Atlanta Shooting

[TheGrey]

I think his daughter is fine. I think she was talking about what she might say if she were an Atlanta officer.

I could be wrong on that...hope not.

That makes sense!

[Great-Kazoo]

I hope that it's allergies or a cold she has. Praying! Let us know.

thanks but it's her sarcasm. She neither has nor exhibits symptoms. But she did pass it on to her 3 cousins, in various LE agencies to "tell a friend"

[FoxtArt]

I actually agree on the more training thing, even to the point that I would walk my earlier suggestion of everyone going to Jiu jitsu classes. Suggesting more training is the same nonsense that people cling on to and endlessly repeat to say something in a conversation, without actually saying anything. Training isn't the issue. Like in any business, training is an on-going thing that is happening all the time.

I think having so much immunity is the bigger issue. A similar example is how people treat each other online compared to face to face, and that includes me.

As someone that has offensively litigated against immunities, I'm torn on the issue of QI. It seems.... I don't think it should go away - it is already not overly difficult to overcome it, it just needs honed/adjusted. There is too many vexatious types out there that could harass officers otherwise (e.g. threatening that every time you arrest them they'll open a case, they're uncollectable) and the civil system does not protect anyone from that stuff. That said, it is often overextended based on the clearly settled law argument that prevents anyone from relief on any case of first impression or unique facts. (ETA Here to add: What that means is say officers break into your house and maliciously destroy your ming vase collection while joking about it, well they can argue that's not a solution in clearly settled case law so they are still protected by qualified immunity because nobody else has ever brought a successful case about destroying a ming vase collection [very bad example, but the gist])


Judicial immunity and prosecutorial immunity, which are for all purposes here considered absolute, need to be treated like qualified immunity. People need to be able to sue a prosecutor or a judge for proper cause, such as... this circumstance. I think maybe the best solution is a creative one - such as to require a certification from a person actively employed in that field in that state (e.g. you want to sue a judge? Another judge on the bench anywhere in the state has to review and sign off on it that it is not frivolous or groundless) or some other similar concept. "Clearly settled law" fails for all sorts of reasons, I think a citizen commission might also fail for reasons of heavily biased appointments, but who knows. All I know is absolute immunity (which LEO does not have) should disappear. There needs to be a high bar, but not too high, to pursue compensation from civil servants, even if it is from the treasury.

The last note is, sovereign immunity as fucked up by SCOTUS starting in the early 1800s needs to be corrected back to the plain text of the 11th amendment. This is what I mean: SCOTUS rewrote the 11th amendment to restrict your ability to pursue your own state in federal courts, when the amendment was clearly written to prevent citizens of other states from suing your state in federal court (actual soverign immunity) the problem here is if you have a serious issue with a judicial problem in a state - say like Bubba's the only district court judge in your country in 'Bama, and he impregnated your sister/cousin, you're fucked because any imaginable relief has to be pursued in the same exact court you're having an issue with. (ETA2: This is also a horrid example, but the point being when you have to challenge certain court issues from within the same court system you're having an issue (because of 11A reinterpretation of sovereign immunity), you're already doomed)

[FoxtArt]

The big core resolution imho - and of course, this is just an opinion - is one of screening.

Most departments do screening amounting to "lie detector tests" which are only in truth, an anxiety test which pathological types can clear, and a battery of questions that have been used for forever that are not actually effective in weeding out bad people, or even recognizing psychological problems. We've had four decades of advances in science and we're still doing the same old shit, practically putting a colander on their head, asking them to swear on the bible, and hooking them up to nipple clamps. Even the inventor of the lie detector was horrified that it was put into use... because it's not a real tool.

I think it would be well worth the money for departments to screen their candidates at the last step with actual psychological screens (from external doctors, e.g. no agency guy) coupled with an FMRI scan. And then do follow up screens on like a semi annual basis to pick up on developing issues like PTSD especially with the earlier baseline to compare there. Any kind of IA or other review board (such as attorney regulation) shouldn't be comprised of anyone who works in that field - and I know that seems insane from the face, but no matter what field you work in - whether it's medicine, LEO, an accountant, programmer, whatever, people get a special kind of "empathy" for bullshit on their job, and they try to justify people's actions based in the scope of that empathy. It's honestly more reliable if people don't have any work experience in this field. Is an attorney unethical? Should they be punished? If an attorney is reviewing that claim, they're considering all the effort they put into law school and their own family, and gosh, I'd hate to put this guy out of work....

When a member of the lay public doesn't give a shit about the work-empathy and can just say on it's face, "yes".

[MrAK]

People were asking for clarification. More than once. If that doesn't tell you there is an issue in communication, then I can't help you.

And yes, you and everyone else are subject to the history of what has gone on before. Many of your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That's not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO.

?Many of your your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That?s not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO?. This is absolutely laughable, and quite telling. Have you ever criticized the POTUS? Ever criticized any public servant or group of public servants? If you?ve ever criticized the POTUS then does that mean that you?re against any and all Presidents or the office in its entirety? Or maybe it?s healthy in a country to promote discourse regarding our public servants, their behavior and conduct, or any other facet of their being.

You demanded I show proof for my statement, i in turn am demanding that you show me the posts you claim show an anti cop slant.



And you can also stop with the childish snark. This isn't grade school.

?People asking for clarification? = being attacked as soon as I make a post, using language and attitude that has been previously stated as unacceptable on this forum, yet is still permitted depending upon who it is that is committing the infraction?

[MrAK]

People were asking for clarification. More than once. If that doesn't tell you there is an issue in communication, then I can't help you.

And yes, you and everyone else are subject to the history of what has gone on before. Many of your prior discussions take an anti-police slant. That's not exactly a good thing to be known for, on a gun forum started by an LEO.

And you can also stop with the childish snark. This isn't grade school.

I should also like to demand proof of my anti-cop slant comments.

[00tec]

I wonder if this will make an appearance at trial

https://mobile.twitter.com/jason_how...02121858187264

[Gman]

Is there a forum woodshed?

Asking for a friend.

[Gman]

I wonder if this will make an appearance at trial

https://mobile.twitter.com/jason_how...02121858187264

Should be helpful in showing that the DA talks out of both sides of his face whenever he feels it's suitable.

[Martinjmpr]

I wonder, though, if "more training", "more screening" and "higher pay to attract quality candidates" might not end up working AGAINST the goal of removing "problematic" officers?

After all, the more training and screening, and the higher the pay, the more it "costs" the department to recruit and train an officer. And so when an officer is removed or fired, that money is flushed down the toilet and the expense of recruiting, screening and training an officer to take his place is that much higher.

Which could make it (a) easier to justify keeping an officer who has "issues" and (b) makes it more attractive to recruit an "already qualified" officer from another department - even though the circumstances under which that officer left that department might not have been favorable.