Trump demands immunity for police

[acptulsa]

Why do you need to "give the police immunity" when they already have it?

There's only one possible reason -- that you're personally planning on ordering them to do things which are even more illegal (unconstitutional) than what they already do.

Couldn't help but notice that it wasn't Biden saying it...

 

[jmdrake]

Prosecuted by the courts, maybe, I would have to look back to see the results of the court cases as I don't recall all of them.

I think they are more concerned about being prosecuted by and plastered all over national media. This has happened many, many times. For example, the case that happened just before the Kenosha riots. Then there was the cops who shot the guy who wrestled them and stole their taser gun. There are at least a half dozen or so incidents where cops were convicted in the court of public opinion, which caused rioting, further endangering the police, where it was clear the police acted both legally and rationally.

You know I'm talking about cops who killed white people right? They were not "plastered all over the media" which is why you can't remember whether or not they were prosecuted which was kind of my point. There are many more cases of police brutality that never get covered then the small number of cases that do get covered. Hell, the cousin of one of the founder's of BLM was killed by cops after Trump was out of office and it didn't get a lot of press. There were no riots. There were no mass protests. Why the tepid response? Because BLM was a means to an end as opposed to a real movement. And immunity or no immunity has nothing to do with the court of public opinion! The Kenosha cop was never prosecuted in real court or in the court of public opinion. His "guilt" was transferred over to Kyle Rittenhouse. Nobody knows that cop's name. Everybody knows who Kyle is.

Back to my actual point. Tell me why THIS COP should have immunity.



Tell me why THESE COPS should have immunity.



Tell me why they don't deserve to be "plastered all over the media." Tell me why it's okay for people to not know who they are unlike Dereck Chauvin.

I'm not saying whether Trump is right or wrong, I don't know the solution. I'm not a big fan of the cops either, but I do think they should be able to arrest and prosecute violent criminals.

They are able to do that.

Many who have end up wrongly demonized and this has had a huge impact on the ability for police to do their job of arresting violent criminals.

Name, without looking it up, five cops who have been "wrongly demonized." Just five. How many "demonized cops" are household names. How many more deserve to be demonized and are not? The cop that murdered this white kid on the way home from a church basketball game deserves to be demonized. But I bet you don't know his name.



Violent criminal? Really? The cop wasn't charged.

This combined with defunding of police has turned the inner cities into complete hell holes and Trump wants to fix that. I understand his frustration, it's not an easy fix.

The cops were never actually defunded. That was nothing but a slogan. The cops already have immunity. So...they get even more immunity? Trump is only "frustrated" that BLM cost him votes after he actually did something about criminal justice reform. I understand and share that frustration. But this is BS.

 

[acptulsa]

Many who have end up wrongly demonized and this has had a huge impact on the ability for police to do their job of arresting violent criminals.This combined with defunding of police has turned the inner cities into complete hell holes and Trump wants to fix that. I understand his frustration, it's not an easy fix.

The cops were never actually defunded. That was nothing but a slogan. The cops already have immunity. So...they get even more immunity?

And of course that's the entire point. Police are being ordered to stand down (unless VIPs are coming from China) for a reason, and this is it -- to get people to demand totalitarianism, to trade liberty for safety.

Step one: BLM, a known agent of the psyop, hollers, "Defund the police!"

Step two: Everything is deliberately allowed to go to hell.

Step three: Even California stoners who think they're no friend of government wind up screeching for storm troopers.

Any fledgling conspiracy theorist can see that, if they're worth their salt. The ones that can't are just useful idiots selling the soap opera (and not even getting Soros money for it).

 

[Anti Federalist]

There's only one possible reason -- that you're personally planning on ordering them to do things which are even more illegal (unconstitutional) than what they already do.

Couldn't help but notice that it wasn't Biden saying it...

This is a theory I agree with.

 

[dannno]

This is a theory I agree with.

Mass arresting illegals?

 

[acptulsa]

Mass arresting illegals?

Do you honestly for one second think that's my theory, or that he's dumb enough to think that's my theory?

Mass arrests of lawbreakers isn't illegal, Einstein.

 

[Occam's Banana]

[bold emphasis added]​

[...]

The problem here is that the phrase "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights" does not mean "clearly established" in reference to the law itself (as it is explicitly written in statutes or the Constitution). Instead, it means "clearly established" in the limited context of previous court rulings and already-existing case law (and with reference to the standard of what some generically hypothetical "reasonable person" would know or be aware of - rather than to a standard of, say, what a "law enforcement" officer ought to know). This creates a "catch-22" in which it's so hard to get around "qualified immunity" because there is little or no "clearly established" case law, and there is little or no "clearly established" case law because it's so hard to get around ""qualified immunity".

Thus, if a cop violates your civil rights, but there is no already-"clearly established" case law concerning the violation of those rights by cops, then you're pretty much just shit-out-of-luck when it comes to getting around "qualified immunity" in order to hold the cop liable. This is why it is (relatively) easier to get a cop's qualified immunity removed in cases involving "excessive force" than for many other civil rights violations - before and since the implementation of "qualified immunity" by SCOTUS in the late '60s, there has been plenty of already-"clearly established" case law concerning excessive uses of force by cops.

But for many (most ?) other civil rights violations? Not so much. As an utterly mundane & routine example, consider this case:

[...]

More "qualified immunity" shenanigans (and in this case, there already is "clearly established" case law, and it still didn't matter to these clowns in gowns):

SWAT Raid on 'WRONG HOUSE!' Dragging Through the Courts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YK9og5O8S1Q
{Steve Lehto | 05 May 2024}

And very well could end up in the Supreme Court.


​

@ 1:14: "... the 5thc Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a SWAT commander couldn't have known that he had to make sure he had the correct house before ordering a raid on a house."

@ 3:55: "... the lieutenant [...] admits that his raid violated the 4th Amendment rights of [the family, yet] a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit still held that he's immune from accountability."

@ 7:03: "The panel's decision departs from previous 5th Circuit precedent and four other circuit courts that have ruled that [Maryland v.] Garrison, a Supreme Court case, is the law of the land and should be followed."

And yet ...

Trump demands [more ?] immunity for police

THREAD: "wrong house" police raids

 

[Anti Federalist]

Mass arresting illegals?

Illegals have broken the law, so I have no issue with arresting and deporting them.

 

[TheCount]

Illegals have broken the law, so I have no issue with arresting and deporting them.

Which is why they're the perfect tool to get a fair percentage of "conservatives" in this country to support an expansion of government power

 

[Occam's Banana]

THREAD: Federal judge slams "qualified immunity"

 

[Occam's Banana]

https://x.com/johnbryanesq/status/1817649258851676168
to: https://x.com/johnbryanesq/status/1817663956434960493
{The Civil Rights Lawyer @johnbryanesq | 28 July 2024}

The Supreme Court already gave it to them, and they’ve had it since 1967. Also this is authoritarian garbage that you would find in both communist and fascist regimes around the world.

https://x.com/Acyn/status/1817371097366667605

​

And police have treated us well from 1968 to present, have they not?

Now TAKE AWAY their federal immunity and see how they start respecting our rights again…

As the law currently exists, in order to sue a police officer for violating your constitutional rights, you have to not only prove that they violated the Constitution, but ALSO be able to point to prior case law with facts nearly identical to what they did to you.

Thus it’s already almost impossible to sue cops already. In the rare cases where you can, in my almost 20 years of doing it, I’ve never had an actual police officer have to pay even a single dollar out of their pocket. Total 100% nonissue.

What IS an issue currently: it’s so difficult to sue cops (ie, your government) that they can do things that they ADMIT violated the Constitution, like flashbang a baby in a crib, or steal cash and jewelry during a search, and get immunity for it. There are many more examples.

So what Trump is advocating for is that the government should be able to violate the Constitution, and there’s nothing you can do about it.

Ironically, federal officers already enjoy a sort of super immunity that SCOTUS (not Congress) has given them, that makes them entirely unaccountable, except from within. Like if FBI agents try to put you and your supporters in prison, you can’t sue them, even with proof.

I try to respect the fact that I have followers and subscribers on both sides of politics, so I’ll just point out that this is common ground for all of us who want to exercise enforceable constitutional rights. If they’re unenforceable they don’t exist.

 

[sparebulb]

[SPLIT FROM: Michigan - Harris up 11 points over Trump in latest polling, also behind in AZ WI and NV]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

This poll was taken at the height of the George Floyd protests.

Blacks, by a three point margin, wanted to see more police presence than whites.

81 percent wanted more or the same amount of police presence.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571...agrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

That would gain traction with me and you and a few other freedom folks on the fringe, and it would with white Marxists and Jews, but amongst black voters, as with run of the mill whites, cops are still icons and supported by vast margins.

And I can understand that, if not necessarily supporting it, when you consider that in many urban black communities across the country, more people are shot and killed in a busy weekend then are in my whole state over the course of a year.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but it seems like Trump could easily pick up 3-5% more of the black vote by disavowing summary executions by the kops of harmless black women and not pushing for their blanket immunity.

But he won't do this.

As I think we all know that he won't deport anybody and won't end birthright citizenship and a whole bunch of other stuff he promises.

I'm just trying to not become Venezuela.

 

[Snowball]

As I think we all know that he won't deport anybody and won't end birthright citizenship and a whole bunch of other stuff he promises.

I'm just trying to not become Venezuela.

He would deport some, probably in the low hundreds of thousands at most, and only from friendly red states.

What he won't do (we already know this) is force law-breaking governors, sheriffs or mayors to comply with Federal laws, and his own, at least nominal, powers.

He didn't do that when he easily could have. Trump is not a serious leader.

 

[oyarde]

As I think we all know that he won't deport anybody and won't end birthright citizenship and a whole bunch of other stuff he promises.

I'm just trying to not become Venezuela.

At this point , Im saying Venezuela is coming.

 

[sparebulb]

This poll was taken at the height of the George Floyd protests.

Blacks, by a three point margin, wanted to see more police presence than whites.

81 percent wanted more or the same amount of police presence.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/316571...agrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication

That would gain traction with me and you and a few other freedom folks on the fringe, and it would with white Marxists and Jews, but amongst black voters, as with run of the mill whites, cops are still icons and supported by vast margins.

And I can understand that, if not necessarily supporting it, when you consider that in many urban black communities across the country, more people are shot and killed in a busy weekend then are in my whole state over the course of a year.

Your thoughts are well regarded.

I keep falling into my own echo chamber without regard to how others roll.

It is probably fact that people in the hood call the police with far greater frequency than I do, therefore, they are dependent on the po-po in either reality or perceived reality.

I will only call the kops if I will be in greater trouble for not calling them.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Your thoughts are well regarded.

I keep falling into my own echo chamber without regard to how others roll.

It is probably fact that people in the hood call the police with far greater frequency than I do, therefore, they are dependent on the po-po in either reality or perceived reality.

I will only call the kops if I will be in greater trouble for not calling them.

Exactly right...and I have closely researched the law in NH as to when you are required to notify police of certain things.

 

[Anti Federalist]

At this point , Im saying Venezuela is coming.

I am afraid you are right...

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Exactly right...and I have closely researched the law in NH as to when you are required to notify police of certain things.

Would you be kind enough to share some of the times a person is required to call the police?

I would imagine if you find someone dead on your property. If I stopped at a friends and the door was unlocked/open and my friend was dead, I probably would document my visit and leave.

It seems that the person that calls the police is often the prime suspect.