Відео

Fisheggs

*Having your property boundry posted with signs saying this will help "Law Enforcement" confusion: NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT BEYOND THIS SIGN IS CURTILAGE IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE 4TH AMENDMENT TO ENTER THIS AREA WITHOUT A WARRANT OR PERMISSION OF THE RESIDENT/OWNER (AMENDMENT 4 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, May 29, 1790) USE OF DEADLY FORCE IS AUTHORIZED (AMENDMENT 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, May 29, 1790)*

Qualified immunity is a violation of the 14th amendment to the federal constitution, end of story.

And would this be filed under federal court ,or state ???

I have a question what is it when they charge a witness as a codefendant's with a crime with no probable cause and they the judge , da,public defender Don't want this witness to testify because they tried to hide the truth And hide exculpatory evidence. I need help with this ...please

To be on point since I may have missed it earlier: Defending the Abolishment of Qualified Immunity Introduction Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from personal liability for constitutional violations unless they violate clearly established law. While its intent was to protect officials from frivolous lawsuits, the doctrine has become a significant barrier to accountability, often preventing victims of civil rights violations from seeking justice. This report defends the abolition of qualified immunity by highlighting its role in perpetuating injustice, the impact on public trust, and the need for accountability in a fair legal system. The Origins of Qualified Immunity Qualified immunity was established by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1967 to provide government officials protection from lawsuits while performing their duties, so long as they did not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The court’s rationale was to balance holding public officials accountable with protecting them from the fear of litigation for reasonable but mistaken judgments. However, over the years, the application of qualified immunity has expanded significantly, particularly in the context of police misconduct. Courts often dismiss cases even when officers have committed egregious violations of civil rights unless a prior case exists with nearly identical facts, making it exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to prevail. Arguments for Abolishing Qualified Immunity Obstructs Accountability and Justice Qualified immunity creates a virtually impenetrable shield for government officials, especially law enforcement officers, from accountability for misconduct. In practice, it is not enough for plaintiffs to prove that their rights were violated; they must show that the violation occurred in a context that has been previously ruled unconstitutional in a nearly identical case. This standard makes it nearly impossible for victims to receive justice. By abolishing qualified immunity, the legal system can begin holding officials accountable for their actions, encouraging responsible conduct and deterring future violations. Erodes Public Trust in Law Enforcement The existence of qualified immunity fuels public perception that law enforcement and other officials operate above the law. When cases of police brutality or other abuses are dismissed due to qualified immunity, communities lose faith in the justice system’s ability to hold wrongdoers accountable. This erosion of trust contributes to the growing divide between law enforcement and the communities they serve, particularly in marginalized communities disproportionately affected by police misconduct. Abolishing qualified immunity would help rebuild public trust by ensuring that no one is beyond the reach of the law. Fails to Reflect the Principle of Equal Justice Under Law The legal principle of equal justice under law is foundational to the U.S. Constitution, yet qualified immunity creates a double standard in which government officials are shielded from consequences that ordinary citizens would face. By allowing officials to avoid liability for violations of constitutional rights, qualified immunity undermines the principle that all people should be held to the same legal standards. Abolishing the doctrine would ensure that public servants, including law enforcement officers, are held to the same standard of accountability as everyone else. Incentivizes Reckless Behavior Qualified immunity removes a crucial deterrent against reckless or unconstitutional behavior by public officials. Knowing they are protected from personal liability, some officials may feel emboldened to act without fear of consequences, leading to increased incidents of excessive force or unlawful searches. Without the threat of lawsuits, there is little motivation for officials to exercise caution or respect the constitutional rights of citizens. Abolishing qualified immunity would encourage officials to perform their duties with greater care and consideration for civil liberties. Inhibits Systemic Reform Qualified immunity obstructs the path to meaningful reform in policing and public service because it allows systemic issues to go unaddressed. When officers and officials are shielded from liability, there is little incentive for law enforcement agencies or government institutions to change policies or practices that contribute to civil rights violations. Without the threat of lawsuits or financial consequences, institutions can perpetuate harmful practices without accountability. Abolishing qualified immunity would push institutions to implement reforms aimed at protecting citizens' rights. Counterarguments and Responses Fear of Frivolous Lawsuits Proponents of qualified immunity argue that its elimination would open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits against public officials, burdening them with litigation and discouraging individuals from entering public service. However, this concern is overstated. Existing legal standards, such as those requiring proof of harm and a clear violation of rights, already prevent most frivolous lawsuits from proceeding. Additionally, holding officials accountable for genuine abuses of power should be seen as a necessary cost of ensuring justice. Officials Need Protection to Perform Their Duties Another argument is that without qualified immunity, officials, particularly law enforcement officers, would hesitate to act in critical situations for fear of being sued. However, the standard for liability would still require plaintiffs to prove that officials acted unlawfully. Abolishing qualified immunity would not prevent officers from making split-second decisions in good faith but would ensure that gross misconduct or clear violations of constitutional rights are addressed in court. The Potential Financial Burden on Governments Some argue that abolishing qualified immunity would lead to an increase in lawsuits and financial liability for governments, potentially straining public resources. However, this argument overlooks the fact that many settlements and judgments are already paid by municipalities and police departments through taxpayer funds. Abolishing qualified immunity could, in fact, encourage governments to invest more in training, oversight, and reforms that reduce the likelihood of lawsuits in the first place, ultimately lowering costs. Conclusion Qualified immunity stands in the way of justice for victims of civil rights violations and undermines public trust in government institutions. By shielding officials from accountability, it erodes the very principles of fairness and equality that the legal system is meant to uphold. Abolishing qualified immunity is a crucial step toward ensuring that public officials, particularly law enforcement officers, are held accountable for their actions, fostering a system that prioritizes the protection of citizens' rights and restores faith in the justice system. It is time for the legal doctrine of qualified immunity to be reformed or abolished to ensure justice and accountability for all.

Love this collab. Great content! Keep it up!

It is not a crime to have your hands in your pockets. Having your hands in your pockets does not rise to the point of reasonable suspicion just because you have your hands in your pockets. There must be more to it than just that.

I'm looking for a Lawyer in New Mexico to help me SUE the Albuquerque Police Department. I've been targeted by Albuquerque Police Department for exposing them for their connections to the Cartel. As well I have been "Red Flagged Twice" over my Freedom of Speech and Religion. I will Not Back Down from a dirty police department.

The Influence of Soviet Legal Theory on the U.S. Legal System: The Case of Qualified Immunity Introduction The legal theory that "it is the government who is the beneficiary of human rights, which are to be asserted against the individual"-a central tenet of Soviet legal thought-has found echoes in some aspects of the United States legal system. One of the most significant, though often overlooked, manifestations of this influence is the doctrine of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity, which shields government officials from personal liability for constitutional violations unless they violate “clearly established law,” has been widely critiqued for undermining individual rights and providing excessive deference to government interests at the expense of personal liberties. This doctrine not only reflects Soviet-era attitudes about the role of government in legal matters, but it also constitutes a deliberate infringement on individual freedoms, weakening protections for citizens against state abuses. In examining the roots of qualified immunity, we can trace a conceptual lineage from Soviet legal theory, which prioritized the state's role over individual rights. The development and use of qualified immunity in the United States can be seen as a manifestation of an increasing acceptance of the notion that government officials, rather than individual citizens, are the true beneficiaries of legal protections. This report will analyze how qualified immunity serves as a legal tool that limits accountability for government officials, why it represents a direct infringement on individual liberties, and why its abolition is crucial to restoring constitutional protections for American citizens. The Soviet Legal Framework and the Role of the State Soviet legal theory, as outlined in the section above, fundamentally differs from the Western liberal tradition in its understanding of rights and the role of the state. In the Soviet Union, rights were not seen as inherent or individual, but as privileges granted by the state for the purpose of advancing the collective good. The legal system, therefore, was designed to safeguard the state's interests, not to protect the rights of individuals from the state. In this framework, government actions that were in line with state objectives were considered legitimate, and any claims of individual rights were often dismissed if they contradicted the needs of the state. One of the key tenets of Soviet law was the idea that the state, as the ultimate authority, had the power to limit individual rights when necessary. The legal system was viewed not as a mechanism to limit government power, but rather as a tool to direct and control individual behavior to serve the collective. In this context, the protection of individual rights was secondary to the goal of preserving the state’s authority and interests. Qualified Immunity in the U.S.: A Reflection of Soviet Legal Theory? While the U.S. legal system upholds a commitment to protecting individual rights, particularly through the Constitution’s Bill of Rights, the doctrine of qualified immunity undermines these protections. Qualified immunity, as established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), provides that government officials (primarily law enforcement officers) are shielded from personal liability for constitutional violations unless the official violated a “clearly established” law that a reasonable person would have known to be unconstitutional at the time of the incident. This doctrine effectively excuses state actors-particularly police officers-from being held accountable for their actions unless the constitutional violation they commit is clearly defined by precedent. It has often been criticized for creating a legal standard that is too favorable to government actors and too dismissive of individual rights. While qualified immunity is justified by its proponents as necessary to allow government officials to perform their duties without constant fear of litigation, the doctrine reflects an implicit shift toward a system where the interests of the state (in this case, government officials) are given precedence over the rights of individuals. In other words, it represents a legal philosophy where the state, in the form of government officials, is treated as the ultimate beneficiary of rights and protections. This framing mirrors Soviet legal theory, where rights were granted in service of the state rather than in service of individuals. In the case of qualified immunity, government officials are effectively protected from legal consequences for actions that may violate the rights of citizens, thus ensuring that the state's ability to operate (through its agents) is not unduly impeded by individual claims of constitutional harm. Qualified Immunity as an Infringement on Individual Liberties The doctrine of qualified immunity has far-reaching consequences for individual freedoms. By shielding government officials from liability for constitutional violations, it prevents individuals from seeking redress in cases where their rights have been violated by law enforcement or other state agents. This makes it significantly more difficult for citizens to hold state actors accountable for misconduct, such as police brutality, unlawful detention, or violations of due process. One of the most troubling aspects of qualified immunity is its application in cases where constitutional violations are clear, yet officers are nonetheless protected from liability due to the absence of "clearly established law" that directly addresses the exact facts of the case. As a result, even egregious misconduct can go unpunished, as long as the specific violation has not been previously addressed in a way that meets the Court's narrow and restrictive standard. This undermines the very purpose of constitutional protections, which are designed to ensure that individuals have the means to assert their rights against the state. In this context, qualified immunity serves to protect the state's interests (in the form of its agents) at the expense of individual liberties, which is consistent with the Soviet notion that the state has a right to limit the scope of individual rights when necessary. The Necessity of Abolishing Qualified Immunity Abolishing qualified immunity is crucial for returning to a legal system that fully respects the constitutional protections afforded to individual citizens. The elimination of this doctrine would restore the ability of individuals to hold government officials accountable for violations of their rights, ensuring that constitutional safeguards are not merely theoretical but enforceable in practice. • Restoring Accountability: The primary function of qualified immunity is to shield government officials from personal liability, even when they violate clearly established rights. Abolishing it would allow individuals to seek justice and hold officials accountable for abuses of power, ensuring that government officials are not immune from the consequences of their actions. • Upholding Constitutional Protections: The Constitution guarantees certain fundamental rights, including the right to due process, equal protection under the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Qualified immunity undermines these protections by making it more difficult for individuals to assert their rights in court. Abolishing qualified immunity would restore these protections and ensure that they are more than just theoretical promises. • Reaffirming the Role of the Citizen in the Legal System: Qualified immunity shifts the balance of power toward the government, protecting officials from the consequences of their actions and minimizing the role of individual citizens in seeking justice. By eliminating qualified immunity, the U.S. legal system would reassert the primacy of individual rights and ensure that government officials remain subject to the same legal standards as any other person. • Preventing State-Centered Legal Systems: The doctrine of qualified immunity reflects an increasing tendency toward a legal system that prioritizes the interests of the state over the rights of the individual. Abolishing this doctrine would help dismantle this trend, ensuring that the U.S. legal system remains focused on protecting individuals from state overreach. Conclusion Qualified immunity is a modern legal doctrine that reflects an underlying philosophical shift toward state-centered legal systems, reminiscent of Soviet legal theory. By prioritizing the interests of government officials over the rights of individuals, qualified immunity undermines constitutional protections and makes it more difficult for citizens to assert their rights against the state. The abolition of qualified immunity is necessary to restore the legal system’s commitment to individual liberty and to ensure that government officials are held accountable for violations of citizens’ rights. In doing so, the United States can return to its foundational principle that the protection of individual rights is paramount, and that government officials must be held accountable to the law, rather than being shielded from its reach.

Your subscription email for free cheat sheet is not working. I am learning a lot from your videos. Thank you for your work.

Another great podcast Eric... Thanks for all you do.

WOW Loved this talk. I am NOT a fan of the police, I've grown tried of video after video of how our boys in blue use the authority we granted them to abuse people they should be helping and protecting. How did this disconnect get so bad. Who s allowed this to happen? We allowed this to happen, by putting to much faith in in the police to do the right thing even when it makes them look bad. Public trust is eroded then bad cops are not held accountable for their screw ups. I get it, people make mistakes BUT over and over again? Thats not just one or two bad apples, thats a system that hides and covers up BAD behavior. Bad behavior has become a systemic problem do to the major failure in police leadership. Lack of transparency entitles bad behavior and stifles accountability. It allows bad cops to stay and advance into positions they are not suited for. Cops need to get back to basics! KNOW THE LAW.(knowing the law makes it much easer to defend your actions in court) FOLLOW THE LAW.( Your badge dose not give you extra rights nor a free pass when you break the law) ENFORCE THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN.( do not make stuff up or leave stuff out you are a law enforcement officer not policy or feelings) Protect and help the citizens, (because your are also a public servant.) Treat people like you want to be treated STOP BEING A HAMMER! WE ARE NOT NAILS! Have an open mind listen to what people are telling you but DO NOT just take their word for it, don't be lazy investigate! CONTROL YOUR EGO, and your temper, if you can't handle being yelled at, cussed at, or given the finger, policing is NOT FOR YOU. Your ego and your temper will get you, and the people around you reprimanded, sued, jailed, hurt or killed, control your temper and your ego.If you walk this thin blue line it will be much easer to do the ugly and distasteful things the job needs you to do. Remember you are us and we our you and anything else is unacceptable

Is there a podcast that teaches Texas case law for Texas Law Enforcement.

If you follow the constitution, would not be a problem. 4th amendment. Anything that goes against the constitution is null and void.

Is there a podcast for Texas that teaches case law for law enforcement

What if the homeowner is an elderly parent home alone and the police SAID they were given consent when in fact it was coerced by abusing their authority and not explained in a civil manner to the elderly person

Of course I refuse and I was arrested

Monument plaque to an event that STRIPPED CITIZENS OF RIGHTS!! (Terry v Ohio)

And the actual result of this will be prosecutors no longer dropping cases that are unfounded. In for a penny; in for a pound. It will not cause an examination of the arrogant police culture of lording their authority over the citizenry. They’ve forgotten, if they ever knew, that they are the servants.

YES on tariffs

This video is gold !

I've been falsely accused with aggravated battery with a deadly weapon great bodily harm bc I wasn't the one that called 911 when 2 females trespassed and jumped me and caused great bodily harm to me and lied to the cop so I got arrested.

What about nolle proce

Yet I was recently pulled over for a very miniscule traffic infraction, that somehow lead to being frisked, my passenger being frisked, and a drug dog entering my car. All without probable cause

Yes I have some?

Can LEOs cut a barbed- wire fence to come into a rural or forest property without permission? What if they open a locked gate that covers a two-track?

Erik I am not in New Mexico, not a LEO or lawyer, and not in legal trouble (for now) love your videos

Another major problem that must be taught is for the badge wearers to understand they MUST keep their EGO in check. According to my independent research, most 42 USC 1983 lawsuits stem from an out of control ego.

Its not the training- its the evil man that relishes in the authority over the common man and is unable to harness and too immature to not allow that authority to be maintained and to not allow the evil to dominate instead. No amount of training can teach a person to not allow the evil to overpower the authority- only life living events can do that. Most men are still with a 16yo mentality well into their 80's.

I greatly appreciate how you were able to articulate reasonable suspicion in a clear and understandable manner

I greatly appreciate how you were able to articulate reasonable suspicion in a very clear and understandable manner.

Armed AND dangerous. Unfortunately, police think everyone who is armed is dangerous.

The fact that you display an American flag with a blue line in it shows that you support a police state. That in and of itself destroys your credibility. America was not built to be under police rule.

Inanimate

I am thankful this is a FORMER prosecutor. And hopefully will NEVER be one again.

Don’t forget “we have a report from a witness that says someone that fits your description” doing a crime.

maybe if your channel was required training for officers everywhere we wouldn't have new infuriating videos of cops messing up daily

LE don't give a shit, they are never held liable for breaking the law in Terry v Ohio or Penn vs Mimms. They constantly violate it and P v M gets people killed all over usually a butt hurt cop.

Do pigs get ANY training on the law before they're set loose on the public? The mistakes they regularly make on simple well known laws suggests dangerous ignorance of the law or even worse they dont care because they know qualified immunity protects them from ever being held personally responsible.

I like how this guy is trying to help the gang instead of helping the victims.

When in doubt, conclude that you do not have reasonable suspension. This will save your police career. We citizens are wizing up to crooked cops. We will take you to court!

I watched this video then I logged into my Constitutional Issues in Criminal Justice class to do my discussion board and saw that the discussion was on this very subject of exigent circumstances. I found this video to be very helpful as well as your other videos in helping me with my homework. Very informative and educational. I'm working on becoming a police officer so studying these topics in college as well as getting a deeper dive into these topics from your videos can help me when working as a police officer and ensuring I fully understand the laws, Supreme Court cases, as well as definitions and exceptions to rules.

Usually when cops continue asking questions unrelated to the stop it DOES cause them to go over the 10-15 min if would normally take, so they should make some stricter guidelines with that

Notice the Terrorist BLUE LINE GANG flag on this clowns bookcase. You are a DISGRACE

Every law is chasing a criminal and forcing a human into slavery.

Prosecution is the easiest job it requires no evidence just a paid witness or witnesses story. Jesus Christ was found guilty and hung for his crimes. 😮

There’s nothing more unAmerican than TvO and “policing” a “free society”

""WALKING AROUND ON DOWNTOWN STREETS WITH A CORROGATED-BOX 7X7 WITH OILSTAINS ON THATBOX IS NOT REASONABLE SUSPICION FORPOLICE TO CONDUCT A TERRYSTOP""!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!