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

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nothing illegal in that.

No there isn't, but the neighbor didn't call police because somebody was on the back deck, they called police because there was a stranger on the property that was not the owner.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Under the law there is only one right answer

thats what the demigods in black robes keep telling us

if a lower court judge is too stupid to know what the correct answer is without being told then he should not be a judge

Not really because the judge could say he didn't believe there was just cause for them to enter the home. He's not right or wrong, he just decided there wasn't enough evidence for the police to go into the house.

 

[pknopp]

No there isn't, but the neighbor didn't call police because somebody was on the back deck, they called police because there was a stranger on the property that was not the owner.

They called because a black guy was on the back porch. I understand that you always see that as suspicious but that's your problem. A problem that does sadly negatively affects others also.

 

[Mac-7]

He's not right or wrong,

I disagree

the law is not a matter of one persons opinion

when reading the law there is only one right answer

 

[Superbadbrutha]

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

Exactly it's like saying, "Well they didn't hit him with a night stick or put a bullet in him".

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I disagree

the law is not a matter of one persons opinion

when reading the law there is only one right answer

Whether law was broken or not is the judges opinion. He or she is the one that makes those decisions. In this case it was a question if the officers were in the right by using reasonable suspicion in which to enter the home. Given the circumstances I would say they were right, but that's my opinion and it's only based on what I read.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They called because a black guy was on the back porch. I understand that you always see that as suspicious but that's your problem. A problem that does sadly negatively affects others also.

Yes that's why she called. So what? It doesn't mention what their coaches race was since it was his mother that owned the house and apparently just passed away. If she was white and two black guys are in and out of the house, she had every reason to call. Even if their coach was black and the mother also, it's still two younger guys in a house of an old lady.

 

[Mac-7]

Whether law was broken or not is the judges opinion. He or she is the one that makes those decisions.

That's not true

the judge cannot make law on his own

or at least they arent supposed to

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not true

the judge cannot make law on his own

or at least they arent supposed to

Agreed, but the judge is who determines if a law was actually broken or not. The judge feels like it was in this case. Again, I disagree with him, but he didn't do anything illegal coming to that inclusion. He's just wrong with it.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.

Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.

Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home

However trite it’s nonetheless true: those who would surrender their liberty for security deserve neither.

This case illustrates that – there are those who have no problem with law enforcement violating citizens’ rights ‘justified’ as an effort to ‘combat crime.’

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Furdge should not get jacksh#t in the lawsuit. If here, he would not. Out on the left coast, he might, but that does not mean he was harmed in any way. Without loss, he should not benefit, is my opinion. He would not get anything here. He should go smiling on his way, smiling in his sweatpants as he was when the police apologized for the inconvenience and left. Makes me wonder who told him he might make a bundle off the encounter, probably a lawyer or activist.

The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.

This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Furdge should not get jacksh#t in the lawsuit.

Wrong.

The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

[Mac-7]

Agreed, but the judge is who determines if a law was actually broken or not. The judge feels like it was in this case. Again, I disagree with him, but he didn't do anything illegal coming to that inclusion. He's just wrong with it.

I did not say the judge broke the law

i said he is incompetent and misunderstands the law

which will be proven without dispute if a higher court overturns his decision

 

[j-mac]

I have no idea how this officer thought he had to right to go into a persons house in the first place let alone with guns drawn.

Maybe they will start to learn what they can and can not do when we hold more of them personally responsible for violating people's rights.

Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home

1. I don't know why the occupants would file suit. Seems like a misunderstanding, and a cordial encounter...

2. What part of this young mans rights were violated? He was detained for less than 2 minutes....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What they assumed was the real possibility that they were confronting a burgler

And this is an example of someone willing to surrender our rights and protected liberties for ‘security.’

If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct, they need to take their evidence to a judge and secure a warrant consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

Indeed, in this case there was neither probable cause nor exigent circumstances – and being black is neither probable cause nor an exigent circumstance.

 

[j-mac]

Wrong.

The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Nah, the lawsuit is ridiculous...It looked to me that this was handled by the book, and cordial...This is just looking to cash in...

 

[Mac-7]

If law enforcement ‘assumes’ criminal conduct,

What the cops assumed was the POSSIBILITY of criminal conduct based on a 911 call

 

[White 6]

The harm he suffered was the unlawful violations of his 4th Amendment rights.

This mindset, that he suffered no harm or worse yet, even if he did "so what" is why the police have been allowed to get away with these and even more egregious violations all this time.

What harm was that, again? I must have missed it.

 

[pknopp]

1. I don't know why the occupants would file suit. Seems like a misunderstanding, and a cordial encounter...

2. What part of this young mans rights were violated? He was detained for less than 2 minutes....

A violation of our rights aren't based upon how long they are violated......but you know that.

 

[White 6]

Wrong.

The lawsuit was perfectly valid the very second the officer lawlessly entered the home absent a warrant and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Let me get this straight. You thanked me for post #4 and now you quote post #4 to object to what I said in the post you thanked me for?