LEO should be subject to the same restrictions as civilians.

[Truebeliever]

Assuming your job is to help people, yeah, you should be immune from that, as long as you are following proper procedure for the administration of Narcan.

But if a cop is trying to arrest someone based on an unConstititional law, then no, they should not have immunity.

Back to that pesky thing of what’s unconstitutional. A cop in 1960 makes an arrest based on a confession and did not read Miranda rights , should he have been sued ? The Miranda case hadn’t gone up to SCOTUS yet. It’s not as clear cut as you think. A protester blocks a road exercising their right of protest , can the cop be sued if they arrest him. Not so clear cut. The 2nd circuit reversed themselves on the very same case. It’s the same with the 2nd . It’s not as clear cut as one might think but certainly not what NYS thinks it is. Can a convicted felon carry a gun? Even people in the gun community argue that one. Can someone who was declared mentally incompetent carry a gun if they are allowed out in society? What if they are heavily medicated?
Can the state require some gun training before one can CCW? - that well regulated part comes in there for some .
It’s not as clear cut as one might think.

 

[Truebeliever]

So, you think other professions don't have to be worried about getting sued for just doing their job ?

Have I got news for you.

The damn greeter at Walmart can get sued for choosing the wrong pronoun when they say "hi".

The answer is to *fix the GD tort system*, not to dole out exceptions to favored occupations.

And I don't know why you keep going back to judges and legislators having immunity. Theirs should be stripped too.

Everyone in New Mexico should be suing their governor personally for damages right now.

Yep. And a cop can be sued for all of that too. Qualified immunity doesn’t apply . Hence the word qualified. You really don’t understand what qualified immunity is if you are using those examples as a comparison.

Let me give you an example of qualified immunity that you have. If you think a child being beaten up by his parents . You call the child protective services hotline to investigate. You have qualified immunity for that phone call. So if the child protective services investigator screws up and gets sued, you aren’t named in the lawsuit . However if you make that call, then go into public and tell everyone so and so abuses their children and it’s not true, you can’t be sued for the phone call but can for the public statements.
Do you see the difference?
Now add that because of your job that you are a mandated reporter and are required by law to make that phone call under criminal penalties.

 

[spat]

Back to that pesky thing of what’s unconstitutional. A cop in 1960 makes an arrest based on a confession and did not read Miranda rights , should he have been sued ? The Miranda case hadn’t gone up to SCOTUS yet. It’s not as clear cut as you think. A protester blocks a road exercising their right of protest , can the cop be sued if they arrest him. Not so clear cut. The 2nd circuit reversed themselves on the very same case. It’s the same with the 2nd . It’s not as clear cut as one might think but certainly not what NYS thinks it is. Can a convicted felon carry a gun? Even people in the gun community argue that one. Can someone who was declared mentally incompetent carry a gun if they are allowed out in society? What if they are heavily medicated?
Can the state require some gun training before one can CCW? - that well regulated part comes in there for some .
It’s not as clear cut as one might think.

Simple.

You cannot abrogated your responsibility in the matter.

It doesn't matter what authority claims something is constitutional. What matters is only whether it is or not.

So, you don't enforce anything you *personally* aren't 100% sure of. Same goes for following any order.

If you can't trust your chain of command to get it right, why should the public?

If you're not willing to risk your own neck to enforce that law, why should the public be forced to risk theirs the other way ?

Government *tells* you that you aren't responsible for your actions because "just following orders". But that's just to get you to follow the orders without question. You really are still responsible.

The people who rounded up Japanese Americans in WWII should have gone to prison for it.

Yes, that means every cop would have to constantly question every order they're given, and would have to constantly be worried about violating someone's rights. That's how it *should* be.

 

[spat]

Yep. And a cop can be sued for all of that too. Qualified immunity doesn’t apply . Hence the word qualified. You really don’t understand what qualified immunity is if you are using those examples as a comparison.

Let me give you an example of qualified immunity that you have. If you think a child being beaten up by his parents . You call the child protective services hotline to investigate. You have qualified immunity for that phone call. So if the child protective services investigator screws up and gets sued, you aren’t named in the lawsuit . However if you make that call, then go into public and tell everyone so and so abuses their children and it’s not true, you can’t be sued for the phone call but can for the public statements.
Do you see the difference?

If you made false accusations to the CPS hotline you absolutely *should* be on the hook for damages.

If your public statements are true, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

So, there should be no difference whether you made those statements to CPS, or posted them on a billboard.

 

[Truebeliever]

Simple.

You cannot abrogated your responsibility in the matter.

It doesn't matter what authority claims something is constitutional. What matters is only whether it is or not.

So, you don't enforce anything you *personally* aren't 100% sure of. Same goes for following any order.

If you can't trust your chain of command to get it right, why should the public?

If you're not willing to risk your own neck to enforce that law, why should the public be forced to risk theirs the other way ?

Government *tells* you that you aren't responsible for your actions because "just following orders". But that's just to get you to follow the orders without question. You really are still responsible.

The people who rounded up Japanese Americans in WWII should have gone to prison for it.

Yes, that means every cop would have to constantly question every order they're given, and would have to constantly be worried about violating someone's rights. That's how it *should* be.

So explain more. If someone is protesting and blocking a road, can you arrest them? Or protesters follow someone everywhere to protest them . Can you arrest them ? Is that clear cut. Can a convicted felon be denied from carrying a gun and under what circumstances?

 

[Truebeliever]

If you made false accusations to the CPS hotline you absolutely *should* be on the hook for damages.

If your public statements are true, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

So, there should be no difference whether you made those statements to CPS, or posted them on a billboard.

It’s not intentional false, it’s calling for investigation. Big difference. They saw bruises on a child that look like abuse. Should the caller be sued? Add that you are a mandated reporter and if you don’t call , you can be put in jail.

 

[Truebeliever]

If you made false accusations to the CPS hotline you absolutely *should* be on the hook for damages.

If your public statements are true, truth is an absolute defense against libel and slander.

So, there should be no difference whether you made those statements to CPS, or posted them on a billboard.

If you think truth is absolute defense for liable or slander , you don’t know the court system. For a non public figure, you would have prove what you said is true . Good luck with that . Unless CPS or other entity convicts them of the crime , you would on the hook even if they did do it . Public figures are the ones who have prove it was a lie.

 

[spat]

It’s not intentional false, it’s calling for investigation. Big difference. They saw bruises on a child that look like abuse. Should the caller be sued? Add that you are a mandated reporter and if you don’t call , you can be put in jail.

Why should any of that be any different if you post it publicly than if you report it confidentially ?

Was there a legitimate appearance of bruises?

Pointing that out is not a tort, regardless of what the reason for them appears to be.

Calling for an investigation isn't either.

Claiming that they are evidence of abuse is, whether you say it to an investigator or publish it in a newspaper.

 

[spat]

If you think truth is absolute defense for liable or slander , you don’t know the court system. For a non public figure, you would have prove what you said is true . Good luck with that . Unless CPS or other entity convicts them of the crime , you would on the hook even if they did do it . Public figures are the ones who have prove it was a lie.

I have already said the court system is completely fucked.

It's gotten so bad that those defending it should be ashamed of themselves. We're not far from a point where we'd be better off without it altogether.

But, as a legal principle truth *is* an absolute defense.

Also, I'm pretty sure to sue you they need to prove what you said wasn't true, public figure or not.

The difference is a public figure needs to prove you lied maliciously. The ordinary citizen still needs to prove it's a lie, but they don't have to demonstrate intent.

 

[SomeSoldier]

Doctors run into both of those same issues.

The solution is that we pay them enough to afford malpractice insurance.

So, we pay you guys like doctors. Problem solved.

If the price of getting rid of qualified immunity is paying cops $500k salaries, then we pay it.

Actually most docs don't pay their own mal practice insurance. The place they work for does.

 

[Truebeliever]

Why should any of that be any different if you post it publicly than if you report it confidentially ?

Was there a legitimate appearance of bruises?

Pointing that out is not a tort, regardless of what the reason for them appears to be.

Calling for an investigation isn't either.

Claiming that they are evidence of abuse is, whether you say it to an investigator or publish it in a newspaper.

See, there is the rub.
The difference between the call to CPS and a public accusation is the CPS investigation is supposed to be confidential. A teacher sees bruises on a kid and makes the call as the law requires. CPS contacts the parents and the parents show an a car accident report. No issues, alledgely. But the parents feel embarrassed and sue. Do you think the teacher should be sued ? Do you think any teachers would make that call again if their colleagues were getting sued?

 

[Truebeliever]

I have already said the court system is completely fucked.

It's gotten so bad that those defending it should be ashamed of themselves. We're not far from a point where we'd be better off without it altogether.

But, as a legal principle truth *is* an absolute defense.

Also, I'm pretty sure to sue you they need to prove what you said wasn't true, public figure or not.

The difference is a public figure needs to prove you lied maliciously. The ordinary citizen still needs to prove it's a lie, but they don't have to demonstrate intent.

Nope. Make a statement against a non public figure and they sue , the burden is on you to prove it’s true. It’s the reverse for a public figure. It’s not just a malicious intent issue.
What saves most people from being sued is the lack of damages

 

[spat]

Nope. Make a statement against a non public figure and they sue , the burden is on you to prove it’s true. It’s the reverse for a public figure. It’s not just a malicious intent issue.
What saves most people from being sued is the lack of damages

Nope.

defamation

www.law.cornell.edu

To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the reputation of the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

The plaintiff must claim a false statement was made.

Since it's civil and not criminal law the burden of proof is basically "who's claim is more believable".

But to win damages the plaintiff would need to convince the jury (or judge) that the statement was more likely to be false than not.

If it comes down to a "he said/she said" situation, the plaintiff is unlikely to prevail (unless they just have much better lawyers).

But the whole system is just fucked, because truth and justice take a backseat to who can afford the best lawyers anyway.

 

[spat]

See, there is the rub.
The difference between the call to CPS and a public accusation is the CPS investigation is supposed to be confidential. A teacher sees bruises on a kid and makes the call as the law requires. CPS contacts the parents and the parents show an a car accident report. No issues, alledgely. But the parents feel embarrassed and sue. Do you think the teacher should be sued ? Do you think any teachers would make that call again if their colleagues were getting sued?

Teachers shouldn't be sued if they put that on the 6 o'clock news.

Confidential or not, it's a statement to a third party. It shouldn't matter *who* that party is.

 

[spat]

Actually most docs don't pay their own mal practice insurance. The place they work for does.

It's part of their compensation package.

Just like state employees don't pay for their pension the way a corporate drone with a 401k does, but it's still part of the package.

 

[Truebeliever]

Nope.

defamation

www.law.cornell.edu

The plaintiff must claim a false statement was made.

Since it's civil and not criminal law the burden of proof is basically "who's claim is more believable".

But to win damages the plaintiff would need to convince the jury (or judge) that the statement was more likely to be false than not.

If it comes down to a "he said/she said" situation, the plaintiff is unlikely to prevail (unless they just have much better lawyers).

But the whole system is just fucked, because truth and justice take a backseat to who can afford the best lawyers anyway.

Okay. Break that down again. You say something the person claims is a lie and he sues. He says it’s not true . Now it’s on you to convince a jury that it is. The burden is on you.
For example, a parent says that a teacher of twenty years slept with one his students at a school board meeting . Never says who or when, just that it happened. The teacher says I never did. How does that teacher prove the negative? That’s it’s not true ? He or she can’t . The burden is on the person who said he did .
That’s what the standard is for a non public person . A public figure would have prove its not true, then show it was malicious. That’s why in certain cases, the defendant attempt to have people like Nick Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse etc identified by the court as public figures.
Why do I know this? Because cops as it comes to their jobs fall under the public figure category.

 

[spat]

Okay. Break that down again. You say something the person claims is a lie and he sues. He says it’s not true . Now it’s on you to convince a jury that it is. The burden is on you.
For example, a parent says that a teacher of twenty years slept with one his students at a school board meeting . Never says who or when, just that it happened. The teacher says I never did. How does that teacher prove the negative? That’s it’s not true ? He or she can’t . The burden is on the person who said he did .
That’s what the standard is for a non public person . A public figure would have prove its not true, then show it was malicious. That’s why in certain cases, the defendant attempt to have people like Nick Sandman, Kyle Rittenhouse etc identified by the court as public figures.
Why do I know this? Because cops as it comes to their jobs fall under the public figure category.

The plaintiff always has to prove it was a lie.

The difference is that a public figure needs to prove it was actual malice.

The private figure only needs to prove that it was a lie and the defendant either knew that, or was negligent in claiming it was true.

But before *any* defamation case gets off the ground, there needs to be a false statement.

Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure Explained

In this blog post, we explore the difference between defamation of a public figure and private figure.

www.ryanhugheslaw.com

 

[Truebeliever]

The plaintiff always has to prove it was a lie.

The difference is that a public figure needs to prove it was actual malice.

The private figure only needs to prove that it was a lie and the defendant either knew that, or was negligent in claiming it was true.

But before *any* defamation case gets off the ground, there needs to be a false statement.

Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure Explained

In this blog post, we explore the difference between defamation of a public figure and private figure.

www.ryanhugheslaw.com

Again, we are talking reality. If the person simply denies it, that is often enough. Again the teacher example I used above. Now the burden is on the person who made the statement.
“Private figures only need to prove that the defendant was negligent in making the false statement. This means that the defendant did not take reasonable care to ensure that the information was accurate before publishing”

Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure Explained

In this blog post, we explore the difference between defamation of a public figure and private figure.

www.ryanhugheslaw.com

We are talking reality . The burden of proof shifts once a denial is made by the plaintiff and they prove the defendant made such a statement. The so -called truth is not an absolute defense is the point . In the example I gave, if the teacher did sleep with a student twenty years earlier but denied it, good luck proving it unless that former student came forward. Want further proof, do you think Trump raped that woman in the department store ? The jury didn’t think so but still gave the woman money for deformation when Trump denied it.

 

[Truebeliever]

The plaintiff always has to prove it was a lie.

The difference is that a public figure needs to prove it was actual malice.

The private figure only needs to prove that it was a lie and the defendant either knew that, or was negligent in claiming it was true.

But before *any* defamation case gets off the ground, there needs to be a false statement.

Defamation of a Public Figure vs. Private Figure Explained

In this blog post, we explore the difference between defamation of a public figure and private figure.

www.ryanhugheslaw.com

Let’s use an example closer to you.
If someone said you surf for kiddie porn and then said it to everyone in your life , how would you prove you didn’t to sue them? You would sue them and deny it. Now , the burden is on them to show how they weren’t negligent in making that statement. The burden shifts to them once you made the denial . Do you think you would have to prove your internet history and prove you weren’t using a third party device ? How could you prove you never used a third party device?

 

[SomeSoldier]

It's part of their compensation package.

Just like state employees don't pay for their pension the way a corporate drone with a 401k does, but it's still part of the package.

I agree but payments are made to insurance company by employer. Just wanted to make the distinction as I think it's important when comparing these two very different occupations.

 

[GOPerfect]

Tort reform! problem solved.
Robin

Great idea, never going to happen. Would love to see that though

 

[GOPerfect]

just saying



stop playing Doctor ..

I can be charged with a crime lose my job or get sued for not getting involved

 

[Darth]

Because, most times the police did not fuck up and should not be on the hook for anything financially

And considering conviction rate, most citizens cops arrest did not as well.

I'll make a compromise. Simple accountability. If a cop makes any arrest, and the outcome is "not guilty", no hard feelings. It happens. But the cop will now face the exact punishment a guilty verdict would have.

Let's see how fast the "see what sticks " mentality disappears.

 

[GOPerfect]

And considering conviction rate, most citizens cops arrest did not as well.

I'll make a compromise. Simple accountability. If a cop makes any arrest, and the outcome is "not guilty", no hard feelings. It happens. But the cop will now face the exact punishment a guilty verdict would have.

Let's see how fast the "see what sticks " mentality disappears.

I know there are far too many on the job that see their success as how many arrests, how many charges and how many tickets they write in a day. I do not like those people. A great day for me, when I am at work, nothing happens. No pen to paper is needed. A few conversations with people, a few waves of the hand and a couple nods to people I see. Maybe a fist bump or two.

I do not like the idea of bagging on the cop due to a non-guilty plea. After the arrest is made, all that occurs after that is out of the officers hand.

Example, I pull over a car for, say speeding, he has no license, no insurance and no registration. He has a huge bag of heroin on the car seat next to him. I arrest him, the DA decides not to prosecute because the guy is his cousin. Charges dropped. Not my fault, the arrest was a good one. I did everything correctly and followed the law. The officer in that case should not be punished for the actions of others.

 

[dwa12479]

Doctors run into both of those same issues.

The solution is that we pay them enough to afford malpractice insurance.

So, we pay you guys like doctors. Problem solved.

If the price of getting rid of qualified immunity is paying cops $500k salaries, then we pay it.

Not really a cost effective option considering the salaries are paid with tax dollars. I don't really want to see my taxes triple to cover the extra cost for each individual to have their own liability insurance vs an umbrella policy.

 

[Darth]

I know there are far too many on the job that see their success as how many arrests, how many charges and how many tickets they write in a day. I do not like those people. A great day for me, when I am at work, nothing happens. No pen to paper is needed. A few conversations with people, a few waves of the hand and a couple nods to people I see. Maybe a fist bump or two.

I do not like the idea of bagging on the cop due to a non-guilty plea. After the arrest is made, all that occurs after that is out of the officers hand.

Example, I pull over a car for, say speeding, he has no license, no insurance and no registration. He has a huge bag of heroin on the car seat next to him. I arrest him, the DA decides not to prosecute because the guy is his cousin. Charges dropped. Not my fault, the arrest was a good one. I did everything correctly and followed the law. The officer in that case should not be punished for the actions of others.

I never said charges dropped. I said the outcome is "not guilty. "

I said

 

[GOPerfect]

I never said charges dropped. I said the outcome is "not guilty. "

I said

Yep, and I mentioned a non-guilty plea in my response as well.....

 

[Rocpo]

You want an ANTIFA like Police Department/Officers? Take away QI and most of us would walk the following day. You'll love what comes after those of us that have actually read the Constitution and abide by it leave.

Then they can staff entire departments with those who will happily and gleefully trample your rights.

Some of you guys truly believe the bullshit the media propagated about QI. It's not an "I can do whatever I want and get away with it." It's a "well that wasn't clear" or "that's a completely bullshit lawsuit because someone got butthurt"

For example: I make a LEGAL and lawful arrest for possession of stolen credit cards. The mutt PLEADS GUILTY to the charges. I get sued by the mutt for a false arrest. I should be expected to risk my life/freedom for that?

 

[SomeSoldier]

You want an ANTIFA like Police Department/Officers? Take away QI and most of us would walk the following day. You'll love what comes after those of us that have actually read the Constitution and abide by it leave.

Then they can staff entire departments with those who will happily and gleefully trample your rights.

Some of you guys truly believe the bullshit the media propagated about QI. It's not an "I can do whatever I want and get away with it." It's a "well that wasn't clear" or "that's a completely bullshit lawsuit because someone got butthurt"

For example: I make a LEGAL and lawful arrest for possession of stolen credit cards. The mutt PLEADS GUILTY to the charges. I get sued by the mutt for a false arrest. I should be expected to risk my life/freedom for that?

Nope, judge should toss the case because dude pled guilty.

 

[Rocpo]

Nope, judge should toss the case because dude pled guilty.

I'm not willing to bet my freedom/life on what a judge "Should" do.
Some are quite clearly anti-cop, BLM/Antifa supporters.