Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR
Sorry - was working off poorly remembered numbers on how many people Betts killed. The point is we KNOW people on the Left and Right currently and historically have used violence to sow chaos or oppress others.
Pete - is there anything wrong with the statement above?
No, there have always been bad actors taking advantage of situations and it is hard for the large majority of peaceful protesters to stop them, in some cases they have.
I call out White Supremacists, Anti#^&#^&#^&#^&x, Neo Nazis, and Little Commie agitators. But so there is no lack of clarity I will spell it out for you:
When you are hard left or hard right and you are peacefully assembling in legal protest, I may not like what you say but I support your right to peacefully protest - as much as I hate what you are saying. When you take the reigns to injure your fellow citizens, burn, loot, and cause mayhem LEFT OR RIGHT
Pete - is there anything wrong with the statement above?
No, the problem is tagging all with the sins of a few and then attacking them as Tweety did in front of the White House last night with tear gas and rubber bullets, a half hour before curfew. So to put it simply, the federal government launched tear gas at protestors who were peaceably assembled to petition the government for a redress of grievances. There was no curfew in place. These were not looters. It would be difficult for Tweety to violate the Constitution more directly.
Police Unions are probably the number one thing protecting bad cops. Tell me how we get around that one?
|
Get rid of qualified immunity.
There was actually a great article in The Bulwark a couple of days ago, here is a portion with the link below.
In determining the relationship between government and governed, one of the most important decisions a society can make is how accountable those who wield official power must be to those against whom that power is wielded. Congress made a clear choice in that regard when it passed the Enforcement Act of 1871, which we now call “Section 1983” after its location in the U.S. Code. Simply put, Section 1983 creates a standard of strict liability by providing that state actors “shall be liable to the party injured” for “the deprivation of any rights.” Thus, if a police officer walks up to your house and peeks inside one of your windows without a warrant—a clear violation of your Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches—he is liable to you for the violation of that right.
But many conservatives do an odd thing: In their preference for a more forgiving policy that gives police and other government officials substantial leeway in the exercise of discretion, they abandon their stated commitment to textualism and embrace an “interpretation” of Section 1983 that is utterly divorced from its text. The vehicle for this conservative brand of what we might call “living statutory interpretivism” is the Supreme Court’s qualified immunity doctrine, which judicially amends Section 1983 to provide that the standard for liability will no longer be the deprivation of “any rights”—as Congress expressly provided—but rather the deprivation of any “clearly established” rights.
As documented in considerable detail on Cato’s Unlawful Shield website, those two words—“clearly established”—do an extraordinary amount of work in keeping meritorious cases out of court and ensuring that plaintiffs whose rights have been violated by police or other state actors will receive no recovery unless they can find a pre-existing case in the jurisdiction with nearly identical facts. But that is plainly not the statute that Congress wrote, nor is it the standard of accountability that Congress chose. Moreover, as Professor Will Baude demonstrates in his masterful article, “Is Qualified Immunity Unlawful?,” there is no credible textual or historical basis for the qualified immunity doctrine; it is a blatant act of pro-government judicial policymaking—activism, if you will—and nothing more.
http://www.californialawreview.org/p...nity-unlawful/
https://www.unlawfulshield.com/
https://thebulwark.com/to-make-polic...fied-immunity/