I have several times in the comments and in the description to the video. The case: www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/taylor-v-riojas/ The article: www.abajournal.com/columns/article/chemerinsky-scotus-hands-down-a-rare-civil-rights-victory-on-qualified-immunity
If you're not interested in finding it with Google then you're probably not really interested in reading the links. Wouldn't take you as long to type as your question did, plus you'd probably already be done verifying.
Supreme court? Not even a valid court, like much of government in the U.S. Their Roe v. Wade decision made the killing of millions of unborn babies legal.
@@neilkurzman4907 "constitutional" Yes, from the perspective of the Supreme Court having authority to make such rulings... the 'Because I said So' argument.... But a case could be made that the Supreme court has a legal obligation to assure All of it's decisions comport with the fundamental concepts of the Bill of Rights... Any clear violation of the Bill of Rights, cannot be Constitutional
@@geoh7777 The problem is not as simple as people want to make it tho. A woman who is pregnant health can change drastically. Like what happened to my sister. 1st baby no issues at all. 12 miscarriages after my nephew born spanning oh about 17 years. I do believe too many women yes have abortions because it is easy and is a quick fix. I also know if the woman I was with and she was pregnant and we got the bad news the baby would not make it a year and would need basically a miracle to make it a year I could not in good conscience ask her or tell her she is carrying to full term. Alot easier to get over a baby in this case that was never born. I know that may sound cold but it is a fact. Not saying would get over it immediately cause still would need to process losing a child. Think about some of the stupid proposals for abortion bans we have seen. Ohio not allowing an abortion for ectopic pregnancy that has 0 chance of going to full term and worse could cause the woman her life. If a pregnant woman is told for whatever reason she should not go to full term due to problems with I myself would have no problem with abortion in that case. But until we fix the problem we have with foster care and CYF or whatever you call it abortions will still be at a high number
Including every reasonable officer who witnessed and testified against an unreasonable officer committing a Constitutional wrong and finding out that the court or a higher court, even SCOTUS, granted him qualified immunity!
@@admthrawnuru yeah they go by the term "least reasonable officer" to give actually unreasonable officers a mulligan - Kiesla v Hughes 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018) www.techdirt.com/articles/20180405/14275639575/supreme-court-says-shooting-non-threatening-person-without-warning-is-just-good-police-work.shtml
@@edwardmiessner6502 I can't imagine why people don't trust a system where the most unreasonable officers get to determine the standards for accountability.
As a programmer, you got that analogy right about it being an endless loop because there’s this undefined variable that cannot be defined, just like there’s an unestablished violation that can never be established. Qualified Immunity needs to end yesterday.
Qualified Immunity and Civil Forfeiture need to be pulled out by the roots before the citizenry exercises the only remedy they will have left... Which will result in a heck of a body count.
To battle civil forfeiture here is a good idea if you have time and money. Let’s say you are driving and get pulled over for speeding. Cops sees a bunch of money it happens to be $20k. Cop wants to seize the money it might be ill gotten gains or tied to a crime. You explain why you have the money. Cop says sign this paper I am seizing the money. You refuse and say you want the money arrest me. If the cops arrests you knowing you committed no crime what would they charge you with. No way this will hold up in court if you get arrested. This puts the cops in a bad spot. If most people did this it would probably make the news and bring light onto this issue. Plus no way these cops can arrest everybody to seize money when you are innocent.
@@kurtwetzel154 The arrest would be for something like "disorderly conduct" or "resisting", or "impeding an investigation" and the money would be seized as possible proceeds of drug activity. The DA would drop the arrest charges and still keep the money.
@@MonkeyJedi99 If the charges are dropped I don't see how they can keep the money. The DA proved you are innocent so how could the money be proceeds of drug activity.
@@kurtwetzel154 If I was a COP and I pulled you over for a vehicle infraction and saw $20,000 in cash I would become suspicious ???? After That I have choices ????
@@tatsmcfatty , I'm all for law enforcement, never supported "defund the police". But "Qualified Immunity" has always been nothing less than permission for law enforcement officers to be the law breakers themselves. It referred to as "a police state".
Can you imagine all the Judges in the High court being subject to these violations, and then claim a reasonable cop wouldn't know . what the F$#@ are we hiring robots, with no human morals of right and wrong, sometimes certain things are wrong. They are just wrong . something twisted here looks like we pay for shitty service i all parts of the Gov.
No there is no reason to soften the rules but there is reason to RECALIBRATE the minority community who is having difficulty with the behavior rules ???
Your comment made me consider the ramifications of defining the police without revoking CAF. Think about how out if control they would get trying recoup that income at private citizens expense. That would be a fascist nightmare. The whole system needs some serious reconsideration. The system is toxic for all involved.
Your comment made me consider the ramifications of defining the police without revoking CAF. Think about how out if control they would get trying recoup that income at private citizens expense. That would be a fascist nightmare. The whole system needs some serious reconsideration. The system is toxic for all involved.
I have no problem with CAF. CAF was brought about to prevent drug dealers/criminals from enjoying the profits of their crimes. Where things go wrong is CAF devoid of due process. They seize, confiscate, sell before they even get a conviction.
i wish i had a dollar for every time i told a technical inspector at car races, the rule book doesn't say i can't do that. and $10 for every time they said OK for now but check back next week!
@Feral Man No, the bible says "hanging the Earth upon nothing" in other words the bible does NOT say that the Earth is flat. "Hanging the Earth upon nothing" is a pretty good description of being in space, not touching anything else.
Qualified immunity makes sense in the context of Organized crime where the prosecuted have the money and influence to sue for every minor incident. You don't want officers to worry about trespassing in the middle of a gunfight. The PROBLEM is that qualified immunity was applied broadly and clumsily, giving officers immunity for everything everywhere forever. So if we want to abolish QI then we need something to replace it.
My wife is presently involved in a case involving qualified immunity. Her second appeal to the 3rd District is in progress. Her first appeal was successful. The corruption and incompetence of the District Court is mind boggling.
I was once told in a college political sci class that the supreme court was the greatest protector of civil liberties in this country. I laughed out loud and mentioned Dred Scott. Professor was not amused. Personally I believe the court makes at least as many decisions violating the citizens rights as they do to protect them. At least this seems to be a win for the people.
@@canucanoe2861 it's like they say politics makes strange bedfellows. And so do court cases. Some of the divides on things like property rights and the NSA spying and so forth makes him interesting divides on the court. Unfortunately it seems like the friend is always towards power to the government and not the people.
Actually, Dred Scott decision was to protect rights, the property rights of the slave owner who was required to move from a slave state to a United States territory by the federal government. He argued since he was required to go to the new place, the government could not simply take his property without due process, that is, they would need to compensate him or he could keep his slave, since the slave in his home state was his legal property. The whole point of the case was to balance the rights of the one versus the rights of the other, and there are some interesting ramifications from ruling both ways. It would be nice to see a similar ruling come from the Supreme Court wherein someone moved from a state where a certain gun or gun accessory is legal but not legal in the new state, and the state says he has to get rid of it, but then refuses to justly compensate. In fact, if we were lucky, we'd get a ruling wherein you could buy something where it's legal to purchase (say from Colorado), and go where it isn't legal (say Nebraska which borders).
Rarely, well never, after hearing a discussion or explanation, that I don't have questions. You cover all the angles. Your a natural born Teacher. My theory of the tell of a Great Teacher, is a show of no hands.
Have you found that over the years, the more you did FOR FREE for your trustees/ public-servants, the more ungrateful, thankless and abusive they have become, so may we politely suggest the following good mental health de-escalation-for-remedy? THE TRUST IS COLLAPSED....in other words, you are no longer granting any more credit. If the policeman is not lawfully investigating the crime on behalf of the male/female victim and is entering YOUR company jurisdiction without you summonsing them, then would it not be advisable to be politely placing YOUR public-servants/trustees, whom are acting rogue, under your notification that you charge $911 per hour for YOUR time and also $777 for YOUR performance.... and that any further communicating with you, is with them accepting the terms & conditions of the commercial contract IN THE PRIVATE (the cop and their CHIEF and their POLICE UNION is now with PERSONAL liability.... because Notice-to-Agent-is-Notice-to-Principal...and also through JOINDER...and they also lose their qualified immunity) This way, you are NOT resisting/refusing to obey/comply with their orders/demands/ policy/questions, because you are now willing to perform WITH THE CONDITION that payment is with you immediately, because you have NO CONFIDENCE with them administrating YOUR trust! THE PUBLIC TRUST IS COLLAPSED...Why is YOUR company issuing them extra credit? Are YOU not the grantor and the beneficiary of YOUR trust? ...making them the trustees, whom are with their fiduciary obligation and duty-of-care to be NOT causing you injury nor damage nor loss nor harm. Is THEIR job YOUR job? Is THEIR company policy YOUR company policy? not unless and until they are PAYING for your company time & performance THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IS COLLAPSED...YOU are no longer performing free-of-charge! You may be willing to pursue the matter through the small-claims-court and/or through arbitration which is held in-the-private because PUBLIC court is only for the PUBLIC servant. YOUR TRUST FUND IS NOW WITH RESTORATION....YOU are now making money from every encounter with YOUR trustees because the days of doing something with them for free are over. PS-Be the polite BUSINESS man with your trustees .......by COUNTER-charging.
I have never understood why qualified immunity is "by default". Surely it should *not* be granted at the outset, and instead the party wishing to claim qualified immunity be required to stated, with clear reasoning, as to why the court should be minded to grant it. The other party may rebut the reason(s). That would quickly force a clear definition as to when and why qualified immunity should be granted or not
It makes it easier, when you realize your rights are just an illusion. Most of us go our whole lives, never being molested by the system. Life is "all good" if you stay in your own lane. This "thin blue line" are a group of psycho thugs that the "right" seems to support. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
@@ericwright4166 but who holds them accountable? Who's job is it? Why haven't they done their job? Answer: its us...and, we haven't because we spend all our time entertaining ourselves on these electronic devices. #Scripted life #
If these corrections officers are found guilty, their time in prison, should be spent in the exact same conditions, they forced this man to survive in.
The officers have certain rules and regulations created by the legislature of that state ,so if the COP has not violated the rules then the suit is MOOT ??? If officers are not protected for doing their job then no one will ever want to be an officer - In other words devalue the COPS ????
@@oliverphippen1957 I was an officer and in my 20 plus years with TDCJID I never saw an officer assign an offender to a cell period.The offenders are assigned cells by the count room and if the cell isn't functional as an officer we would let the supervisor know and he would get him moved to a cell that was.We didn't treat our offenders like animals.
There was a case down in Alabama or Georgia a few years ago where a client gave his lawyers two phones that could be used as evidence. The lawyer put them in his briefcase. A sheriff's deputy who was following the client saw this. That same day outside the courthouse the client was served with a search warrant for the phones. The warrant only allowed for a search of the man and his vehicle Long story shortened. His lawyers were arrested and the phones seized. The lawyers sued the two cops and the DA who told them to arrest and sieze. All three tried to claim QI stating there was no case on point. The rejection of their claim was followed by the judge quoting the 4th Amendment in his ruling. You know, the part about search and seizure and needing a warrant.
Lawyers are quick to say they don't know the law outside of their specialty. But, defendants should know what laws they are breaking. Never made sense to me. ;-)
Or the defendant knew or should have known ... This needs 3 million thumbs up! What's good for the goose should be more than good enough for the gander.
@@oliverphippen1957 I was joking Oliver. The popular saying, Houston we have a problem in response to an accidental explosion in the service module in a flight to the moon. I joked in the sense that Houston pd has many outstanding issues aswell. That's it it wasn't in response to your observation or you perfectly valid remark.
Thats an old wise tale! Ignorance of the law is definetly an excuse its also a REMEDY to get uP & out from underneath laws!!! I know many here are gonna troll that comment so before you do and when you do make sure you present with the law that states otherwise before telling i i am off of my rocker!
I am from the UK and find two policing rules in the USA extremely strange. Qualified immunity is one, the other is police officers being allowed to lie about legal matters. Above that there is at least one other that seems odd, which is police officers being allowed to work for private companies in their free time. This one clearly influences police in how they deal with any cases involving that company.
How about civil asset forfeiture? They can arrest your stuff without charging you of a crime. You're carrying $40, seems like a suspicious amount of money, hand it over. You can sue us to try to get it back.
@@TheGiantRobot I think that depends on the way it is policed and the conditions around it. In the UK proceeds of crime laws reverse the innocent until proven guilty rules. With large sums it can be seized unless you can prove how it was earned. It is aimed at drug dealers and similar. My favourite UK law is that if you are driving with no insurance your car is instantly seized - no chances, no favours.
@@stevegray1308 It's sometimes used against organized crime, drug traffickers, etc. but it's often used against regular people for amounts that are small enough that it would be too costly to try to get back in court. They don't file charges against the individual. The police then get a significant portion back to use as they please, including possibly large bonuses for the individual officers bringing in the money. As a result my state recently banned civil asset forfeiture. (Sadly, that's one of the few good laws in a bunch of really bad ones lately.)
Finally an established case with an established outcome. Glad to hear it! It's kind of hard to hold your elected officials accountable when they have free legal reign to be unaccountable.
@@rockosmith9874 That's old law there... laws made so long ago that those currently in power do their best to sweep them under the rug. According to those who follow the old laws, the penalty for willfully violating their oath of office at the expense of denying justice is death to the offending judges. They're seen as traitors to the country, via their actions that contradict the constitutional laws the country was founded upon. As per contemporary law, it's a perversion of justice at the very least. The reason such things stand is absolute immunity. Even if there is prior case law for such things, no judge is willing to hear a case condemning another judge as it means they may have their head on the chopping block in the future.
@@rodschmidt8952 It's just old laws, like a death penalty for stealing someone's horse kind of thing. Antiquated, yet still on the books. I found a bunch of that kind of stuff when looking for the limits of absolute immunity. Specifically, what could be done about a judge knowingly and blatantly violating due process to rule against the defendant as retaliation for a personal vendetta. Since the case is currently awaiting decision in an appellate court & will be re-tried (under a different judge), I can't really be any more specific.
Indeed. Qualified Immunity has become a mulligan for bad law enforcement officers local county state and federal to not be held accountable for their unreasonable and sometimes downright criminal conduct.
In computer-speak, it's called an infinite loop. It happens due to a logic error, where the logical decision point that should break the loop never occurs. Sounds like a perfect analogy for your case.
100% on point. The problem is that once that loop is broken, the entire system unravels. Our law is rooted in precedent, there is no vacuum. So if you start to unravel just one thread, it will eventually affect the integrity of the entire fabric. That would be welcome in many ways, but it also would create a host of derivative problems. One reason why the Dredd Scott and Slaughterhouse decisions have never been officially overturned, they have just been reinterpreted over the years.
So this case won't do away with qualified immunity but it takes away the shield protecting qualified immunity. Hopefully more cases and decisions will chip away at the use of qualified immunity.
I always smile when you mention Erwin Chemerinsky. He referred me to an attorney when I needed a civil rights attorney in the mid '90's. And yes, that attorney won me a decent chunk of money and resulted in the firing of the party that violated my rights.
Could this have an effect on Civil Forfeiture were the police can't say "I did not know stealing from an innocent individual is wrong". Maybe the Supreme Court is leaning towards logic and it might be time for a Civil Forfeiture case in the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas wants a civil asset forfeiture (CAF) case to come up to the Supreme Court, he said so after the Timbs v Indiana case. Tombs was decided on "excessive fines." What needs to come up is "due process." The problem is the average CFA is around $500, so how much are you willing to spend to get $500 back. The other thing is that many times when some one is willing to fight the jurisdiction gives the.money back to stop the case from being appealed.
There was a Ninth Circuit case where the cops allegedly *stole* 225,000$ worth of coins and other valuables and not under Civil Asset Forfeiture either and the circuit gave the officers qualified immunity. The plaintiff appealed to the Supremes and they denied him certiorari just this past June. 😡
I mean a start for officers to "know the law" would be them stopping and thinking "Hey, would I want someone doing this to me?" if the answer's no probably shouldn't get immunity.
It shouldn't even go THAT far. We also need to take the tac-vest, jump boot, tactical fatigue uniform away and go back to pressed pant, pressed shirt, and tie uniform. After all, they say the clothes make the man, right?
@@tatsmcfatty and training to match that non-threatening uniform. If they’re not dressed, armed and trained as if they’re at war with the people they’re policing, that would be a great first step.
Thank you Steve for explaining this. I did not realize it was that extreme. I would be curious about your ideas on improving this issue, to balance catching criminals vs to make sure innocents are treated nicely. It's a complex matter, and it's good to learn from someone we trust.
Some states have passed laws barring police from using qualified immunity as a defense. This needs to be done on a national level. We need a federal law overturning the qualified immunity doctrine. I think this would be a great first step for those looking to reform the police. The problem is people are so enamored with "defund the police" that they reject any attempt to "reform the police".
THEY HAVE ALWAYS MADE LAWS FOR JOHN/JANE Q PUBLIC BUT NEVER FOR THEM SELVES. THEY IMUNE THEM SELVES FROM EVERY LAW. AS YOU REMEMBER THEY ARE NOT EVEN IN OVOMITCARE! They have their own perky insurance and all the convinces of life. While we get treated like SLAVES. WITH JUST THE CRAP THEY CAN DISH OUT TO US.
There are abuses, however if a dangerous altercation must be contained an officer must do what is nessesary to contain the situation. It will never be perfect , that being said an officer should not have to do the job of correcting bad parenting . Each case should be tried on it's own merit , not by one size fits all past rulings. In a perfect world perhaps .
@@mwilson7345 And what do you think about the old guy, 75-year-old Martin Gugino, who was pushed over by Buffalo Police and ended up in the hospital for 4 weeks with a cracked skull and brain damage? The guy was just standing there asking a question. Next second he's unconscious and bleeding on the sidewalk. This was not a "dangerous altercation" until the police made it one. Union protected the cops. Union lied, said he tripped and fell, despite video clearly showing what really happened. The 2 cops were put on suspension, but the union fought back, saying that they would not provide legal protection for cops who were a part of the BPD emergency response team. That forced all 57 members of the ERT to resign. The 2 cops were, in fact, charged with felony second-degree assault but were released without bail. 7 months later the county DA announced that a secret grand jury had dismissed all charges. That's not justice, IMO.
@@mwilson7345 So, you say bad behavior is blamed on bad parenting. So, 40 year old Billy just never learned the difference of whats right and wrong. Whether your taught right as a child or not ...when your an adult its your decision to fly right. And another thing, cops making mistakes or idiot decisions (especially the ones based off their egos) gets people killed, and their rights violated. I support the police too. But they better be flying right also.
Love your channel. Thanks for explaining this paradox...it seems that human decency and responsibility can only exist if clearly defined by legislation.
The Bad Elk case? That was only where the Supremes ruled that because the arrest was unlawful, a capital murder conviction got reduced to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Not exactly getting away with resisting an unlawful arrest imo. Worse, most states have passed laws making it illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.
As a computer guy, your description of an infinite loop sounds about right. Sometimes it's a desirable effect, say the main loop that gets negated by some function call inside the loop itself. Most loops should end on their own, but not always. And, as with most programming tasks, there are different ways to do the task properly.
@ STEVE LEHTO-In your video of Jan. 30, 2021(Police Need to Stop Lying to Suspects - Ep. 7.271) I wrote, "THREE things need to happen-- Eliminate Lying, Qualified Immunity(which allows them to lie, without penalty), and Public(Gov't) Unions(Private Unions-UAW, etc- are still acceptable). --Without eliminating ALL 3, the problem will remain.
Another concept is "Catch 22" which I believe describes qualified immunity doctrine. From the Novel "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller: "There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to, but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle." (p. 56, ch. 5)
End qualified immunity now. From Colorado, where we have made a little dent. $25k or 5%, whichever amount is less. It's a start. 💩🔍 👮🔨 103 👎 were all cops afraid of losing their qualified immunity. Get ready coppers, no more status quo!
The main difference in computer code is that it the loop can be halted and the fixed. Also, the code is written by someone that is held responsible for that code by the end-user, if by nobody else. The supreme court wrote this code and has no one who can hold them responsible for taking it upon themselves to force "end-users" to have to endure this endless loop. How can we hold them accountable?
There is a tort in English Law called Misfeasance in Public Office, which carries a maximum sentence of Life Imprisonment . Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote. The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.
@@ricktimmons458 No, The ruling says Misfeasance - a transgression, especially the wrongful exercise of lawful authority. Malfeasance is not quite the same - wrongdoing, especially (US) by a public official. The ruling stipulated that the action may be legal, but ignores the effect the lawful order has on the person. and the consequences there of! An example could be that a lawful order which require good eyesight, would not apply to a person who has eyesight problems.
I live in CA. My commute to work is 1hr at 4am. My commute back home is 2.5 - 3 hrs. Absolutely LOVE having this play while I waste my time in BS traffic. Can't wait to move to SC. But yea. Great thing to listen to
@@TheAlgorath Taylor Vs Riojas looks like a proxy war between Portugal and Spain. Thomas's dissent isn't published. I think a small campaign asking him to justify it would not be inappropriate.
@@johnhiggs5932 actually back in the day there was common sense somewhere along the way we lost it why because we let the most retarded among Us make important decisions I mean look at the president we have a chomo that can't even remember his own name
@@bobbyellis2485 Thank you for demonstrating my point, Hero. Common sense should exclude the ridiculous assertion you just made from being seriously considered. I can only hope that the insanity that is currently the Conservative mindset fades back into the woodwork of our society before any more damage is done to our republic.
Kind of mirrors the situation I found my self in when I was a young, irresponsible speed-demon. By some strange twist of fate, whenever I got pulled over for speeding, (which was often) the officer would check my record, which was somehow spotless, and give me a verbal warning on the premise that since my record was clean, I obviously was not in the habit of speeding. It was a nice Catch-22 to be stuck in. Then I got married, had kids, and decided I needed to get my shit together.
Best thing I've seen in a long while. qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture and indefinite detention don't belong anywhere near a country that proclaims itself a democracy. Habeas Corpus does.
Such a massive BS thing in this country that this even has to be talked about. It’s Republicans and Democrats that are the issue. This should just be wrong and any normal human should know these conditions were wrong and punish whoever put another human in them.
I'd like to know why you feel it's the politicians who are responsible for the mess that is qualified immunity. That particular loophole was created by the Supreme Court, and (i believe) politicians from both parties have tried to rectify the issue from time to time but have failed. Politicians are responsible for a whole lot of nonsense that's out there, but as far as I can tell this specific issue doesn't seem to be their fault.
@@rodh1404 I do not agree - congress has enormous statutory as well as "soft" power to work on improving qualified immunity. The body of case law of terrible decisions on qualified immunity would easily support an inquiry. It seems similar in cases where the Presidential executive power is being used - often congress has failed to rule for years on these topics. [Generalities of course, my disagreement is polite I promise.]
@@MatthewSwabey Yes, congress does have tremendous power, and they've certainly made more than their fair share of stuff ups. But Qualified Immunity isn't their fault. Let's start by examining the law which allows people to sue government officials in civil court (42 USC § 1983). This was originally written as: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress." In Pierson v. Ray (1967), the Supreme Court first justified the need for qualified immunity from civil rights violation lawsuits for law enforcement officers by arguing that "[a] policeman’s lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being punished with damages if he does." At this time, the Justices agreed among themselves (with one dissenting opinion) that Judges have absolute immunity, stating that "the immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine." As for the one dissenting opinion? Justice Douglas stated that Section 1983 must include the judiciary who too must be liable for civil rights violations in the course of their duties. He pointed to the debate in Congress during the Act's inception where "members of Congress objected to the statute because it imposed liability on members of the judiciary." Accordingly, as the Act was passed without providing any exception for the judiciary, he concluded that Congress intended for Section 1983 to apply to 'any person', including judges. So a law that had NO exception for the Judiciary now gave them absolute immunity because the Judges decided it did. How convenient. I should point out that this case was all about a group of priests who wanted to enter a coffee shop for lunch. Two police officers thought that was disorderly conduct (citing Mississippi code § 2087.5 that "makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby, and refuses to move on when ordered to do so by a police officer." ) And so these priests were arrested for the horrible crime of wanting to order lunch. And the Supreme Court was so sympathetic towards these officer's plight that they extended some of the immunity they'd just given themselves (although not as good, since it was "qualified immunity") to them. It's apparent that Congress did agree with the Judges though, because the current version of 42 USC § 1983 now reads: "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia." So yes, you can blame them for a little bit of the mess, but honestly this is still primarily on the Supreme Court who came up with the whole thing all by themselves. Then there was the 1982 case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, where Fitzgerald discovered that there were massive overruns (to the tune of $2 Billion dollars) in a military project that was being deliberately concealed. He became a whistleblower and was subsequently blacklisted and fired. At this point, the Supreme Court decided that the people who blacklisted and fired him were all immune to civil prosecution because "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Because after all, who could possibly know that it was a bad thing to punish someone who had only exposed official corruption? In response to all this nonsense, what has Congress done? Well, in 2020 the first bill with tripartisan support (ever, as far as I can tell) entered Congress, with the intention of blocking all these loopholes imagined by the Supreme Court justices: reason.com/2020/06/11/justin-amash-tom-mcclintock-republican-cosponsor-tripartisan-support-to-end-qualified-immunity/ The Republicans could probably be more enthusiastic with their support, but it's worth noting that both major parties and an independent are sponsoring this bill. It's really not Congress' fault this time.
Thank you for this amazing news! I am a daily news junkie & I am surprised to hear about this here for the first time. The Qualified Immunity doctrine has caused me to wonder... How can the Supreme Court make law like this when it allows - even encourages - law enforcement officers to violate the US Constitution and any citizen's civil rights, without having to answer for their wrongdoing? I am not a lawyer but I was taught that all of our laws must follow the Constitution. ... 🤔 ... Confusing. Wrong.
Perfect example of why Steve is a hero to the public at large. He uses his verbal superpowers for the better good. Except for that showing your receipt to the Walmart greeter thing of course! :)
I had this "law" hit me square between the eyes when I, as a city employee, sued my supervisor for violating my right to free speech. The US SUREME COURT said he was immune to prosecution as a public employee. I had to sue the CITY instead, with all their unlimited legal tools and lawyers on retainer. I won, but the wrong person got off Scot-free.
Why are there cells in those conditions is a question that i dont think enough people are asking. Also judges have too much power for being non elected officials
You don't want elected judges; they will rule in favor of the government's power even more than appointed ones because they get elected based on how pro "law and order" and how "tough on crime" they are.
Inmates play games of clogging their drains so they can be moved or whatever their intent was. I get that it could take some time to fix the drain, never 6 days though. They know this goes on. I can't imagine they don't have a same day fix in most cases, unless they flooded a whole cell block. Thats been done before, but then you have everyone mad at you because they are all living in feces. 6 days is inhumane.
It would be nice if you would provide links to the source material
I have several times in the comments and in the description to the video.
The case: www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/taylor-v-riojas/
The article: www.abajournal.com/columns/article/chemerinsky-scotus-hands-down-a-rare-civil-rights-victory-on-qualified-immunity
Thanks
Took about 45 seconds to google the exact link.
If you're not interested in finding it with Google then you're probably not really interested in reading the links. Wouldn't take you as long to type as your question did, plus you'd probably already be done verifying.
Wow... When you slack at work you don't mess around. Slacked so hard you didn't read the description, eh?
The 1982 ruling was unconstitutional itself.
It created a Frankenstein's monster.
Supreme court? Not even a valid court, like much of government in the U.S.
Their Roe v. Wade decision made the killing of millions of unborn babies legal.
@@neilkurzman4907 "constitutional" Yes, from the perspective of the Supreme Court having authority
to make such rulings... the 'Because I said So' argument.... But a case could be made that the
Supreme court has a legal obligation to assure All of it's decisions comport with the fundamental
concepts of the Bill of Rights... Any clear violation of the Bill of Rights, cannot be Constitutional
@@geoh7777 The problem is not as simple as people want to make it tho. A woman who is pregnant health can change drastically. Like what happened to my sister. 1st baby no issues at all. 12 miscarriages after my nephew born spanning oh about 17 years. I do believe too many women yes have abortions because it is easy and is a quick fix. I also know if the woman I was with and she was pregnant and we got the bad news the baby would not make it a year and would need basically a miracle to make it a year I could not in good conscience ask her or tell her she is carrying to full term. Alot easier to get over a baby in this case that was never born. I know that may sound cold but it is a fact. Not saying would get over it immediately cause still would need to process losing a child. Think about some of the stupid proposals for abortion bans we have seen. Ohio not allowing an abortion for ectopic pregnancy that has 0 chance of going to full term and worse could cause the woman her life. If a pregnant woman is told for whatever reason she should not go to full term due to problems with I myself would have no problem with abortion in that case. But until we fix the problem we have with foster care and CYF or whatever you call it abortions will still be at a high number
@@geoh7777 do you really want the Iron Fist of the Police enforcing the Priest's decision, regarding when an abortion can be permitted?
Now on to Civil Forfeiture
Yes.... get it to the Supreme Court while they have logic on their minds.
Timbs v Indiana, they already did that in 2018, the federal court now need to give it teeth.
@@mike62mcmanus Yep...and one of the reasons I didn't repeat voting for him....not that I'd had voted for either of these bozos.
@@mike62mcmanus Trump reinstated civil asset forfeiture. Originally this came about under Reagan
Now onto Civil War...
Luke 23:41-43
it's about DAMNED TIME said every person of reason.
Including every reasonable officer who witnessed and testified against an unreasonable officer committing a Constitutional wrong and finding out that the court or a higher court, even SCOTUS, granted him qualified immunity!
@@edwardmiessner6502 Ah, but the courts get to define "reasonable" and told you that second officer was also "reasonable"
Justice Thomas dissents... 🤷♂️
@@admthrawnuru yeah they go by the term "least reasonable officer" to give actually unreasonable officers a mulligan - Kiesla v Hughes 138 S. Ct. 1148 (2018)
www.techdirt.com/articles/20180405/14275639575/supreme-court-says-shooting-non-threatening-person-without-warning-is-just-good-police-work.shtml
@@edwardmiessner6502 I can't imagine why people don't trust a system where the most unreasonable officers get to determine the standards for accountability.
If a D.A. lies in court about you, knowing he is lying, that D.A. should be held accountable.
That is perjury if the DA is under oath and possible contempt if not. The judge gets to make the call.
State Bar Association
The DA should be immediately fired and disbarred
Their claim to absolute immunity is nothing more than a legal fiction dreamed up by the true criminals.
As a programmer, you got that analogy right about it being an endless loop because there’s this undefined variable that cannot be defined, just like there’s an unestablished violation that can never be established. Qualified Immunity needs to end yesterday.
Qualified Immunity and Civil Forfeiture need to be pulled out by the roots before the citizenry exercises the only remedy they will have left... Which will result in a heck of a body count.
No one will want the JOB ??????
To battle civil forfeiture here is a good idea if you have time and money. Let’s say you are driving and get pulled over for speeding. Cops sees a bunch of money it happens to be $20k. Cop wants to seize the money it might be ill gotten gains or tied to a crime. You explain why you have the money. Cop says sign this paper I am seizing the money. You refuse and say you want the money arrest me. If the cops arrests you knowing you committed no crime what would they charge you with. No way this will hold up in court if you get arrested. This puts the cops in a bad spot. If most people did this it would probably make the news and bring light onto this issue. Plus no way these cops can arrest everybody to seize money when you are innocent.
@@kurtwetzel154 The arrest would be for something like "disorderly conduct" or "resisting", or "impeding an investigation" and the money would be seized as possible proceeds of drug activity. The DA would drop the arrest charges and still keep the money.
@@MonkeyJedi99 If the charges are dropped I don't see how they can keep the money. The DA proved you are innocent so how could the money be proceeds of drug activity.
@@kurtwetzel154 If I was a COP and I pulled you over for a vehicle infraction and saw $20,000 in cash I would become suspicious ???? After That I have choices ????
I find it fascinating that those involved in the Courts are terrified. Imagine being held to the same Law.
It time we make the Just-us system the Justice system again.
@@tatsmcfatty , I'm all for law enforcement, never supported "defund the police". But "Qualified Immunity" has always been nothing less than permission for law enforcement officers to be the law breakers themselves. It referred to as "a police state".
Can't sue them for it, but you can shoot'em for it. The 2nd amendment exists specifically for this circumstance.
Can you imagine all the Judges in the High court being subject to these violations, and then claim a reasonable cop wouldn't know . what the F$#@ are we hiring robots, with no human morals of right and wrong, sometimes certain things are wrong. They are just wrong . something twisted here looks like we pay for shitty service i all parts of the Gov.
There is no logic in this standard of qualified immunity.
in a truly just society "qualified immunity" would never exist.
Integrity is NOT absolute ????? Joe Biden and son are crooks protected by the MEDIA ????
In a truly just society, everyone would be EQUAL including government officials.
@@SovereignStatesman Equality is about giving every one equal CHANCE
Not about giving every one equal results ??????
@@oliverphippen1957 No, equal power over the nation.
@@SovereignStatesman I dont understand what you are saying ?????Please explain ???
Taylor is my husband and he fought very hard to get this win so thank you for putting this out
Just possibly, government workers would start being more professional if they can now be held accountable for civil violations.
Preacccccccccch 🙏💯
Civil and Criminal
ua-cam.com/video/Is6xeUihZ3E/v-deo.html
No there is no reason to soften the rules but there is reason to RECALIBRATE the minority community who is having difficulty with the behavior rules ???
@@johndoe-ss9bz -bad behavior is in the DNA / INHERENT /INBRED ?
Wow! Perhaps now we'll get a significant ruling from SCOTUS on Civil Asset Forfeiture? Nah, that's just crazy talk!
Your comment made me consider the ramifications of defining the police without revoking CAF. Think about how out if control they would get trying recoup that income at private citizens expense. That would be a fascist nightmare.
The whole system needs some serious reconsideration. The system is toxic for all involved.
Your comment made me consider the ramifications of defining the police without revoking CAF. Think about how out if control they would get trying recoup that income at private citizens expense. That would be a fascist nightmare.
The whole system needs some serious reconsideration. The system is toxic for all involved.
I have no problem with CAF. CAF was brought about to prevent drug dealers/criminals from enjoying the profits of their crimes. Where things go wrong is CAF devoid of due process. They seize, confiscate, sell before they even get a conviction.
search term: James Otis JR. the true father of our country. why this is not taught in schools baffles me.
@@ATAATX not so, that's unconvicted suspected drug dealers and criminals who are supposedly innocent until convicted
I’d like to see this go beyond law enforcement. Regulators often abuse their power.
Judges, AG's, ect.
@@7cooty7 I was thinking more like politicians and governors passing blatantly unconstitutional laws.
@@Uberragen21 i agree but also AG's and judges follow through with them
Are my eyes and ears deciving me ? Is it really true ? Courts and judge's doing what's right ? Wow! Never thought I'd live to see the day .
next the SCOTUS needs to rule on being "arrested for resisting arrest" and no other charge
I think they ruled on that. You have a right to defend yourself against an illegal arrest. I'll try to look at the case no.
ua-cam.com/video/aT0YdDFWnwY/v-deo.html
@@samwelonduko9696 That link is to a ruling from the Georgia Supreme Court, not SCOTUS.
Wow! Big news!
Sheriffs better start training their deputies on how to uphold citizens rights!
From deputy training, day 1: "Now repeat after me. 'That's a nice civil asset you got there. Would be a shame if you had to forfeit it.'"
The irony of your statement is that every sheriff and deputy take an oath to up hold the constitution.
Nah, let them learn the hardway when they get convicted
The same defense a 14-year-old uses. " Well, you never told me I COULDN'T do that! "
Which shows you the mental social, and emotional maturity of the police
i wish i had a dollar for every time i told a technical inspector at car races, the rule book doesn't say i can't do that. and $10 for every time they said OK for now but check back next week!
Right
Well put
My kids aren't 14 yet and they know better than to use the "I have no brain" excuse.
supreme court has exceeded it's authority by making law!
I agree. 'qualified immunity' and 'civil forfeiture' should most definitely be repealed. Laws and fairness should apply all round.
this video is everything. linking it to my social media accounts as we speak. great job man
Thanks!
Thank you Johnny.
@Feral Man how did you figure that out?
@Feral Man No, the bible says "hanging the Earth upon nothing" in other words the bible does NOT say that the Earth is flat. "Hanging the Earth upon nothing" is a pretty good description of being in space, not touching anything else.
@Feral Man P.S. "tombstone" is one word, not two.
Qualified immunity needs to be abolished.
Qualified immunity makes sense in the context of Organized crime where the prosecuted have the money and influence to sue for every minor incident. You don't want officers to worry about trespassing in the middle of a gunfight. The PROBLEM is that qualified immunity was applied broadly and clumsily, giving officers immunity for everything everywhere forever.
So if we want to abolish QI then we need something to replace it.
@@adamblakeslee5301 As it is too many cops treat it as a license to wipe their behind with the constitution.
@@adamblakeslee5301
I know , let's make it illegal to conduct criminal activity 🤔
Qualified immunity will never be abolished as this is what gives power to the elite ruling class and preserves systemic racism.
This video shows it is now overturned
My wife is presently involved in a case involving qualified immunity. Her second appeal to the 3rd District is in progress. Her first appeal was successful. The corruption and incompetence of the District Court is mind boggling.
But is it by design?
@@timm1583 No doubt. The lengths to protect corrupt government know no bounds.
If you research Brownback v King you'll find out that the District Court in western Michigan is the same way
I was once told in a college political sci class that the supreme court was the greatest protector of civil liberties in this country. I laughed out loud and mentioned Dred Scott. Professor was not amused. Personally I believe the court makes at least as many decisions violating the citizens rights as they do to protect them. At least this seems to be a win for the people.
The SCOTUS has been shredding the fourth amendment for decades and the supposedly liberal justices are in on it.
Yep... SCOTUS, one of the greatest threats to the US Constitution
@@canucanoe2861 it's like they say politics makes strange bedfellows. And so do court cases. Some of the divides on things like property rights and the NSA spying and so forth makes him interesting divides on the court. Unfortunately it seems like the friend is always towards power to the government and not the people.
@@canucanoe2861 ditto the conservative justices who are supposedly in favor of limited government
Actually, Dred Scott decision was to protect rights, the property rights of the slave owner who was required to move from a slave state to a United States territory by the federal government. He argued since he was required to go to the new place, the government could not simply take his property without due process, that is, they would need to compensate him or he could keep his slave, since the slave in his home state was his legal property. The whole point of the case was to balance the rights of the one versus the rights of the other, and there are some interesting ramifications from ruling both ways.
It would be nice to see a similar ruling come from the Supreme Court wherein someone moved from a state where a certain gun or gun accessory is legal but not legal in the new state, and the state says he has to get rid of it, but then refuses to justly compensate. In fact, if we were lucky, we'd get a ruling wherein you could buy something where it's legal to purchase (say from Colorado), and go where it isn't legal (say Nebraska which borders).
Rarely, well never, after hearing a discussion or explanation, that I don't have questions. You cover all the angles. Your a natural born Teacher. My theory of the tell of a Great Teacher, is a show of no hands.
Wow...have not seen WABX and WRIF for many years. Old Detroit guy here. Awesome. Great show.
I literally shouted for joy after reading the banner
Oh happy days , change is a commin'
let's pray for Civil Asset Forfeiture next
Yep, get rid of Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Lmao. Change. You silly person.
Have you found that over the years, the more you did FOR FREE for your trustees/ public-servants, the more ungrateful, thankless and abusive they have become, so may we politely suggest the following good mental health de-escalation-for-remedy?
THE TRUST IS COLLAPSED....in other words, you are no longer granting any more credit.
If the policeman is not lawfully investigating the crime on behalf of the male/female victim and is entering YOUR company jurisdiction without you summonsing them, then would it not be advisable to be politely placing YOUR public-servants/trustees, whom are acting rogue, under your notification that you charge $911 per hour for YOUR time and also $777 for YOUR performance.... and that any further communicating with you, is with them accepting the terms & conditions of the commercial contract IN THE PRIVATE (the cop and their CHIEF and their POLICE UNION is now with PERSONAL liability.... because Notice-to-Agent-is-Notice-to-Principal...and also through JOINDER...and they also lose their qualified immunity)
This way, you are NOT resisting/refusing to obey/comply with their orders/demands/ policy/questions, because you are now willing to perform WITH THE CONDITION that payment is with you immediately, because you have NO CONFIDENCE with them administrating YOUR trust!
THE PUBLIC TRUST IS COLLAPSED...Why is YOUR company issuing them extra credit? Are YOU not the grantor and the beneficiary of YOUR trust? ...making them the trustees, whom are with their fiduciary obligation and duty-of-care to be NOT causing you injury nor damage nor loss nor harm.
Is THEIR job YOUR job? Is THEIR company policy YOUR company policy?
not unless and until they are PAYING for your company time & performance
THE CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IS COLLAPSED...YOU are no longer performing free-of-charge!
You may be willing to pursue the matter through the small-claims-court and/or through arbitration which is held in-the-private because PUBLIC court is only for the PUBLIC servant.
YOUR TRUST FUND IS NOW WITH RESTORATION....YOU are now making money from every encounter with YOUR trustees because the days of doing something with them for free are over.
PS-Be the polite BUSINESS man with your trustees .......by COUNTER-charging.
lets not pray.... lets take up arms rally and pray
I have never understood why qualified immunity is "by default". Surely it should *not* be granted at the outset, and instead the party wishing to claim qualified immunity be required to stated, with clear reasoning, as to why the court should be minded to grant it. The other party may rebut the reason(s). That would quickly force a clear definition as to when and why qualified immunity should be granted or not
It makes it easier, when you realize your rights are just an illusion. Most of us go our whole lives, never being molested by the system.
Life is "all good" if you stay in your own lane.
This "thin blue line" are a group of psycho thugs that the "right" seems to support. Ignorance is bliss, I guess.
@@dannymccarty344 "Life is 'all good' if you stay in your own lane."
Until the thin blue liners cross into it and cut you off for no good reason
@@edwardmiessner6502 militarized zone = Today's America
It doesn't matter who you are you should be held accountable for your actions. And if you think it shouldn't be that way then you're wrong
@@ericwright4166 but who holds them accountable? Who's job is it? Why haven't they done their job?
Answer: its us...and, we haven't because we spend all our time entertaining ourselves on these electronic devices.
#Scripted life #
If these corrections officers are found guilty, their time in prison, should be spent in the exact same conditions, they forced this man to survive in.
That would likely be ruled as cruel and unusual. Not saying it’s fair, as I personally believe the punishment should be worse than the crime.
The officers have certain rules and regulations created by the legislature of that state ,so if the COP has not violated the rules then the suit is MOOT ???
If officers are not protected for doing their job then no one will ever want to be an officer - In other words devalue the COPS ????
All of a sudden prisons in foreign countries are looking less intimidating in comparison.
@@matthewl67 Ah, but the guards have qualified immunity because there's no previous case exactly on point ... oh wait, yes there is now
@@oliverphippen1957 I was an officer and in my 20 plus years with TDCJID I never saw an officer assign an offender to a cell period.The offenders are assigned cells by the count room and if the cell isn't functional as an officer we would let the supervisor know and he would get him moved to a cell that was.We didn't treat our offenders like animals.
There was a case down in Alabama or Georgia a few years ago where a client gave his lawyers two phones that could be used as evidence. The lawyer put them in his briefcase. A sheriff's deputy who was following the client saw this. That same day outside the courthouse the client was served with a search warrant for the phones. The warrant only allowed for a search of the man and his vehicle Long story shortened. His lawyers were arrested and the phones seized. The lawyers sued the two cops and the DA who told them to arrest and sieze. All three tried to claim QI stating there was no case on point. The rejection of their claim was followed by the judge quoting the 4th Amendment in his ruling. You know, the part about search and seizure and needing a warrant.
Steve, I get educated every time I watch. Just another example of our JUST AGAINST US legal system.
This is near to my favorite legal phrase "Defendant knew or SHOULD HAVE known."
That can apply to ANYTHING.
Lawyers are quick to say they don't know the law outside of their specialty. But, defendants should know what laws they are breaking. Never made sense to me. ;-)
Or the defendant knew or should have known ... This needs 3 million thumbs up!
What's good for the goose should be more than good enough for the gander.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless your actually enforcing the law. Houston, I think we have a problem here.
Does that mean that all those Riots because of Misunderstanding the law -Like George Floyd or trevon Martin or Mike Brown or Freddy Grey ??? etc
I think that you will find Houston pd certainly has a problem although it may not be what you meant lol...
@@bernardtimmer6723 ???????
@@oliverphippen1957 I was joking Oliver. The popular saying, Houston we have a problem in response to an accidental explosion in the service module in a flight to the moon. I joked in the sense that Houston pd has many outstanding issues aswell. That's it it wasn't in response to your observation or you perfectly valid remark.
Thats an old wise tale! Ignorance of the law is definetly an excuse its also a REMEDY to get uP & out from underneath laws!!! I know many here are gonna troll that comment so before you do and when you do make sure you present with the law that states otherwise before telling i i am off of my rocker!
I am from the UK and find two policing rules in the USA extremely strange. Qualified immunity is one, the other is police officers being allowed to lie about legal matters. Above that there is at least one other that seems odd, which is police officers being allowed to work for private companies in their free time. This one clearly influences police in how they deal with any cases involving that company.
How about civil asset forfeiture? They can arrest your stuff without charging you of a crime. You're carrying $40, seems like a suspicious amount of money, hand it over. You can sue us to try to get it back.
@@TheGiantRobot I think that depends on the way it is policed and the conditions around it. In the UK proceeds of crime laws reverse the innocent until proven guilty rules. With large sums it can be seized unless you can prove how it was earned. It is aimed at drug dealers and similar. My favourite UK law is that if you are driving with no insurance your car is instantly seized - no chances, no favours.
@@stevegray1308 It's sometimes used against organized crime, drug traffickers, etc. but it's often used against regular people for amounts that are small enough that it would be too costly to try to get back in court. They don't file charges against the individual. The police then get a significant portion back to use as they please, including possibly large bonuses for the individual officers bringing in the money. As a result my state recently banned civil asset forfeiture. (Sadly, that's one of the few good laws in a bunch of really bad ones lately.)
Finally an established case with an established outcome. Glad to hear it! It's kind of hard to hold your elected officials accountable when they have free legal reign to be unaccountable.
just found your channel. that is good news on qualified immunity. 1982 Reagans court.
So qualified immunity is not a actually a law. it's just legislating from the bench'.
I heard that judges practicing law from the bench on constitutional and against the law and goes against their office of oath🙏
Dims should like this ????
@@rockosmith9874
That's old law there... laws made so long ago that those currently in power do their best to sweep them under the rug.
According to those who follow the old laws, the penalty for willfully violating their oath of office at the expense of denying justice is death to the offending judges.
They're seen as traitors to the country, via their actions that contradict the constitutional laws the country was founded upon.
As per contemporary law, it's a perversion of justice at the very least.
The reason such things stand is absolute immunity.
Even if there is prior case law for such things, no judge is willing to hear a case condemning another judge as it means they may have their head on the chopping block in the future.
@@kaisersose5549 Where do I look to find this old law that you speak of? About the penalty?
@@rodschmidt8952
It's just old laws, like a death penalty for stealing someone's horse kind of thing.
Antiquated, yet still on the books.
I found a bunch of that kind of stuff when looking for the limits of absolute immunity.
Specifically, what could be done about a judge knowingly and blatantly violating due process to rule against the defendant as retaliation for a personal vendetta.
Since the case is currently awaiting decision in an appellate court & will be re-tried (under a different judge), I can't really be any more specific.
Congress could have fixed this at any time. Its failure to do so is an indictment.
Have you looked at Congress lately ?
They will argue for years over how to tie their own shoes and still not make a cognitive decision .
@@mwilson7345 bc they're all scumbag, bottom feeding lawyers.
With out protection / Qualified immunity there would be no COPS ??? and the minority community would exist and rule ???
@GoogleCensorsTheTruth 34 How does Qualified immunity relate to Israel ????
and indictment of the left or the right ?????
They say the wheels of justice grind slowly - this has to be a perfect example of just how slow sometimes!
I agree!!!
Using crap as a lubricant.
Wheels of injustice, grinding up people.
Grinds slow because it corrupt as hell. Favors people with $$
Amazing coverage of an important issue. Thank you!
STOP IT!!!! WOW....my head hurts, just listening......THANK YOU!!!!
So many laws require reasonableness but not for cops when they do things that violate your rights.
Cops, reasonable? Hahahahahahaha!
Indeed. Qualified Immunity has become a mulligan for bad law enforcement officers local county state and federal to not be held accountable for their unreasonable and sometimes downright criminal conduct.
We have got to get cops under control Safe Policing act was a start
In computer-speak, it's called an infinite loop. It happens due to a logic error, where the logical decision point that should break the loop never occurs. Sounds like a perfect analogy for your case.
100% on point. The problem is that once that loop is broken, the entire system unravels. Our law is rooted in precedent, there is no vacuum. So if you start to unravel just one thread, it will eventually affect the integrity of the entire fabric. That would be welcome in many ways, but it also would create a host of derivative problems. One reason why the Dredd Scott and Slaughterhouse decisions have never been officially overturned, they have just been reinterpreted over the years.
Infinite loop? Like, Shall we play a game? (Wargames. 1983)
10 REM Number of precedents
20 N=0
30 REM Consider Case
40 IF N=0 THEN 80
50 PRINT "Case will be heard"
60 N=N+1
70 GOSUB ADJUDICATE_CASE
80 GOTO 30
Break the highest law in the land and all you get is "Don't do that again"
"I've heard some people say"; "If you can't get justice in the courts, get .308 or .30-06 justice".
Ah! I positively ~LOVE~ the Canadian Robot Lady and her presentation of the post-script messages! 🤣
Thank you Steve for unpacking this thing. I find myself shaking my head.
The simple fact it originated in the court means it is unconstitutional.
🤔
@@icemike1 he is indicating that qualified immunity never got passed by congress and according to the constitution congress writes the laws
@David Smith but yet, here we are. ...
@@jdlucree interpret
@@icemike1 they didnt interpret qualified immunity. they made it up from whole cloth. they are not congress
In programming, it's called an "Infinite loop". It continues until some outside force asserts a superior control.
Right....and good point.
The ultimate NRZI
Every previous case should be re examined and have this ruling retroactively applied.
Appreciated the video and the information. Love the SISU plate. I am a Finn too. My family has its roots in the UP.
Same here. Both parents from the Copper Country.
So this case won't do away with qualified immunity but it takes away the shield protecting qualified immunity. Hopefully more cases and decisions will chip away at the use of qualified immunity.
Or at least looking to see if it should apply to a case. That would be a start
1:51 I am a computer programmer, and I approve this message.
while not done { x = x +1 }
while (!case_exists) {
case_exists = false;
}
No “ go to “ ....
Man, I hope so. I high time people that abuse other people without any fear of reprisal ends.
I always smile when you mention Erwin Chemerinsky. He referred me to an attorney when I needed a civil rights attorney in the mid '90's. And yes, that attorney won me a decent chunk of money and resulted in the firing of the party that violated my rights.
Amazing that something like this could happen in our "civilized" country. I feel sorry for the gentleman who was treated this way.
ALL CITIZENS UPON SCOTUS' TYRANNY OF ZERO RESTRICTIONS OF ACCOUNTABILITY ARE PURCHASED BY THE OLIGARCHY OF WEALTH.
Could this have an effect on Civil Forfeiture were the police can't say "I did not know stealing from an innocent individual is wrong". Maybe the Supreme Court is leaning towards logic and it might be time for a Civil Forfeiture case in the Supreme Court.
Justice Thomas wants a civil asset forfeiture (CAF) case to come up to the Supreme Court, he said so after the Timbs v Indiana case. Tombs was decided on "excessive fines." What needs to come up is "due process." The problem is the average CFA is around $500, so how much are you willing to spend to get $500 back.
The other thing is that many times when some one is willing to fight the jurisdiction gives the.money back to stop the case from being appealed.
@@ajkendro3413 And there is a $50,000 fee for a case to be heard by the SCOTUS.
@@canucanoe2861 I didn't know about the filing fee. That is an outrageous amount to keep me from my day in court.
There was a Ninth Circuit case where the cops allegedly *stole* 225,000$ worth of coins and other valuables and not under Civil Asset Forfeiture either and the circuit gave the officers qualified immunity. The plaintiff appealed to the Supremes and they denied him certiorari just this past June. 😡
@@canucanoe2861 that's a ridiculous amount of $
So , in the case where federal and state cops beat a college student unconscious , the college student now has a good chance of winning his lawsuit ?
I mean a start for officers to "know the law" would be them stopping and thinking "Hey, would I want someone doing this to me?" if the answer's no probably shouldn't get immunity.
How about doing this to their children. Only, fitting, I say.
And if they answer "Yes, I would want someone to do this to me". Then let's do it to them...and ask them again.
It shouldn't even go THAT far. We also need to take the tac-vest, jump boot, tactical fatigue uniform away and go back to pressed pant, pressed shirt, and tie uniform.
After all, they say the clothes make the man, right?
@@tatsmcfatty and training to match that non-threatening uniform. If they’re not dressed, armed and trained as if they’re at war with the people they’re policing, that would be a great first step.
Vortex! Loop! Well said! Well done! Congrats Steve!
New sub. You complete A1 audits in a satisfying way.
Thank you Steve for explaining this. I did not realize it was that extreme. I would be curious about your ideas on improving this issue, to balance catching criminals vs to make sure innocents are treated nicely. It's a complex matter, and it's good to learn from someone we trust.
Some states have passed laws barring police from using qualified immunity as a defense. This needs to be done on a national level. We need a federal law overturning the qualified immunity doctrine. I think this would be a great first step for those looking to reform the police. The problem is people are so enamored with "defund the police" that they reject any attempt to "reform the police".
Police Unions gone move Heaven and Earth to save their Get Out of Jail Free Card.
We the public need to move Heaven and Earth to stop dirty Police Unions. Enough is enough. Times up.
THEY HAVE ALWAYS MADE LAWS FOR JOHN/JANE Q PUBLIC BUT NEVER FOR THEM SELVES. THEY IMUNE THEM SELVES FROM EVERY LAW. AS YOU REMEMBER THEY ARE NOT EVEN IN OVOMITCARE! They have their own perky insurance and all the convinces of life. While we get treated like SLAVES. WITH JUST THE CRAP THEY CAN DISH OUT TO US.
There are abuses, however if a dangerous altercation must be contained an officer must do what is nessesary to contain the situation.
It will never be perfect , that being said an officer should not have to do the job of correcting bad parenting .
Each case should be tried on it's own merit , not by one size fits all past rulings.
In a perfect world perhaps .
@@mwilson7345 And what do you think about the old guy, 75-year-old Martin Gugino, who was pushed over by Buffalo Police and ended up in the hospital for 4 weeks with a cracked skull and brain damage? The guy was just standing there asking a question. Next second he's unconscious and bleeding on the sidewalk. This was not a "dangerous altercation" until the police made it one. Union protected the cops. Union lied, said he tripped and fell, despite video clearly showing what really happened. The 2 cops were put on suspension, but the union fought back, saying that they would not provide legal protection for cops who were a part of the BPD emergency response team. That forced all 57 members of the ERT to resign. The 2 cops were, in fact, charged with felony second-degree assault but were released without bail. 7 months later the county DA announced that a secret grand jury had dismissed all charges. That's not justice, IMO.
@@mwilson7345 So, you say bad behavior is blamed on bad parenting. So, 40 year old Billy just never learned the difference of whats right and wrong. Whether your taught right as a child or not ...when your an adult its your decision to fly right. And another thing, cops making mistakes or idiot decisions (especially the ones based off their egos) gets people killed, and their rights violated. I support the police too. But they better be flying right also.
A "no reasonable officer" standard is significantly wider than "previous on-point case law", here's hoping this stands up.
Unfortunately, "reasonable officer" is an oxymoron.
A "reasonable officer" means the least reasonable officer - google Kreipke v Hughes
Absolute power corrupts absolutely . Government needs to be held accountable this has been the biggest Injustice against the people for 40 years
Love your channel. Thanks for explaining this paradox...it seems that human decency and responsibility can only exist if clearly defined by legislation.
As a old Texas Peace officer, I understood that a person could use force to prevent a unlawful arrest. I think that should be the case.
The Bad Elk case? That was only where the Supremes ruled that because the arrest was unlawful, a capital murder conviction got reduced to voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Not exactly getting away with resisting an unlawful arrest imo. Worse, most states have passed laws making it illegal to resist an unlawful arrest.
IMHO an unlawful arrest is a kidnapping.
Finally some justice for citizens 👍💪🇺🇲
Qualified Immunity is the Supreme Court dividing by zero.
Underatted comment
As a computer guy, your description of an infinite loop sounds about right. Sometimes it's a desirable effect, say the main loop that gets negated by some function call inside the loop itself. Most loops should end on their own, but not always. And, as with most programming tasks, there are different ways to do the task properly.
I’m glad I found your channel.
Hey justice Thomas if you decide not to choose you still have made a choice.
@ STEVE LEHTO-In your video of Jan. 30, 2021(Police Need to Stop Lying to Suspects - Ep. 7.271) I wrote, "THREE things need to happen-- Eliminate Lying, Qualified Immunity(which allows them to lie, without penalty), and Public(Gov't) Unions(Private Unions-UAW, etc- are still acceptable).
--Without eliminating ALL 3, the problem will remain.
So many people interpret "qualified" as a a synonym for "absolute" when it's actually more of an antonym.
In this instance, it is being used in the same sense as "affordable" in the affordable care act.
Most of those people are on the bench and in our law enforcement forces
Another concept is "Catch 22" which I believe describes qualified immunity doctrine.
From the Novel "Catch 22" by Joseph Heller:
"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he were sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to, but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle." (p. 56, ch. 5)
End qualified immunity now. From Colorado, where we have made a little dent. $25k or 5%, whichever amount is less. It's a start. 💩🔍
👮🔨 103 👎 were all cops afraid of losing their qualified immunity. Get ready coppers, no more status quo!
It's about time!
As a "computer guy" and a big fan I will go on record and say that was a very apt analogy.
I was expecting someone to complain that I was not using the proper terminology.
@@stevelehto Nope, it sounded perfect to me. We've all written endless loops by accident.
The main difference in computer code is that it the loop can be halted and the fixed. Also, the code is written by someone that is held responsible for that code by the end-user, if by nobody else. The supreme court wrote this code and has no one who can hold them responsible for taking it upon themselves to force "end-users" to have to endure this endless loop. How can we hold them accountable?
There is a tort in English Law called Misfeasance in Public Office, which carries a maximum sentence of Life Imprisonment .
Misfeasance in public office is a cause of action in the civil courts of England and Wales and certain Commonwealth countries. It is an action against the holder of a public office, alleging in essence that the office-holder has misused or abused their power. The tort can be traced back to 1703 when Chief Justice Sir John Holt decided that a landowner could sue a police constable who deprived him of his right to vote. The tort was revived in 1985 when it was used so that French turkey producers could sue the Ministry of Agriculture over a dispute that harmed their sales.
malfeasance
@@ricktimmons458 No, The ruling says Misfeasance - a transgression, especially the wrongful exercise of lawful authority. Malfeasance is not quite the same - wrongdoing, especially (US) by a public official.
The ruling stipulated that the action may be legal, but ignores the effect the lawful order has on the person. and the consequences there of! An example could be that a lawful order which require good eyesight, would not apply to a person who has eyesight problems.
I live in CA. My commute to work is 1hr at 4am. My commute back home is 2.5 - 3 hrs. Absolutely LOVE having this play while I waste my time in BS traffic. Can't wait to move to SC. But yea. Great thing to listen to
Loved that sign-off about the "upgrade" - Pure truth. Hate that it IS pure truth.
It would be interesting to hear why Thomas dissented. Was it because of precedent? Did he feel this decision didn’t go far enough?
Taylor v. Riojas 11/20
@@TheAlgorath Taylor Vs Riojas looks like a proxy war between Portugal and Spain.
Thomas's dissent isn't published. I think a small campaign asking him to justify it would not be inappropriate.
Steve, I think the term you were looking for is “self-licking ice cream cone”.
😂
Or a rear end performing analingus upon itself 😉😁
@@edwardmiessner6502 ewwww...
All I can say is what the f*** ever happened to Common Sense or even human rights at that matter
That's the thing; To people with $$$/Power; You have no rights...
@@brentfarvors192 well people with money can eat my 💩
Common sense has never been common and human rights are only protected by human endeavor.
@@johnhiggs5932 actually back in the day there was common sense somewhere along the way we lost it why because we let the most retarded among Us make important decisions I mean look at the president we have a chomo that can't even remember his own name
@@bobbyellis2485
Thank you for demonstrating my point, Hero. Common sense should exclude the ridiculous assertion you just made from being seriously considered.
I can only hope that the insanity that is currently the Conservative mindset fades back into the woodwork of our society before any more damage is done to our republic.
Kind of mirrors the situation I found my self in when I was a young, irresponsible speed-demon. By some strange twist of fate, whenever I got pulled over for speeding, (which was often) the officer would check my record, which was somehow spotless, and give me a verbal warning on the premise that since my record was clean, I obviously was not in the habit of speeding. It was a nice Catch-22 to be stuck in. Then I got married, had kids, and decided I needed to get my shit together.
Best thing I've seen in a long while. qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture and indefinite detention don't belong anywhere near a country that proclaims itself a democracy. Habeas Corpus does.
I believe this sort of absurdity is precisely what was at the center of Joseph Heller's novel.
I think the judges had flies in their eyes.
A real Catch-22.
Given the current makeup of the court this is simply amazing.
Maybe people aren't so different?
Johnny Lightning QA existed long before the current justices were on the court. 1982.
Given the current makeup of the court, that's probably the ONLY reason was it was tossed.
Such a massive BS thing in this country that this even has to be talked about. It’s Republicans and Democrats that are the issue. This should just be wrong and any normal human should know these conditions were wrong and punish whoever put another human in them.
I'd like to know why you feel it's the politicians who are responsible for the mess that is qualified immunity. That particular loophole was created by the Supreme Court, and (i believe) politicians from both parties have tried to rectify the issue from time to time but have failed. Politicians are responsible for a whole lot of nonsense that's out there, but as far as I can tell this specific issue doesn't seem to be their fault.
@@rodh1404 I do not agree - congress has enormous statutory as well as "soft" power to work on improving qualified immunity. The body of case law of terrible decisions on qualified immunity would easily support an inquiry. It seems similar in cases where the Presidential executive power is being used - often congress has failed to rule for years on these topics. [Generalities of course, my disagreement is polite I promise.]
@@rodh1404 Reagan is where civil asset forfeiture got started same as civil asset forfeiture without any forthought into can these be abused
@@MatthewSwabey Yes, congress does have tremendous power, and they've certainly made more than their fair share of stuff ups. But Qualified Immunity isn't their fault. Let's start by examining the law which allows people to sue government officials in civil court (42 USC § 1983). This was originally written as:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress."
In Pierson v. Ray (1967), the Supreme Court first justified the need for qualified immunity from civil rights violation lawsuits for law enforcement officers by arguing that "[a] policeman’s lot is not so unhappy that he must choose between being charged with dereliction of duty if he does not arrest when he had probable cause, and being punished with damages if he does."
At this time, the Justices agreed among themselves (with one dissenting opinion) that Judges have absolute immunity, stating that "the immunity of judges for acts within the judicial role is equally well established, and we presume that Congress would have specifically so provided had it wished to abolish the doctrine." As for the one dissenting opinion? Justice Douglas stated that Section 1983 must include the judiciary who too must be liable for civil rights violations in the course of their duties. He pointed to the debate in Congress during the Act's inception where "members of Congress objected to the statute because it imposed liability on members of the judiciary." Accordingly, as the Act was passed without providing any exception for the judiciary, he concluded that Congress intended for Section 1983 to apply to 'any person', including judges. So a law that had NO exception for the Judiciary now gave them absolute immunity because the Judges decided it did. How convenient.
I should point out that this case was all about a group of priests who wanted to enter a coffee shop for lunch. Two police officers thought that was disorderly conduct (citing Mississippi code § 2087.5 that "makes guilty of a misdemeanor anyone who congregates with others in a public place under circumstances such that a breach of the peace may be occasioned thereby, and refuses to move on when ordered to do so by a police officer." ) And so these priests were arrested for the horrible crime of wanting to order lunch. And the Supreme Court was so sympathetic towards these officer's plight that they extended some of the immunity they'd just given themselves (although not as good, since it was "qualified immunity") to them.
It's apparent that Congress did agree with the Judges though, because the current version of 42 USC § 1983 now reads:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia."
So yes, you can blame them for a little bit of the mess, but honestly this is still primarily on the Supreme Court who came up with the whole thing all by themselves.
Then there was the 1982 case of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, where Fitzgerald discovered that there were massive overruns (to the tune of $2 Billion dollars) in a military project that was being deliberately concealed. He became a whistleblower and was subsequently blacklisted and fired. At this point, the Supreme Court decided that the people who blacklisted and fired him were all immune to civil prosecution because "government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Because after all, who could possibly know that it was a bad thing to punish someone who had only exposed official corruption?
In response to all this nonsense, what has Congress done? Well, in 2020 the first bill with tripartisan support (ever, as far as I can tell) entered Congress, with the intention of blocking all these loopholes imagined by the Supreme Court justices: reason.com/2020/06/11/justin-amash-tom-mcclintock-republican-cosponsor-tripartisan-support-to-end-qualified-immunity/
The Republicans could probably be more enthusiastic with their support, but it's worth noting that both major parties and an independent are sponsoring this bill. It's really not Congress' fault this time.
Key word NORMAL.
Thank you for this amazing news! I am a daily news junkie & I am surprised to hear about this here for the first time.
The Qualified Immunity doctrine has caused me to wonder... How can the Supreme Court make law like this when it allows - even encourages - law enforcement officers to violate the US Constitution and any citizen's civil rights, without having to answer for their wrongdoing? I am not a lawyer but I was taught that all of our laws must follow the Constitution.
... 🤔 ... Confusing.
Wrong.
Thank you for taking time to explain that.
Should the people fear the government ? Or should the government fear the people ? A new paradigm possibly.
Nothing "new" about it..."When the gov't fears the people; It's freedom; When the people fear the gov't, it's tyranny..."
Perfect example of why Steve is a hero to the public at large. He uses his verbal superpowers for the better good.
Except for that showing your receipt to the Walmart greeter thing of course! :)
He was right about that too...
@@jj18057 - Well, not shopping there like he said is an option, but just sounds like giving up to many. :)
Yeah, I enjoy getting the low prices, and I also enjoy saying “No thank you.” to the greeters asking about my receipt as I walk right past. :)
End qualified immunity now!
I had this "law" hit me square between the eyes when I, as a city employee, sued my supervisor for violating my right to free speech. The US SUREME COURT said he was immune to prosecution as a public employee. I had to sue the CITY instead, with all their unlimited legal tools and lawyers on retainer.
I won, but the wrong person got off Scot-free.
And yet so many think our judicial system isn't BROKE ? that in itself is quite laughable !
They were coming up on the 40 year expiration date for a law making no sense.
Qualified Immunity = You are above the law; the law doesn't apply to you.
Why are there cells in those conditions is a question that i dont think enough people are asking.
Also judges have too much power for being non elected officials
I believe that was the point as a part of checks and balances.
You don't want elected judges; they will rule in favor of the government's power even more than appointed ones because they get elected based on how pro "law and order" and how "tough on crime" they are.
Inmates play games of clogging their drains so they can be moved or whatever their intent was. I get that it could take some time to fix the drain, never 6 days though. They know this goes on. I can't imagine they don't have a same day fix in most cases, unless they flooded a whole cell block. Thats been done before, but then you have everyone mad at you because they are all living in feces. 6 days is inhumane.
Term limits!
as always you did a great job in this video. Love watching you. You are very informative.