Attempting to overthrow the US government doesn't seem to be a crime. Blackmailing nations to get dirt on your opponent doesn't seem to be a crime either.
Especially when the court literally just gave immunity to any government employee... Think about what that means when the health department decides you not being vaccinated is a problem...
Yep, perfect time! Costumes are on sale, let's all get together and do some civil asset forfeiture, and hell we don't even need to pay for the clown costumes because we can civilly asset forfeiture those too. If SCOTUS rules on this, it's a matter of time before all government employees will be doing this.
Pretending to be a peace officer is a class 6 felony unless it is done while committing another listed crime then it is a class 4 felony. The list of crimes can be found under A.R.S.
@@wingracer1614 I'd love to know what he told this folks to be able to detained them for 3 hours; because I know I am not staying unless it's an actual cop
From Lehto's description i got the impression he was pretending to be a law enforcement officer i.e. someone who has the right to detain people, write tickets, issue fines. I agree that the real cops should have arrested to e engineer when they showed up, if it wasn't actually his job to personally detain folks and issue fines/citations in connection with a violation.
This almost feels like an underhanded jab at the Supreme Court by these lower courts, using the supreme courts ruling to crest the most absurd cases they can
@@ClockworkGearheadIf cops have immunity for violating our rights, then we have no rights. So no rights were violated. It's simple really, we are all slaves.
The paradox of qualified immunity is that the more egregious the behaviour, the less likely there is to be a case directly on point - and that qualified immunity keeps the case ever from becoming a case on point for future decisions - so it enshrines specifically the most outrageous of the abuses while still leaving the government employees open to suit over trivial matters.
Absolutely, it can't ever be challenged as any challenge itself gets turned away before it even gets started. The only way for it to ever be changed is if judges get sick of it and start ignoring the precedence, and that likely won't happen as the appellate courts and SCOTUS would likely just overturn the ruling.
Ok , this makes sense to me now , , The SCOTUS created Immunity for cops out a situation which had no precedence , therefore it can also allow Immunity for those whom it was not intended to apply simply because there's no precedence that says it can't , , , I smell a rat in this matter , , like this is a set-up scenario in order to create a precedent of protection for those 87K tax auditors whose gonna be conducting shenanigans for the DAMNICRATS - ooooops , the IRS
@@SmallSpoonBrigade And similar for REAL ID -- judges don't want to lose their power of judicial review, so they might allow a challenge to go forward even if it lacks standing.
@@bootmii98 That and really most of the security apparatus that was created at that time are blatantly unconstitutional. REAL ID is a particular joke as it has requirements that have nothing to do with security and it's being used to prevent people from engaging in constitutionally protected travel between states.
They are just doing what the Supreme Court told them to do. This case needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court to try get them to eliminate qualified immunity or at least alter how it is implemented.
Doesn't this mean that citizens can exercise qualified immunity? Also if you think about the entire concept of Qualified Immunity, it is clearly unconstitutional since they are ignoring clearly established laws for the benefit of government workers.
Qualified immunity was created to by-pass civil rights legislation (post-civil war and 1960s) that specifically held law enforcement and government officials accountable for their actions. The then-justices (in several cases) undermined that explicit intent of that legislation by creating the doctrine of qualified immunity. I leave it to you to determine the motivation of the judges ... let's just say it wasn't "justice for all." BTW, I'm a historian and you can check the facts on this one!
"You never told me I couldn't do that!" didn't work for me then I was 16. Apparently it's a fine defense for cops, and now for other government officials.
Not just cops but all doctors, all government actor's and a hell of a lot of Corporate employs ie; banks, media, airline's and just about everyone but the surf's. It's been like this for a long time, even before the courts OKed it. So much for what we were taught in school about our system of pretend government.
Tbh theres a lot of things we get in trouble with that we genuinely dont know about. In some places you dont need parking signs, but those laws still exist. You can get a fine for a busted taillight, even if you didnt know it was busted. You can get arrested for statutory even if they thought the person was over 18, even to the point where they have a fake id. But cops dont know better right? And we cant punish a cop for such things. Or other similar things.
I am not anti government HOWEVER, I anti qualified immunity for this man ! He is a citizen and stopping folks, holding them for 3 hours is kidnapping in my view . I would say it was ridiculous but to honest it is frightening. What if he thought he was in danger and drew a gun on them ?
I bet Jeremy DeWitte will be kicking himself for not thinking of this. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't try it the next time he's caught impersonating a cop.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. As I recall Leonard French was involved in a case with someone acting like a cop and getting charged for that in Pennsylvania. I might be wrong on the state, so worth a double look
Its Federal Offence / Felony to impersonate a Comissioned Officer in the military, or Federal Officer, Agent or sworn Inspector. Think of DHS, FBI, ICE, CBP, and more 3 letter acronym enforcement agencies. Most State, County and City police impersonation laws are at the State level. In Florida it is a Felony as opposed to California, wherein it is a Misdemeanor to impersonate, its hit and miss.
@@lq7777 I can't be sure but it sounds like these guys were truck drivers and they thought he was DoT. DoT stops trucks all the time and if you don't, they will have the cops on you real quick plus a pissed of DoT official who can put whatever nasty violations he wants onto your permanent business safety record.
@The Program They even have their own Bill of Rights. The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights is intended to protect American law enforcement personnel from investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during official performance of their duties, and provides them with privileges based on due process additional to those normally provided to other citizens.
Judicial cases like this make my head feel as if it is about to explode! Clearly some judges are so taken up with exploiting gaps in the laws to benefit ill behavior that they are willing to aband common sense and justice. If you are such a judge, remember that you to will be judged one day.
Well, looking in from abroad, it looks more and more like a joke. When I was a kid, our schools used the US political and justice system to illustrate alternative arrangements to ours. We talked about the Warren court, Miranda rights etc. If I look at what I see today (and I'm not purely looking in from abroad, I lived in Texas from 99-03), it looks more like a Punch and Judy show, a big free for all, in which anything is possible, evidence is for dunces and all that matters is having a good yarn and the right judges.
Then you are missing the whole point of why they did what they did. The best way to show a flaw in a law is to enforce it to its logical extreme. A made up law can be made into whatever it wants to be. Its not like qualified immunity had any legitimacy...
The problem there is that qualified immunity is just precedence. All it takes to undo that is laws that specifically state that it doesn't exist. Since QI isn't drawn from the constitution or any of the amendments, it won't be stronger than just a typical law.
Yeah, except the government is never going to do that because it would be diametrically opposed to their whole purpose. That’s why they created this insane doctrine in the first place
Exactly. I'm not a government employee, but I work for a hospital, and they take government funds. By that extension, I too am a government employee in a way. So I'm immune from nearly all laws.
If there is no clearly documented case of robbing a bank while wearing a purple shirt and green pants yellow socks and black shoes on a Thursday at 1030 am while driving a Hyundai Sonata with high test gas in the tank. Then I can get away with it?
There are three sheriff's deputies getting charged with stealing from homes that were about to have the contents put out for eviction. One of them actually filmed themselves on bodycam. 🙂
One of the looters had 4 stars on his collar and it looked like it wasnt their first time by any means, they were bit too comfortable cramming someone elses belongings in their shirts, I saw the footage. The lady cop who filmed it (& stole even makeup.. makeup!) thought her bodycam was off, but lucky for that community she didnt push the button hard enough. Totally disgusting.
@@coldlakealta4043 The current court has already overturned a ruling that was not based in the Constitution but made up of whole cloth. Why not another? Or do you just oppose rulings that don't align with your politics?
Qualified immunity wouldn't be a problem if it were recognized as merely granting a *presumption* that people believed their actions were legal and reasonable in cases where the actions were at least superficially consistent with their duties, and had not been found to be unreasonable. Note that resolving the question of whether a belief in legitimacy would be reasonable absent present to the contrary wouldn't generally require close judgment calls, because precedent would be quickly established for actions that are close to being reasonable but fall just afoul of the line. Before long, the cases for which precedent hasn't yet been established will be those that could not have been reasonably believed legitimate with or without precedent.
@@DJDeezNutz That literally has nothing to do with Korematsu vs. the US. Korematsu sued because he was herded into an internment camp during World War II. The Supreme Court agreed that internment camps were unconstitutional because they deprived US citizens of their freedoms based solely upon their ethnicity. They were correct in that ruling. I don't know what you thought the case was about but I believe you need to read it before you make claims about it.
@@TheBooban Federal workers have had qualified immunity since 1982. I'm pretty sure he knows that. Lol. I love it when people think they know more than actual legal experts, because they don't understand what those experts are saying. Dunning Kruger runs amok with the ill-informed and the intellectually inferior, as usual.
@@TheBooban I think/hope the connection is "In performance of his duty." A cop can stand in front of your car and shoot you (fear for life), but a guy from the mail room should not be standing in front of your car no matter what. But now the 8th court says it is ok for the clerk or an Engineer.
There is no way in hell the appellate court would allow this. Who is the judge who made this decision? And what are this judge's other decision. Any judge who would rule like this is flat out dangerous. I don't agree with it but I understand the decision behind qualified immunity but this decision violates the spirit of qualified immunity.
This actually doesn't surprise me at all. If you think about it, it isn't a very large step between police should have qualified immunity to do their job, vs government employees should have qualified immunity to do their job. The problem isn't who gets it, but how powerful qualified immunity is. If qualified immunity only applied to what a reasonable person might do, during their job, it wouldn't matter if it applied to everyone in the government. However the standard is far beyond that, which causes the problem.
There's a real simple solution that could make everyone feel OK even if this qualified immunity ruling stuck. And that is for the prosecutor in this county to levy an impersonation charge on this idiot. I'm surprised they didn't already do that. They never seem to care who or why someone impersonates a police officer even if your intentions are good. That's just something you shouldn't do, no matter the reason.
So let's say you're a cop. You make a traffic stop and the person jumps out of the car and opens fire on you. You draw your weapon and return fire. You would die otherwise. You end your attacker, but hit a bystander who lives. The bystander sues you PERSONALLY for millions. Do you think that you should lose your house and your entire savings and retirement, or would it be better to have a mechanism in place which would protect you from personal liability for unavoidable bad things that happen while you are performing your duties in good faith?
@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful You cannot weigh your hypothetical example against all the real harm done to real people by Qualified Immunity. Numerous examples are documented at the Institute for Justice website. The situation you pose should be decided by a proper trial and not be summarily shut down using a doctrine of blanket immunity that the Supreme Court pulled out of thin air
@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful in your example, no..but there has to be some reasonable point between that and the bullshit like this case, or the cops stealing and murdering being able to claim it.what seems to work in most cases is the simple reasonable person idea. Would or should a reasonable person know that stealing money for yourself from somone your stopping is wrong, would a reasonable person know that you can't beat somone or shoot them or arrest them because you found them rude? Would he know that as a non law enforcement officer you cant stop and detain people for 3 hours just because you don't like them? There exist plenty of room for not allowing cops to be sued for doing their job, or even for unintended consequences of doing their job without blanket immunity for clear violations of law and or the constitutional rights of citizens. I'd even go for a small amount of leeway in the form of a space where for example a cop is chasing somone who when caught fights back and the cop beats him up..there is room to find the cop went to far and was wrong, but not outside the realm of reasonable to the extent of losing qi. But there is also lots of room beyond reasonable where the officer should be liable before you get to "has a relevant court already found a cop outside qi in a case identical to this" .
@@kevinfloyd808 I don't disagree with you on this. Generally. The only exception I take here is that if you fight the cops, you WILL get beaten up. You SHOULD get beaten up. That's a given, and that given should always be factored into the decision to grant qualified immunity. Violence is never pretty, and ANYTHING can look like it went too far to people who have never experienced it.
Around 2001 I was a fiber optic route tech and drove a white F250. Cell phones were not in vogue at the time and we had SAT Phones which had a little dome mounted on the roof along with two or three little antennas. I responded to a locate ticket where someone was scheduled to cross my fiber near the town of Winden, Arizona. As I pulled up in a cloud of dust I noticed a bunch of men scramble out of the trench and started running into the desert. As I walked up to the guy getting off the backhoe I asked.."They never seen a black guy in a pickup?" Dude is laughing his ass off while he said...they think you are Border Patrol ! I also started laughing and one of the runners must have turned around and saw the supervisor waiving them back in. They slowly trickled back with big grins on their faces, laughing and muttering in Spanish. I was new to being a route tech and it never occurred to me the vehicle had a "government" look about it. Well that event also solved the mystery why people scampered away from convenience stores and gas stations when I pulled up....Yup...I was glad to learn it was not personal.
It would be interesting to learn about all of the judges who issued rulings on this case. In particular, were they appointed for political reasons or where they appointed based entirely on their merits and qualifications.
I don't imagine making traffic stops is part of his duties for him to be shielded. Remind me again where we go for justice when we can't get it from the courts.
I find it hard to believe there's no case that's even close. All you have to do is change the role of county engineer to police officer and they'll be a myriad of cases that are extremely close.
I've said for a long time that there is no requirement for native intelligence or critical thinking ability to be a lawyer, and by extension a judge. This is more evidence of that fact.
Isn't this how it works in Russia, China, etc? Any government employee can act as law enforcement? If this is upheld, lots of crazy stuff could happen: Building inspector can detain you if your deck railing is too low. County clerk can detain you for being rude. School principal can detain a parent for dropping their kid off too late.
What the heck are courts for if they can't rule on anything that is not the exact same situation that has occurred previously. If other entities acted this way nothing new would ever be made. As a simple grunt worker I made decisions every day that had no precedents I could look up in a book.
A couple weeks ago I sent a story about a town in England that bought electric cars for the cops but forgot to provide a way for them to get charged. This video makes just as much sense.
I'm actually a little surprised that they didn't simply look up the definition of the word "qualified". I'm not sure why they would even think qualified immunity could apply. The definition of qualified in this context is "officially recognized as being trained to perform a particular job". So they only could be covered by this immunity in performing the job they are "qualified" to perform. They may be qualified to perform some other government function, but they aren't qualified to perform police duties. Since the actions were outside the scope of their actual job, qualified immunity by definition doesn't apply.
I'm probably not the only one, but I remarked to my wife that he should get fake qualified immunity as a fake copper about 40 secs prior to you saying the very same, it really is beyond all reason; absolutely crazy. Like deployed 👍
This sounds like a slam dunk case for false imprisonment, which would be handled in a criminal trial rather than a civil suit. The fact that QI comes on here at all is crazy.
There's at least one judge who needs to be removed from the bench. You are correct, Steve -- this case is absurd. It's frightening that MULTIPLE judges actually voted for this idiocy.
Hey Steve, as a former LEO, I would've arrested the detaining person or at least cited him. That would at least get the powers that be to look at the situation and take appropriate actions. Without knowing the whole story, that is as much as I will say. Keep up the informative & entertaining videos.
I can see this working for security guards, or on-site officials 'policing' company rules, such as speeding around a factory site, and for DOT officials to deal with unsafe or overloaded vehicles, but this case seems to be well outside any justifiable job role.
@@kerryedavis There are some, usually fantasists, who love the uniform thing but here in the UK there was a strippergram 'cop'who was arrested multiple times. I believe just saying you're a police officer, maybe with a fake warrant card, can get you arrested. Obviously law in the UK is very different than in the US.
@@kerryedavis Maybe. The article I read just said he was an engineer and worked for the government. DoT would make a lot of sense and explain how he is getting away with this
@@seneca983 The founding fathers would probably be against qualified immunity for the same reason they wanted all jury trials. They didn't want a government official deciding whether you had rights or not.
In the early seventies, living in Chicago, my dad took to coming home in time to pick me up, and we two went to the local movie theatre during "the Chicago seven conspiracy trial", where the theatres in "the Chicago-land area" all showed the court proceedings of the said trial during intermission. That was the means at the time, to provide us real time knowledge of probably the most egregious police conspiracy crime at that time. It was a real eye-opener and changed the perception of police there for probably a decade. Fifty years later, it appears to be only one of many that have come down through time leading to our current policing problems.
It would be great if as a result of this case, the current SCOTUS further chooses to clarify Qualified Immunity or at least telecasts that they are willing to do that on future cases.
Between the lock down enforcements, mandates, asset forfeiture, and general bad behavior such as this.. I understand why people have stopped supporting cops so much. For the people, not above the people has been forgotten.
How can qualified immunity override black letter law like larceny? I always thought that the way to deal with court precedent you don't like is to write a law clarifying the subject, but if the courts are granting qualified immunity for things that the written law prohibits, where's the rule of law?
It does it everyday. But mostly it protects cops who violate peoples rights, in such a manner as everyone looks at the situation and goes “that is 100% wrong wtf” but when you get to court the judges say “well yea it was wrong but like how could they have known that it’s never happened EXACTLY like this before”
Cases like this is why we need lawyers and cases like these is proof that our political system is corrupt....if we went by principal of law and not letter of law this wouldn't be in the news and the engineer would be in jail
@@emptylog933 If they were held, detained, or prevented from leaving in (almost) any way, they were a) unlawfully detained (for cops) or b) kidnapped (for civilians). Come on! Steve's done videos on this!
Well it seems that there is some judges that would like to stick it to the Supreme Court since they are the only one that can overrule this new precedent.
Yes. It's not only entirely possible, it's even likely that is the case here. No judge would invite that type of scrutiny and review of their ruling, unless they were advocating for some type of change or reform with the same.
In the province of Quebec we had a case where an engineer was found guilty of rape but the judge decided not to give him a criminal record, therefore not to impose any sentence on him since it would harm his career. This is not a joke. But the most ridiculous part of the story is that other women are now accusing the same engineer of rape...It seems that the engineering career opens the doors to a lot of opportunities
The slippery slope. I can imagine cops showing up at polling places and preventing a certain class of people from voting. Then defending themselves with qualified immunity.
I don't think that's possible in this political climate. But I'd be satisfied with changing to to the old standard of "A reasonable police officer's judgement". Because so many cases (like this one) are obviously unreasonable. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the current situation.
@@philopharynx7910 If you put that kind of discretion into a court's hands it's just going to keep being abused. There has to be an actual definable limit and not just words that can be interpreted any way someone chooses.
@@mage1439 That's the problem. They do have a defined limit now. That limit is "The supreme court has already ruled on the same situation." And that is a problem. One case was in prisons and the court had already ruled that it was a violation to have backed up sewage for 30 days. So they got off when it was only 7 days. Few people can afford to take something to the supreme court knowing they won't get anything but somebody might in the future.
I worked for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. We were told that we were entitled to sovereign immunity when we were acting within our official duties. We were also warned that this would not be true if we tried to do something that was not withing our official duties. I was always very careful to stay well within my official duties. One time, the EPA went out to a place in Casper, WY and served a search warrant to take samples from a trucking company yard. EPA spent over $60,000 taking samples that all turned out to be on drums of diesel fuel. So they had no case, regardless of the results of their analysis. In the course of events, the company produced a copy of a letter written by me on another case against the same company. The letter was to close a case where they complied with everything we asked. A US Attorney called me and threatened to prosecute me personally for writing the letter. My upper management basically told the EPA to do whatever they wanted. But then nothing happened. I never did anything illegal, but I did have a lot of stress for several months.
m actually happy that this is happening, not because of how stupid it is, but because they might finaly change the way on how they write qualified immumity
If false imprisonment is no longer a crime, then we are certainly doomed.
I think we are all thinking with every QI care "why are they not charged with a crime." QI does not give Imunity for crimal, But DA's are sold out.
Attempting to overthrow the US government doesn't seem to be a crime. Blackmailing nations to get dirt on your opponent doesn't seem to be a crime either.
Ah, thank you. I knew there was a legal term for this but my damaged brain couldn't remember what it was.
Especially when the court literally just gave immunity to any government employee... Think about what that means when the health department decides you not being vaccinated is a problem...
Yes, we are………doomed
Let's all start pretending to be cops, we'll be allowed to do whatever we want!
This IS legal advice, I'm also a pretend lawyer!
Can we start putting govt. employees in workcamps and asking for qualified immunity? 😂
Chuckle. Duly noted :)
And you're covered, because I'm a pretend judge, and I say it's OK.
Yep, perfect time! Costumes are on sale, let's all get together and do some civil asset forfeiture, and hell we don't even need to pay for the clown costumes because we can civilly asset forfeiture those too.
If SCOTUS rules on this, it's a matter of time before all government employees will be doing this.
"This IS legal advice"
While you're at it, make it financial and medical advice too.
I thought impersonating a police officer was supposed to be a pretty serious crime, this case is bizarre.
It is but despite what the hyperbolic headlines proclaim, he never impersonated a police officer. You could maybe say he impersonated a DoT officer.
@@wingracer1614 How do you know that?
Pretending to be a peace officer is a class 6 felony unless it is done while committing another listed crime then it is a class 4 felony. The list of crimes can be found under A.R.S.
@@wingracer1614 I'd love to know what he told this folks to be able to detained them for 3 hours; because I know I am not staying unless it's an actual cop
From Lehto's description i got the impression he was pretending to be a law enforcement officer i.e. someone who has the right to detain people, write tickets, issue fines.
I agree that the real cops should have arrested to e engineer when they showed up, if it wasn't actually his job to personally detain folks and issue fines/citations in connection with a violation.
"You can do anything you want if you are a government employee and its never been done before"- the Supreme Court
This almost feels like an underhanded jab at the Supreme Court by these lower courts, using the supreme courts ruling to crest the most absurd cases they can
All it cost is violating someone's civil rights. nbd
100%
@@ClockworkGearheadIf cops have immunity for violating our rights, then we have no rights. So no rights were violated. It's simple really, we are all slaves.
Sounds like someone needs to test what happens when a non-cop arrests a judge.
Hell, that wouldn't work out well even for an actual cop arresting a judge. Rules for thee, not for me.
Sounds like someone needs to test what happens when a non-cop shoots a judge because they think the judge was reaching for something.
@@suedenim9208 _in Minecraft_
Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest! Citizens arrest!
or the President that committed treason !!
The paradox of qualified immunity is that the more egregious the behaviour, the less likely there is to be a case directly on point - and that qualified immunity keeps the case ever from becoming a case on point for future decisions - so it enshrines specifically the most outrageous of the abuses while still leaving the government employees open to suit over trivial matters.
Absolutely, it can't ever be challenged as any challenge itself gets turned away before it even gets started. The only way for it to ever be changed is if judges get sick of it and start ignoring the precedence, and that likely won't happen as the appellate courts and SCOTUS would likely just overturn the ruling.
Ok , this makes sense to me now , ,
The SCOTUS created Immunity for cops out a situation which had no precedence , therefore it can also allow Immunity for those whom it was not intended to apply simply because there's no precedence that says it can't , , ,
I smell a rat in this matter , , like this is a set-up scenario in order to create a precedent of protection for those 87K tax auditors whose gonna be conducting shenanigans for the DAMNICRATS - ooooops , the IRS
@@SmallSpoonBrigade And similar for REAL ID -- judges don't want to lose their power of judicial review, so they might allow a challenge to go forward even if it lacks standing.
@@bootmii98 That and really most of the security apparatus that was created at that time are blatantly unconstitutional. REAL ID is a particular joke as it has requirements that have nothing to do with security and it's being used to prevent people from engaging in constitutionally protected travel between states.
@@SmallSpoonBrigade May 3 will come and the date will just be pushed back again.
This is outrageous and will open the door to a multitude of government employees who will abuse their authority.
I'm quite sure that's the idea.
That door has been open for a long time
As if they need any more help and encouragement to do that .
All government workers have qualified immunity.....
Like cops?
the fact those two truck drivers waited 3 hours astounds me.
They were getting paid so they didn't care.
Maybe the CE was armed.
@@leondillon8723 Then he's guilty of kidnapping.
He used his truck to block them in, hence “detained” He physically blocked their way out
@@Inspectorzinn2 unless youre a cop. if you try to "detain" me. i'm leaving.. if your car gets smashed in the process. your bad.
THE COURT CANNOT JUST INVENT SOMETHING. THE COURT HAS TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
We all wish you were right, but this exactly the opposite what they’ve done.
STOP YELLING GRAMPA
The 8th circuit needs to be impeached and tried for failure to do their job.
*do
I’m all for amending the definition of treason to include this court behavior
They are just doing what the Supreme Court told them to do. This case needs to be appealed to the Supreme Court to try get them to eliminate qualified immunity or at least alter how it is implemented.
@@roberteltze4850 and this seems to be the perfect case to prove the point. Maybe they are smarter than they look and playing the long game on this.
They will self QI
Doesn't this mean that citizens can exercise qualified immunity?
Also if you think about the entire concept of Qualified Immunity, it is clearly unconstitutional since they are ignoring clearly established laws for the benefit of government workers.
Logical argument denied, Supreme Court doesn’t have to deal in facts. Legal fiction all the way😢
14th ammendment violation ?
Qualified immunity was created to by-pass civil rights legislation (post-civil war and 1960s) that specifically held law enforcement and government officials accountable for their actions. The then-justices (in several cases) undermined that explicit intent of that legislation by creating the doctrine of qualified immunity. I leave it to you to determine the motivation of the judges ... let's just say it wasn't "justice for all." BTW, I'm a historian and you can check the facts on this one!
Good Samaritan laws are kinda like qualified immunity in emergency medical situations.
I'd argue for absolute immunity. Is it illegal to pretend to be a judge to be above the law?
"You never told me I couldn't do that!" didn't work for me then I was 16. Apparently it's a fine defense for cops, and now for other government officials.
Not just cops but all doctors, all government actor's and a hell of a lot of Corporate employs ie; banks, media, airline's and just about everyone but the surf's. It's been like this for a long time, even before the courts OKed it. So much for what we were taught in school about our system of pretend government.
Tbh theres a lot of things we get in trouble with that we genuinely dont know about. In some places you dont need parking signs, but those laws still exist. You can get a fine for a busted taillight, even if you didnt know it was busted. You can get arrested for statutory even if they thought the person was over 18, even to the point where they have a fake id.
But cops dont know better right? And we cant punish a cop for such things. Or other similar things.
What the hell is wrong with the Justice System. Not a real COP, Judge (Judges) need to be charged for being STUPID.
Someone needs to pretend to be a cop, arrest a judge and their family and see how fast qualified immunity goes away.
Is there a possibility that that court ruled that way on purpose to get a Supreme Court ruling on QUALIFIED IMMUNITY?
could be.
This is why certain people are anti government. This should never hold up.
It is crazy
This is why everyone should be anti-government
Why would anyone ever be pro-government?
This is why reasonable* people are anti government.
There, corrected it for you
I am not anti government HOWEVER, I anti qualified immunity for this man ! He is a citizen and stopping folks, holding them for 3 hours is kidnapping in my view . I would say it was ridiculous but to honest it is frightening. What if he thought he was in danger and drew a gun on them ?
I bet Jeremy DeWitte will be kicking himself for not thinking of this. I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't try it the next time he's caught impersonating a cop.
My first thought after seeing the title was of Jeremy Dimwitt
@@belkenator ditto XD
@@belkenator me too!
😂
I really expected this video to be about him lmao
Wow. Isn't it a federal offense to pretend to be a cop or law enforcement personnel in general?
That’s what qualified immunity is for.
Really can't be unless you're impersonating federal law enforcement or operating across state lines.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. As I recall Leonard French was involved in a case with someone acting like a cop and getting charged for that in Pennsylvania. I might be wrong on the state, so worth a double look
@@M167A1 Did the employee claim he was a police officer? Or did he claim an authority he didn’t have (by detaining the trucks)?
Its Federal Offence / Felony to impersonate a Comissioned Officer in the military, or Federal Officer, Agent or sworn Inspector. Think of DHS, FBI, ICE, CBP, and more 3 letter acronym enforcement agencies. Most State, County and City police impersonation laws are at the State level. In Florida it is a Felony as opposed to California, wherein it is a Misdemeanor to impersonate, its hit and miss.
I would love to see the same circumstances put on this judge for 3 or 4 hours and see if he doesn't change his mind on this issue.
All the judges involved need to be investigated
They have qualified immunity.
@@maxbreshears3536 unfortunately.
There is no way this guy would've held me for 3 hours. This is insane.
Same. If he’s not a cop, I’m driving away. If he tries to stop me then that’s kidnapping.
Lisa - Ya. Clearly. If Hershey Walker detained me ... BYE.
(Unless the cop is a really cute lady cop)
@@stevejette2329 🙄
@@tioswift3676 Ya, that's what I thought about myself.
@@lq7777 I can't be sure but it sounds like these guys were truck drivers and they thought he was DoT. DoT stops trucks all the time and if you don't, they will have the cops on you real quick plus a pissed of DoT official who can put whatever nasty violations he wants onto your permanent business safety record.
And the courts wonder why no one trusts them anymore. Honestly…
This makes it like if any person believes they are enforcing a law they have qualified immunity.
Karens are going to get so much worse...
as a teacher working for the state, I am a government official and therefore claim qualified immunity.
@The Program They even have their own Bill of Rights.
The Law Enforcement Officers' Bill of Rights is intended to protect American law enforcement personnel from investigation and prosecution arising from conduct during official performance of their duties, and provides them with privileges based on due process additional to those normally provided to other citizens.
@@lunatik9696 good, so when you lose it and beat the shit out of one of your students you now have a get out of jail free card.
"You get qualifed immunity... and YOU get qualified immunity... AND YOU get qualified immunity!"
Judicial cases like this make my head feel as if it is about to explode! Clearly some judges are so taken up with exploiting gaps in the laws to benefit ill behavior that they are willing to aband common sense and justice. If you are such a judge, remember that you to will be judged one day.
I'm hearing more and more reasons not to take the justice system seriously, and it pisses me off.
Well, looking in from abroad, it looks more and more like a joke. When I was a kid, our schools used the US political and justice system to illustrate alternative arrangements to ours. We talked about the Warren court, Miranda rights etc. If I look at what I see today (and I'm not purely looking in from abroad, I lived in Texas from 99-03), it looks more like a Punch and Judy show, a big free for all, in which anything is possible, evidence is for dunces and all that matters is having a good yarn and the right judges.
We don't have a justice system, we have a legal system.
@@linuspoindexter106 legalese=corporate govt.
Unfortunately our institutions have pretty much all gone corrupt.
Then you are missing the whole point of why they did what they did. The best way to show a flaw in a law is to enforce it to its logical extreme. A made up law can be made into whatever it wants to be. Its not like qualified immunity had any legitimacy...
"The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly." Qualified immunity for all.
The problem there is that qualified immunity is just precedence. All it takes to undo that is laws that specifically state that it doesn't exist. Since QI isn't drawn from the constitution or any of the amendments, it won't be stronger than just a typical law.
Amen, qualified immunity for ALL!!!
Yeah, except the government is never going to do that because it would be diametrically opposed to their whole purpose. That’s why they created this insane doctrine in the first place
Exactly. I'm not a government employee, but I work for a hospital, and they take government funds. By that extension, I too am a government employee in a way. So I'm immune from nearly all laws.
If there is no clearly documented case of robbing a bank while wearing a purple shirt and green pants yellow socks and black shoes on a Thursday at 1030 am while driving a Hyundai Sonata with high test gas in the tank. Then I can get away with it?
Absolutely mind blowing! & they wonder why people have so little respect for the government anymore.
There are three sheriff's deputies getting charged with stealing from homes that were about to have the contents put out for eviction. One of them actually filmed themselves on bodycam. 🙂
They were prolly hoping for a promotion.
Aren’t they the ones that argued they feared for their safety if the case was covered in youtube/media to attempt to get a gag order.
One of the looters had 4 stars on his collar and it looked like it wasnt their first time by any means, they were bit too comfortable cramming someone elses belongings in their shirts, I saw the footage. The lady cop who filmed it (& stole even makeup.. makeup!) thought her bodycam was off, but lucky for that community she didnt push the button hard enough. Totally disgusting.
And the judicial branch and law enforcement wonder why we have no respect for them.
Oh my gosh. I'll be hugely peeved if this doesn't make it to the US Supreme Court. How absurd. Qualified immunity needs to go.
and you expect a reasoned and reasonable decision on this from the current Court why?
@@coldlakealta4043 current court?
I would say, the courts, (plural) in general.
Wasn't this a civil case, thus limited it appealability?
@@coldlakealta4043 The current court has already overturned a ruling that was not based in the Constitution but made up of whole cloth. Why not another?
Or do you just oppose rulings that don't align with your politics?
Qualified immunity wouldn't be a problem if it were recognized as merely granting a *presumption* that people believed their actions were legal and reasonable in cases where the actions were at least superficially consistent with their duties, and had not been found to be unreasonable. Note that resolving the question of whether a belief in legitimacy would be reasonable absent present to the contrary wouldn't generally require close judgment calls, because precedent would be quickly established for actions that are close to being reasonable but fall just afoul of the line. Before long, the cases for which precedent hasn't yet been established will be those that could not have been reasonably believed legitimate with or without precedent.
From what I understood ALL government employees are granted qualified immunity. Which is a nightmare in the making as this story relates.
There is no prior case law against gassing political prisoners. Koremotsu v US is even still good law and hasn't been challenged successfully.
Yeah, I don't think it is because he was pretending to be a cop but they are implying all government employees have it. Which is crazy.
@@DJDeezNutz That literally has nothing to do with Korematsu vs. the US. Korematsu sued because he was herded into an internment camp during World War II. The Supreme Court agreed that internment camps were unconstitutional because they deprived US citizens of their freedoms based solely upon their ethnicity. They were correct in that ruling. I don't know what you thought the case was about but I believe you need to read it before you make claims about it.
@@TheBooban Federal workers have had qualified immunity since 1982. I'm pretty sure he knows that. Lol. I love it when people think they know more than actual legal experts, because they don't understand what those experts are saying. Dunning Kruger runs amok with the ill-informed and the intellectually inferior, as usual.
@@TheBooban I think/hope the connection is "In performance of his duty."
A cop can stand in front of your car and shoot you (fear for life), but a guy from the mail room should not be standing in front of your car no matter what. But now the 8th court says it is ok for the clerk or an Engineer.
There is no way in hell the appellate court would allow this. Who is the judge who made this decision? And what are this judge's other decision. Any judge who would rule like this is flat out dangerous. I don't agree with it but I understand the decision behind qualified immunity but this decision violates the spirit of qualified immunity.
This actually doesn't surprise me at all. If you think about it, it isn't a very large step between police should have qualified immunity to do their job, vs government employees should have qualified immunity to do their job. The problem isn't who gets it, but how powerful qualified immunity is. If qualified immunity only applied to what a reasonable person might do, during their job, it wouldn't matter if it applied to everyone in the government. However the standard is far beyond that, which causes the problem.
Judge said that the government is above the law. The engineer is a government employee, so therefore above the law.
Don't be so sure. All government employees have qualified immunity. This case puts the beclowned Supreme court on display.
@@Lilitha11 dude, government employees DO have qualified immunity. Now you see how big the problem is.
There's a real simple solution that could make everyone feel OK even if this qualified immunity ruling stuck. And that is for the prosecutor in this county to levy an impersonation charge on this idiot. I'm surprised they didn't already do that. They never seem to care who or why someone impersonates a police officer even if your intentions are good. That's just something you shouldn't do, no matter the reason.
We all should be in fear of our courts. How evil.
Our courts have become Star Chambers.
This is a dangerous precedent. If this stands any government official could detain anyone without a consequence.
Court system comes into question more and more.
I never thought qualified immunity was just for law enforcement. Child protective services and building inspectors hide behind it all the time
It is for government employees too I believe....
Steve, you need to make a new playlist titled "You can't make this s--t up". 😂
Everytime I think "they can't possibly be that stupid" the universe proves me wrong.
How insane must these examples become before Qualified Immunity is scrapped altogether?
depends, how insane must these examples get before the american people take up arms once again?
So let's say you're a cop. You make a traffic stop and the person jumps out of the car and opens fire on you. You draw your weapon and return fire. You would die otherwise. You end your attacker, but hit a bystander who lives. The bystander sues you PERSONALLY for millions.
Do you think that you should lose your house and your entire savings and retirement, or would it be better to have a mechanism in place which would protect you from personal liability for unavoidable bad things that happen while you are performing your duties in good faith?
@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful You cannot weigh your hypothetical example against all the real harm done to real people by Qualified Immunity. Numerous examples are documented at the Institute for Justice website. The situation you pose should be decided by a proper trial and not be summarily shut down using a doctrine of blanket immunity that the Supreme Court pulled out of thin air
@@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful in your example, no..but there has to be some reasonable point between that and the bullshit like this case, or the cops stealing and murdering being able to claim it.what seems to work in most cases is the simple reasonable person idea. Would or should a reasonable person know that stealing money for yourself from somone your stopping is wrong, would a reasonable person know that you can't beat somone or shoot them or arrest them because you found them rude? Would he know that as a non law enforcement officer you cant stop and detain people for 3 hours just because you don't like them? There exist plenty of room for not allowing cops to be sued for doing their job, or even for unintended consequences of doing their job without blanket immunity for clear violations of law and or the constitutional rights of citizens. I'd even go for a small amount of leeway in the form of a space where for example a cop is chasing somone who when caught fights back and the cop beats him up..there is room to find the cop went to far and was wrong, but not outside the realm of reasonable to the extent of losing qi. But there is also lots of room beyond reasonable where the officer should be liable before you get to "has a relevant court already found a cop outside qi in a case identical to this" .
@@kevinfloyd808 I don't disagree with you on this. Generally. The only exception I take here is that if you fight the cops, you WILL get beaten up. You SHOULD get beaten up. That's a given, and that given should always be factored into the decision to grant qualified immunity. Violence is never pretty, and ANYTHING can look like it went too far to people who have never experienced it.
So a government official acts in bad faith imposing a penalty through entrapment and yet somehow he still received qualified immunity.
Around 2001 I was a fiber optic route tech and drove a white F250. Cell phones were not in vogue at the time and we had SAT Phones which had a little dome mounted on the roof along with two or three little antennas. I responded to a locate ticket where someone was scheduled to cross my fiber near the town of Winden, Arizona. As I pulled up in a cloud of dust I noticed a bunch of men scramble out of the trench and started running into the desert. As I walked up to the guy getting off the backhoe I asked.."They never seen a black guy in a pickup?" Dude is laughing his ass off while he said...they think you are Border Patrol ! I also started laughing and one of the runners must have turned around and saw the supervisor waiving them back in. They slowly trickled back with big grins on their faces, laughing and muttering in Spanish. I was new to being a route tech and it never occurred to me the vehicle had a "government" look about it. Well that event also solved the mystery why people scampered away from convenience stores and gas stations when I pulled up....Yup...I was glad to learn it was not personal.
It would be interesting to learn about all of the judges who issued rulings on this case. In particular, were they appointed for political reasons or where they appointed based entirely on their merits and qualifications.
The implications of this is amazing and scary at the same time.
They didn't want to set precedent of a case denying "Qualified Immunity".
Does the Lowe court ruling set precedent?
@@zapazap This was an appeals court (8th circuit).
I don't imagine making traffic stops is part of his duties for him to be shielded. Remind me again where we go for justice when we can't get it from the courts.
I think it's the cartridge box.
The second
🤔... 2A? ✌️
I find it hard to believe there's no case that's even close. All you have to do is change the role of county engineer to police officer and they'll be a myriad of cases that are extremely close.
I feel like Steve should get to the end and announce this is an April Fool's joke but it's October.
I've said for a long time that there is no requirement for native intelligence or critical thinking ability to be a lawyer, and by extension a judge. This is more evidence of that fact.
Isn't this how it works in Russia, China, etc? Any government employee can act as law enforcement?
If this is upheld, lots of crazy stuff could happen:
Building inspector can detain you if your deck railing is too low. County clerk can detain you for being rude. School principal can detain a parent for dropping their kid off too late.
Well, this is why rebellions are needed to correct this behavior.
I read about this story, there's no way I would have let that guy detain me.
What the heck are courts for if they can't rule on anything that is not the exact same situation that has occurred previously. If other entities acted this way nothing new would ever be made. As a simple grunt worker I made decisions every day that had no precedents I could look up in a book.
I keep trying to tell people how unintelligent and spineless judges are. Someone needs to repeat this back to them SLOWLY and see if they get it...
It is beyond time to dismantle the entire judiciary.
And replace it with what?
@@peterstockhausen8806A much more tightly reined-in judiciary. One where justices can be easily recalled/impeached.
A couple weeks ago I sent a story about a town in England that bought electric cars for the cops but forgot to provide a way for them to get charged. This video makes just as much sense.
I'm sure the judge isn't a real judge and just pretending to be a judge. But don't worry, they have judicial immunity.
It is a real judge. Stupid or wise (wise if setting the case to be kickef up). But in either case, real.
@@zapazap ... I don’t think you understood that meaning of the comment.
😊😊😊You hit the nail on the head!😊
Great, now I have the image of Jack Sparrow impersonating a judge in Pirates of the Caribbean 4.
I'm actually a little surprised that they didn't simply look up the definition of the word "qualified". I'm not sure why they would even think qualified immunity could apply. The definition of qualified in this context is "officially recognized as being trained to perform a particular job". So they only could be covered by this immunity in performing the job they are "qualified" to perform. They may be qualified to perform some other government function, but they aren't qualified to perform police duties. Since the actions were outside the scope of their actual job, qualified immunity by definition doesn't apply.
Our whole judicial system should have a meal catered by Lucretia Borgia
Lol! Nice way to put it.
I'm probably not the only one, but I remarked to my wife that he should get fake qualified immunity as a fake copper about 40 secs prior to you saying the very same, it really is beyond all reason; absolutely crazy.
Like deployed 👍
Unqualified Immunity is now a thing
It's almost like judges don't know the law and just make it up.
Was anyone else's first thought "Jeremy DeWitt must never know about fake cop qualified immunity." or was that just me?
Our court system is getting more and more r-tarded every day.
That's an insult to the mentally disabled-they don't go around setting idiotic precedents like our courts.
This sounds like a slam dunk case for false imprisonment, which would be handled in a criminal trial rather than a civil suit. The fact that QI comes on here at all is crazy.
There's at least one judge who needs to be removed from the bench.
You are correct, Steve -- this case is absurd. It's frightening that MULTIPLE judges actually voted for this idiocy.
Hey Steve, as a former LEO, I would've arrested the detaining person or at least cited him. That would at least get the powers that be to look at the situation and take appropriate actions. Without knowing the whole story, that is as much as I will say. Keep up the informative & entertaining videos.
The problem is that cops do not think for themselves. Simpleton order followers.
👍👍👍
I can't bang my head against the wall hard enough.
These are the kind of things that we as citizens should be in a uproar about
I can see this working for security guards, or on-site officials 'policing' company rules, such as speeding around a factory site, and for DOT officials to deal with unsafe or overloaded vehicles, but this case seems to be well outside any justifiable job role.
I get the feeling the judges in this case are purposely doing this as a way to force qualified immunity to be reevaluated.
Up to six months in prison in the UK for impersonating a police officer. Other charges could follow depending what the fake cop was up to.
@@kerryedavis There are some, usually fantasists, who love the uniform thing but here in the UK there was a strippergram 'cop'who was arrested multiple times. I believe just saying you're a police officer, maybe with a fake warrant card, can get you arrested. Obviously law in the UK is very different than in the US.
He never actually impersonated a cop though. You could maybe argue he impersonated a DoT officer
@@kerryedavis Maybe. The article I read just said he was an engineer and worked for the government. DoT would make a lot of sense and explain how he is getting away with this
That is why the founders wanted all Jury trials. Judges are government officials working for the government.. some are good but most are beyond vile.
Jury is usually not the one deciding on qualified immunity.
@@seneca983 The founding fathers would probably be against qualified immunity for the same reason they wanted all jury trials. They didn't want a government official deciding whether you had rights or not.
Dammit, Jim…I’m a cop AND a doctor 😂
Dammit, Jim...I'm not an engineer but I play one on TV! 👷
Dammit Jim, I'm playing a doctor, not a bricklayer.
In the early seventies, living in Chicago, my dad took to coming home in time to pick me up, and we two went to the local movie theatre during "the Chicago seven conspiracy trial", where the theatres in "the Chicago-land area" all showed the court proceedings of the said trial during intermission. That was the means at the time, to provide us real time knowledge of probably the most egregious police conspiracy crime at that time. It was a real eye-opener and changed the perception of police there for probably a decade. Fifty years later, it appears to be only one of many that have come down through time leading to our current policing problems.
It would be great if as a result of this case, the current SCOTUS further chooses to clarify Qualified Immunity or at least telecasts that they are willing to do that on future cases.
Between the lock down enforcements, mandates, asset forfeiture, and general bad behavior such as this.. I understand why people have stopped supporting cops so much.
For the people, not above the people has been forgotten.
How can qualified immunity override black letter law like larceny? I always thought that the way to deal with court precedent you don't like is to write a law clarifying the subject, but if the courts are granting qualified immunity for things that the written law prohibits, where's the rule of law?
It does it everyday. But mostly it protects cops who violate peoples rights, in such a manner as everyone looks at the situation and goes “that is 100% wrong wtf” but when you get to court the judges say “well yea it was wrong but like how could they have known that it’s never happened EXACTLY like this before”
This is a great chance to have Qualified Immunity reigned in. IMHO
@Scott Lemiere good. get rid of all government immunity.
From your comment to God's ears....PLEASE!
Sounds like someone in the court either knows the engineer or got a nice deposit in their bank account.
Prove it
@@dcrose001 maybe you misread. "Sounds like." That is not a definitive statement.
this is a case where the judge should be investigated
Cases like this is why we need lawyers and cases like these is proof that our political system is corrupt....if we went by principal of law and not letter of law this wouldn't be in the news and the engineer would be in jail
Slight correction.
Why we need “good” lawyer’s.
Don’t need more of the copyright troll/overly shady corporate types/etc.
impersonating a police officer? false imprisonment?
They were not imprisoned and impersonation would be prosecuted by the state, not the company that was stopped.
@@emptylog933 If they were held, detained, or prevented from leaving in (almost) any way, they were a) unlawfully detained (for cops) or b) kidnapped (for civilians). Come on! Steve's done videos on this!
@@insanitysportal6692 You don't know the trucking industry. All those "crimes" you mentioned happen every day to truck drivers.
Well it seems that there is some judges that would like to stick it to the Supreme Court since they are the only one that can overrule this new precedent.
Is it possible the court is reading the precedent broadly to ensure this goes up for review exactly because it is such an absurd example?
Listening to this, that's the only logical conclusion I could draw.
That's what I got from it.
Yes. It's not only entirely possible, it's even likely that is the case here. No judge would invite that type of scrutiny and review of their ruling, unless they were advocating for some type of change or reform with the same.
We can only hope.
I was thinking the same thing. Hopefully it'll force the supreme court to clarify that rule.
Our judicial system is looking worse every day. Very sad.
In the province of Quebec we had a case where an engineer was found guilty of rape but the judge decided not to give him a criminal record, therefore not to impose any sentence on him since it would harm his career. This is not a joke. But the most ridiculous part of the story is that other women are now accusing the same engineer of rape...It seems that the engineering career opens the doors to a lot of opportunities
I'm embarrassed this happened in my state.
Ignorance is no defense... except for qualified immunity
The slippery slope. I can imagine cops showing up at polling places and preventing a certain class of people from voting. Then defending themselves with qualified immunity.
This is hopefully a good thing. The current Supreme Court will take away qualified immunity and restore strict liability
Ben on the bonnet of car, right side, top shelf.
Good eye.
It's time to end ALL qualified immunity!
I don't think that's possible in this political climate. But I'd be satisfied with changing to to the old standard of "A reasonable police officer's judgement". Because so many cases (like this one) are obviously unreasonable. It's not perfect, but it's much better than the current situation.
@@philopharynx7910 If you put that kind of discretion into a court's hands it's just going to keep being abused. There has to be an actual definable limit and not just words that can be interpreted any way someone chooses.
@@philopharynx7910 excepting it is a huge part of the problem!!! ITS TIME STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR OUR RIGHTS!
@@mage1439 That's the problem. They do have a defined limit now. That limit is "The supreme court has already ruled on the same situation." And that is a problem. One case was in prisons and the court had already ruled that it was a violation to have backed up sewage for 30 days. So they got off when it was only 7 days. Few people can afford to take something to the supreme court knowing they won't get anything but somebody might in the future.
Man, Jeremy Charles DeWitte would love for Florida to adopt this
Just when you thought the government couldn't get worse.
That falls under WTF!
Sure Does!!!!
Our court system is just showing how stupid they are!
Isn't "Somebody pretending to be a cop doing something stupid", redudant?
I worked for the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. We were told that we were entitled to sovereign immunity when we were acting within our official duties. We were also warned that this would not be true if we tried to do something that was not withing our official duties. I was always very careful to stay well within my official duties. One time, the EPA went out to a place in Casper, WY and served a search warrant to take samples from a trucking company yard. EPA spent over $60,000 taking samples that all turned out to be on drums of diesel fuel. So they had no case, regardless of the results of their analysis. In the course of events, the company produced a copy of a letter written by me on another case against the same company. The letter was to close a case where they complied with everything we asked. A US Attorney called me and threatened to prosecute me personally for writing the letter. My upper management basically told the EPA to do whatever they wanted. But then nothing happened. I never did anything illegal, but I did have a lot of stress for several months.
m actually happy that this is happening, not because of how stupid it is, but because they might finaly change the way on how they write qualified immumity
WTF??? This is insane.
This is beyond stupid. If the court system let's this go forward, then they have lost ALL credibility.