopp]

How's 6A working out?

So we will go with the idea that you were just blowing smoke.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Sure under certain circumstances, but they don't have the right to go around and do it.

This wasn't a case where a family member did that.

No it wasn't, but I was just giving examples.

The defense lawyer in the video clearly pointed out where police can use reasonable suspicion and when they cannot. Simply put they can't use reasonable suspicion on a hunch or a feeling something is wrong, but otherwise if they have some sort of evidence to believe a search is necessary, or as this defense attorney put it, articulable facts, they have the right to move forward with a search.

In this case they got a complaint about a man who was occupying a vacant house.
When they went to investigate, the occupant inside didn't respond to their calls, but they heard somebody inside the home.
He didn't respond until they were inside of the residence and they had no idea who he was.
They put him in cuffs until they could straighten out the situation to figure out what's what and who is who.
After the other officer informed them another neighbor said he's been there for a while, they immediately took the cuffs off and advised him to contact his landlord about informing the neighbors of his temporary occupation in the home.

It was all perfectly legal so this judge is off base in his decision.

 

[struth]

No it wasn't, but I was just giving examples.

The defense lawyer in the video clearly pointed out where police can use reasonable suspicion and when they cannot. Simply put they can't use reasonable suspicion on a hunch or a feeling something is wrong, but otherwise if they have some sort of evidence to believe a search is necessary, or as this defense attorney put it, articulable facts, they have the right to move forward with a search.

In this case they got a complaint about a man who was occupying a vacant house.
When they went to investigate, the occupant inside didn't respond to their calls, but they heard somebody inside the home.
He didn't respond until they were inside of the residence and they had no idea who he was.
They put him in cuffs until they could straighten out the situation to figure out what's what and who is who.
After the other officer informed them another neighbor said he's been there for a while, they immediately took the cuffs off and advised him to contact his landlord about informing the neighbors of his temporary occupation in the home.

It was all perfectly legal so this judge is off base in his decision.

I know what RAS is.

There was no need to handcuff him. There was nothing illegal going on. The Judge was right, that they can't use their immunity from being sued here for clearly violating his rights.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I know what RAS is.

There was no need to handcuff him. There was nothing illegal going on. The Judge was right, that they can't use their immunity from being sued here for clearly violating his rights.

What right do you have to not being handcuffed? It's called detainment and police do it all the time.

 

[struth]

What right do you have to not being handcuffed? It's called detainment and police do it all the time.

what? what right do i have to my liberty and being free from the govt coming into my home and cuffing me? seriously stalin?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

what? what right do i have to my liberty and being free from the govt coming into my home and cuffing me? seriously stalin?

It wasn't his home, he was staying there. It was not his house or apartment. There was a complaint called in by a neighbor and police suspected he was a robber or squatter. That's what gave them the right to detain the subject.

When Can an Officer Detain Someone?​

In order to justify a detention, an officer must be able to articulate specific facts that lead to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is involved in criminal activity.

A detention is not an arrest, and requires less evidence than the probable cause standard for an arrest.

When Can Police Detain You: A Guide To Being Detained [2023]

Here’s what every citizen should know about when police detain you: what your rights are, and the difference between being detained and arrested.

jmarshlaw.com

 

[struth]

It wasn't his home, he was staying there. It was not his house or apartment. There was a complaint called in by a neighbor and police suspected he was a robber or squatter. That's what gave them the right to detain the subject.

When Can an Officer Detain Someone?​

In order to justify a detention, an officer must be able to articulate specific facts that lead to a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is involved in criminal activity.

A detention is not an arrest, and requires less evidence than the probable cause standard for an arrest.

When Can Police Detain You: A Guide To Being Detained [2023]

Here’s what every citizen should know about when police detain you: what your rights are, and the difference between being detained and arrested.

jmarshlaw.com

he was staying there…the govt doesn’t have a right to come into a place i am staying ans handcuff me…same difference

 

[JoeB131]

The survey was not conducted by Breibart or Fox, it was conducted by ABC so you can't *****.

Actually, I bothered to read your silly article.. and it clearly says the reason why less people are going into LE is because the profession has been given such a bad rep by the bad actors.

That's besides what's going on in my suburb plus the town one of my closest friends son works in about 50 miles outside of the city. It's happening whether you agree with it or not. Given my friends son trains all the new recruits, his claim is that they are getting the lowest quality of applicants and it's making his job very difficult.

Again, it's a job paying north of 80K a year for no experience, and a lifetime pension when you retire after 20, people should be climbing over each other to get those jobs.

Now, I think most cops are great guys. Most cops aren't racist abusers, but they make excuses for the ones who are. Just like most Catholic Priests aren't pedophiles, but they covered up for the ones who were for years. You reap what you sow.

The problem with our legal system is money, not cops. Somebody makes a claim for a few thousand or even a hundred thousand bucks and the city gives in, just like all these famous entertainers. It's cheaper just to pay them off. While that may be true, it also influences more lowlifes to try and cash in on that money cow.

Or not. Again the city has lawyers on retainer, who specialize in arguing these kinds of cases. If they settled a case, it was because they knew they were in deep shit if it got in front of a jury where everyone has had at least one DWB.

Since you love the Rice case so much, it's a perfect example. A justified police shooting because some idiot pulled out a realistic gun on a police officer, and they handed his fat pig mother 5 million bucks because she was too irresponsible to watch her own little hoodlum kid. That's the problem. It's not the Mayor's money, it's the taxpayers money. You anti-cop people created this problem and then ***** you can't get good quality cops.

Uh, dude, I went to the part to play when I was 12, and my mother didn't feel a need to watch me, either. She also had a reasonable expectation that as corrupt as Chicago cops are, they weren't going to shoot me.

The reason why they settled is because they knew the MINUTE they introduced Loehmann's history at his last job (where they were going to fire him for being emotionally unstable.), the negligence of the Cleveland PD would have been laid out to bear.

The solution to all these ambulance chaser problems is a loser pays all law. Sue anybody you like, but if you lose the case, you are responsible for reimbursement of all the costs of the person or entity you tried to sue. Then you'd see how little your city would be paying out in claims, plus it would stop all these women from coming out of the woodwork with their phony claims against wealthy famous people.

That would be a good way to deprive average working people of any recourse to law. You might as well give rich people hunting licenses to shoot down working class people.

Of course that will never happen in this country given most of our representatives were lawyers and they take care of their own.

It is interesting who the right wing has been trained to hate.

Lawyers, Unions, and Government Officials.

Anyone who might make the playing field more level between the working class and the investor class.

 

[Delldude]

So we will go with the idea that you were just blowing smoke.

Can't answer the question then?

 

[pknopp]

Can't answer the question then?

I was asked to show which 1/6 arrestee's were not granted their rights. There were none so I can not do that.

If you still believe there was, it's up to you do show that.

 

[Delldude]

I was asked to show which 1/6 arrestee's were not granted their rights. There were none so I can not do that.

If you still believe there was, it's up to you do show that.

No you weren't, I never asked you 'which' were or weren't granted their rights.

Like I said, '"How's 6A working out?"

 

[pknopp]

No you weren't, I never asked you 'which' were or weren't granted their rights.

Like I said, '"How's 6A working out?"

No idea what you are asking.

 

[Delldude]

No idea what you are asking.

Sixth amendment......6A.....