Qualified Immunity: Explained
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
- What is qualified immunity? How does it work? Do police officers need qualified immunity to protect their split-second decisions? Here are some facts on the controversial judicial doctrine that lets government officials escape lawsuits when they violate constitutional rights.
ij.org/issues/...
![Qualified Immunity In America: An Overview & Conversation [POLICYbrief]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sIKab8Ea2Us/mqdefault.jpg)
Qualified immunity = I can't practice my profession if I can't malpractice
Qualified immunity is just a fancy term for "our criminals are above the law". If the legal standard for everyone else in court is "ignorance is no excuse", then there is no excuse for gov employees not to be held to the same standards.
Amen
Did you forget to watch the video before you commented? QI protects against CIVIL suites, not CRIMINAL.
@@TheOfficialOriginalChad What you fail to understand is that they are not two mutually exclusive things. Rape victims can file civil suits against their rapist. Are you telling me that rape isn't a crime because it can be a basis for a civil suit?
@@TheOfficialOriginalChadThat's OUTRAGEOUS that corrupt scumbag's should be shielded from civil suits because they work for the government! 😳 ESPECIALLY when cops so egregiously violate people's civil rights!
Many of them should be bankrupted for the OUTRAGEOUS things they do!
One of many unconstitutional laws not getting repealed... It is an example of laws that hurt.
IJ should start exposing some of these judges and justices that make these ridiculous decisions. Quite often these decisions seem like merely an excuse to deny Justice to a victim.
💯%
Absolutely. The courts and lawyers make a shit-ton of money off every offense. The more money they make, the more courts they can build and the more police they can hire. Everybody gets rich. The Land of the Free has more incarcerated people than any other country because it's all about commerce!
Brownback v King 592 US 740 is a prime example! The poorly written opinion (yeah, Clarence Thomas wrote it) was an excuse to pretend that a federal tort claim brought under 28 US 1331 & 2675(b) is an action under 1346(b) in order to deny King justice. But they're making him jump through additional hoops before they make their final decision.
Seem? It clearly IS.
We need full names off this piece of shits.
Great point! It's even more difficult to hold a judge or justice accountable for even extremely egregious rulings! In fact I don't think there's ANYTHING you can do to them because the judges club is even tighter than the thin blue line gang! 🤔 NONE of the other judges will allow anything to proceed against their colleagues!
End qualified immunity...
Officers and officials would need to purchase insurance... if they can't keep their insurance because they keep getting dropped, they should go find another job...
Amen! Nothing will change until the officers involved are effected personally. We have to hit them in their own wallets, not the taxpayer's. It will also require officers use significantly more de-escalation techniques.
Qualified immunity only works for them if you don't know your own rights and the law what is legal not lawfulqualified immunity has nothing to do with a man or woman in common law in our public courts not their private courts
Yeah it's a double standard, we have to have insurance driving around but they don't have to have insurance and they get away with being hellions and do whatever they want without justice.
@@ejolguin1282 One can know their rights and even be right. All it takes is a pretend case of ignorance on the official's part or a minute technicality that the exact same scenario didn't happen previously. Don't foreget many courts and leo's are now corrupted to one degree or another. Even the 'good' cops will rarely speak the truth against the 'bad' cops.
the law is that politicians and bureaucrats are free to do whatever they want.
Eah
Bonds are written
Law enforcement officers and police investigators too
Wonder who made that law... oh yeah, politicians and bureaucrats!
Imagine if we gave doctors qualified immunity. Hell, imagine if we gave fry cooks qualified immunity.
Qualified immunity means you have to sue the government instead of the officer if they were following the rules.
It needs to be loosened in my opinion
Yeah and the people most effected by police misconduct are the ones who have the least amount of time and money to sue the government. You might have an obvious case of police abuse, but do you have the money to hire a lawyer? And can you afford to pay all court fees if you lose? Which you probably will because the state has an almost unlimited coffer.
It needs to be done away with
Loosening the law means it is still there to be strengthened again the next time a sleazy politician wants to look pro-cop. Ending it all together is the only way to have real accountability.
The problem, maybe it uses the wrong words. It should use the words like... "Does Not Have Enough Merit". So you can tell what stance the judge has taken. "Immunity" is a dangerous word when it comes to accountability, as it blanket protects a government official from judicial process with little explanation.
Except if you sue the Government, various immunities and exceptions are sown into the law to prevent your suit. For example, I have heard only 9% of all FTCA lawsuits succeed. State Tort Claims Acts can be just as bad. You're better off suing the officer instead in most instances.
Final Analysis: Qualified Immunity is Obstruction of Justice. It blocks the judicial process where the court determines whether the government official is innocent or guilty in a court of law.
Dubious origins. Shielding cops from lawsuits by Civil Rights workers (Civil Rights aka Constitutional Rights). At odds with SCOTUS oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Instituted by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in 1967, but goes against their SCOTUS oath.
Qualified Immunity is not a law. Too often, it's invoked to protect members of the government for serious wrongdoings. It goes against the SCOTUS oath, key evidence it is not legitimate even as a doctrine.
You can not legitimately use it to protect wrongdoers, it is not a law.
It is by it's origins a very illegitimate practice.
Morale Compass, True North is Truth and Justice.
Edit: The Amendment Laws in Bill of Rights, literally numbered 1 through 10 (meaning first 10 Constitutional Amendment Laws of the United States, established in 1791) framed as the Bill of Rights are the most established laws in the US, attached to the "Supreme Law of the Land". SCOTUS (1967) is recorded giving a big speech about how it applied... except in cases of "established law". There are no laws more "established" than Constitutional Rights, also known as civil rights. Yet that is exactly why the doctrine exists... to violate civil rights... proof SCOTUS of 1961 are "plainly incompetent". Qualified Immunity doctrine created by the "plainly incompetent" and self invaliding.
"It blocks the judicial process where the court determines whether the DEFENDANT is innocent or guilty in a court of law".
I did not know what Qualified Immunity was. Thank you for the information. Now I want to be objective. Unfortunately I see that it appears that our rights as civilians are being blocked. I cannot say for certain that I am correct, it does appear to be the case so far.
I AM AGAINST QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!
Most the public are i believe and rightly so
So, if ignorance of the law is no excuse for the average citizen, How are "Trained Professionals" allowed to use that excuse
They will never allow Qualified Immunity to be taken away.
That would be like allowing Internal Affairs to be replaced with a Civilian Oversight Committee. They know they would have to face the same consequences for their actions as anyone else would in this country.
It's never going to happen.
This did not age well.
Lol just got taken away in New York! Good points tho
Many cities for many decades have had civilian oversight committees. And in the vast majority of cases/ vast majority of the time, they are no better than "Internal Affairs" or "Professional Standards" divisions. They are usually headed by retired Judges or the like, and the "Citizens" who are on the Committee are as ignorant and brainwashed as citizens in a Jury or Citizens who vote for Democrats, etc. etc.
They are presented facts from a case by the Internal Affairs division of a Municipal Police Department, and usually those facts are presented in a way which favors the Police Officers involved and the Municipality. Also, it is almost always a system of "One or the other". Because they work together, a citizen is not allowed to file a complaint with both Internal Affairs, and a Citizen Review Board.
The citizen must choose which one they file with, and the final decision is binding for both agencies. I know this, because I have been through it in a case over a 6 year period, which destroyed my life and family forever (because a cop falsified a police report -Felony Perjury).
Also, in some cases and jurisdictions there is discrimination against the complainant (especially if they are white), simply because the board is comprised of "woke" leftist racist members; Because the decision to create the board was usually established due to "people of color" complaining about police brutality/ misconduct/ criminality, etc. There is other corruption and collusion as well in many cases and on many "boards".
I'm not saying that these Citizen Review Boards aren't a good idea. I'm saying that there are far to many hurdles, brainwashing, ignorance, corruption, collusion, racism, etc., to make them function properly.
Until we unite
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." ----Thomas Jefferson
"How to get away from murder."
So here's the thing. This video says qualified immunity protects governments from civil lawsuits. Well, when I deprive another person's life, liberty or property. It's a crime. So how about we go after these criminals with criminal charges instead of civil lawsuits?
District Attorneys decide who to "go after", and they are buddy buddy with the fuzz.
How about both criminal and civil action against state sponsored thugs...
@@endangeredentertainment8584 I like it!
@@JiveDadson Being so buddy buddy with anybody, that they don't uphold the law, should get them discharged.
Is there no mechanism for that?
The brown-shirts enjoyed qualified immunity. It allowed them to become Gestapo.
Actually, the courts generally just didn't punish the brownshirts
An absurd comparison which will appeal to those who are ignorant of history.
Urban Stuff
It is so simple to do a LITTLE fact-checking, A.Hitler gave his S/S troops Q.I from the German Courts and only had to answer to SS Heinrich.
So who is going to push for this? When I this going to occur? And where can I find the details?
As soon as you get the ball rolling... let us know when that is...
@Austin Martín Hernández your absolutely right about that, but at the end of the day if it’s spread far enough, the people will agree. And if the people help push it a long then we may have a chance. I like to think realistically but also optimistically.
@@MRGF78 is this not the ball rolling right now?
Qualified immunity = I work for the government I can do whatever I want to you and your children and there's nothing you can do about it.
qualified immunity = a way to try to make tyranny sound reasonable
Haha you haven't seen absolute immunity federal police, judges and prosecutors can't be touched.
See NYC rolls back qualified immunity for police.
Its about time.
As far as I am Concerned Qualified Immunity is Unconstitutional!!!
It is.
Thank you, Institute for Justice, for bringing this to light. It's amazing how many people don't know what qualified immunity is or how badly it's abused. There have been many very reasonable alternatives brought forward bu they're always dismissed.
Police are necessary, but being able to get away with almost anything and taxpayers footing the bill for every wrong doing is so wrong. People rightly said this was going to be abused in 1982 when it was put into law and they were ignored.
Case in Fresno, California ruled even though officer stole $225,000 from person during a search, he had QI and could not be prosecuted since there was no precedence. And, this is from the most liberal 9th Circuit.
@@warrenwinston9803 It's infuriating to watch them get away with theft and ruin people's lives.
This is why I'll never have one of those "Support the Blue" stickers or whatever. I've no problem with good police and know they're necessary, though I know from experience there are tons of bad ones that departments cover for and even entire bad departments. Those people who think like that (with those stickers/decals) who aren't themselves police, are basically saying "everything's just fine" when it's not. It's the opposite of fine. They usually wake up pretty quickly when something happens to them.
Thank you for making this video racially unbiased. Everyone else I have watched on this topic acts like it is only blacks that are negatively affected by this.
Justice for Johnny Hurley! Justice for Daniel Shaver!
Sign the constitutional police reform petition
End it for all of them. They are only people not anyone special and if they get sued we the people are forced to pay for the damage they have done.
the second we make cops pay out of pocket for police brutality and abuse of power we will see change.
use your brain...
Qualified immunity should never have been allowed to be this general. Government officials should have accountability like everyone else.
I wonder could we have a private insurance policy that can reimburse you for things covered by qualified immunity?
Municipalities usually already have insurance to pay out legal settlements (irrespective of whether or not an Officer or Government official loses their Qualified Immunity). The reason is: "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip". Most Public employees don't have the money to pay a Civil Judgement. They have instead debt, mortgages, families, auto loans, tuition loans, credit card bills, etc.
So it protects not only those people, but more importantly the Municipality from having to lose the employee, then retrain or hire someone else (as much as it protects the Police Officer). The real consequence shouldn't be Civil. If a police officer breaks the law and commits a crime against someone, they should be prosecuted like any ordinary citizen.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO I mean, as a private citizen, can I take out insurance in case I suffer say, an accident involving a civil servant in case they don't pay? Kind of like how you can buy uninsured motorist coverage.
@@ThePeterDislikeShow - That seems like a novel idea presuming you (and other people) would be willing to pay. I would hazard a guess though that neither you or other people would pay for such insurance.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO It seems like a reasonable rider to say a life insurance policy. There's a lot of other less meaningful things in there that many people pay for.
@@Sovereign_Citizen_LEO The other thing I like about this concept is that, presumably, the insurance company might then go after the state and/or lawmakers. They have more resources to do that.
This is your Government America.
This is the best organization ever. I hope the people behind this don't commit suicide or overdose.
What's really sad about Qualified Immunity? People who don't work for the Local, State, and/or Federal Government defend this crap as if it's somehow needed.
What QI is also used for; "I didn't know that was a crime" and believe it or not, that SOMEHOW works as QI. Yet people who do not work for the government or state who give that excuse are exempt.
The Law stops being fair and just when it used to protect the corrupt in government & state, but cannot be used by ordinary citizens.
"Liberty & Justice for all" uh huh...
Does anyone not believe we live in a police state?
1:26 protect officers and other government agents from being bankrupted? What about the struggling private citizen barely makes enough to get by? I guess they don’t matter.
Abolish Qualified Immunity yesterday
The founding fathers are turning over in their graves on this and civil forfeiture.
It's OUTRAGEOUS and UNACCEPTABLE what some of these corrupt scumbag's in the government get away with when they should be getting prison time or worse!
But the wheels on the bus just seem to still be goin round and round man.
I need to look up how to contact institute for justice.
www.ij.org/report-abuse
Easily defeated if your attorney is really trying to win
I love you guys!!! @institute for justice
The best kind of justice cops will face ? Is street justice ? If we must obey there laws ,so do the cops they are not above the law . Though some cops think they are above the law and untouchable .
yeah taking peoples lives health and property for no reason is def in good faith
I'm opposed to Qualified Immunity and have been since i learned what it was.
But Police Unions say Qualified Immunity is good!
Well done vid...explains in concise way.
Immunity for NO ONE. Nobody should ever be able to escape being accountable for their actions, ever. No reason for it to exist at all!
Please. The lawsuits would become widespread. Lawyers seeing a new way to make money always take advantage of that.
At the very least it needs to be reformed.
Administration of Freedom Restoration Foundation may like to work with IJ for assistance and handling voter fraud against Foundation members throughout different states.
All the way to the Supreme Court...👌
Hear, hear
They try to cover there crooked deeds by all means ,in other words.
Why is this a thing?
why am I on the hook if I don't know a law but the police are not?
Ohhhh... So this is why that chief resigned. 😂
So cops etc are above the law!!!
... but not punishment.
qualified immunity should be disbanded
Does it only protect them from *civil* action?
The few state that attempted new legislation against immunity have been fundamentally altered or dropped completely as result of politically powerful police unions. Qualified immunity doctrine was established to protect all government officials - not just police. Politicians are least likely public servants to vote on taking away their own immunity. Since last year, only Colorado has completely barred the legal defense for officers - keeping in mind it caps potential judgments at just $25,000. Just this past year, the Colorado legislature expanded its ban on qualified immunity to include Highway Patrol troopers and Colorado Bureau of Investigation officers. It does not include all officials.
Overturning qualified immunity and bad laws like Terry v Ohio will help - but real reform requires more action. And organized action starts with grassroots movement to build a war-chest of resources including money to back those plans. Its takes more than feet on the ground, its takes winning the court of public opinion to reach critical mass in support. Its reasonable to believe history reminds activists of successful struggles that once defined us as the embodiment of those popular dissident 'movements that brought this nation’s practices into concert with its best ideals; the civil rights movement that brought down Jim Crow, the labor movement that resulted in regulations against child labor, and the women’s suffrage movement.' What most fail to understand is they were not passive-aggressive achievements and that they all shared in both violent and velvet actions for resolutions. Everyone of those popular struggles faced excessive use of force by a police state used as a tool to repress resistance.
Today's national struggle centers not around that excessive use of force but the fundamental right to refuse an unlawful order. The significance of the right to defend against a unlawful order is paramount to our right to defend ourselves against deadly police assault. Before the outbreak of protests of the 1960's, “An illegal arrest [was] an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty [had] the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260). After the courts began to limit our right to resist an unlawful arrest, influenced by Warner and by the Model Penal Code, the courts eliminated the right. In 1965, the first court struck down the right to resist to resist unlawful arrest in New Jersey. Although states adopted the Uniform Arrest Act, a majority of were slow to follow. The Model Penal Code in 1962 eliminated the right to resist an unlawful arrest on two grounds. First, there were better alternative means of resolving the issue i.e. - court. Second, resistance would likely result in greater injury to the citizen without preventing the arrest. By 2012, only fourteen states remained that allowed a citizen to resist an unlawful arrest, use of force can not be 'initiated'. "Even in states that recognize a person’s right to resist an unlawful arrest, the right is limited and, absent extreme circumstances, use of force or violence generally cannot be used." The U.S. Supreme Court created the qualified immunity doctrine out of thin air in Pierson v. Ray (1967), a case litigated during the height of the civil rights movement. It is stated to have been originally introduced with the rationale of protecting law enforcement officials from frivolous lawsuits and financial liability in cases where they acted in good faith in unclear legal situations. Starting around 2005, courts increasingly applied the doctrine to cases involving the use of excessive or deadly force by police, leading to widespread criticism that it "has become a nearly failsafe tool to let police brutality go unpunished and deny victims their constitutional rights" (as summarized in a 2020 Reuters report).
Rule of law follows “Ubi jus ibi remedium - “where there is a right, there should be a remedy,” a lofty and aspirational legal ideal that we must seek remedy through the court, or we'd have anarchy but in reality, the institutional integrity is broken. 'When people who enforce the law are not subject to it, then law has no meaning'. History has amply demonstrated what happens when the people are denied remedy and redress - denied our inalienable rights by the very institutions now shams, that were designed to give them a voice.
End qualified sovereign and diplomatic immunity.
In my opinion it is not the split second decisions that we the people are saying you need to end this immunity for, it's willful ignorance, intended and unintended consequences of not prosecuting people who violate them willfully and repeatedly.
The law means nothing if the people "don't believe" in it.
That's where we have been in the black and poor communities, that's where we are in the black middle class communities, that's where we are heading in all communities.
There's a complete mistrust of any big government in America and that's with fueling all of the dissension ,Democrats and Republicans, and the world south of Midwest people who are said to be conservative.. but really are not they want smaller government not realizing what that means completely
Snatch their qualified immunity square out from underneath them…
Isn’t this why we have tort reform? So victims should be heard & then decide if lawsuit is frivolous or not.
qualified immunity is not a law? Supreme Court completely over stepped their boundaries. The qualified immunity itself needs to be abolished
CHILDREN... LESSONS LEARNED:
1. STAY IN SCHOOL,
2. DON'T USE DRUGS,
3. FOLLOW THE LAW,
4. FOLLOW POLICE DIRECTION,
5. DON'T ENVY (COVET) WHAT OTHERS HAVE.
End qualified emunity. Make the unions pay for the cops crimes, not the taxpayers. Maybe cops should be bonded.
I dont care what the law says. Any pig messes with me, thats it its over. This world does not know me bahahaha!! 😂😈
Yeah they really need to end qualified immunity
Would that include government scientist....the CDC?
It seems to mean the Constitution, the highest law of the land, is just a piece of paper.
It is really important when it fits their agenda.
@@Lex-Rex rhetoric
0:10 That's not quite true. I'm totally for change with regard to qualified immunity but people who have been injured by government employees can still seek compensation and there are many cases that demonstrate this. The issue is that the government employee won't be held liable.
No, the point of the law is that you can't punish someone for doing something they are supposed to do. If you think something an officer did was wrong, but it's considered a reasonable application of their training, then you need to take your case against the state, not the officer.
Officers are robots programmed by the state and don't have a mind to critically reason about thier behavior at work?
Is that the crux of the argument behind qualified immunity?
Professionalism and should imply knowledge, routine and preparedness,
not mindlessness.
@@jannikheidemann3805 They are not judges, they cannot come up with their own interpretations of the laws or the constitution. If they genuinely believe what they are being ordered to do is a violation of someone's constitutional rights, the first thing they should be doing is contacting the IIU.
Interesting
AKA... Police State
"Get out of jail" card for tyrants.
You get what you vote for.
Or whatever your ignorant parents voted for.
Im not so sure about ending QI not resulting in a flood of lawsuits. People love to sue. Lawyers arent making $$$ unless they are sewing someone and I bet almost all of these will be settled out of court without the accused having their day in court to face their accuser. Im just not sure about this one
Courts will simply define the reasonableness standard so that the term "unreasonable" is rendered meaningless
Star chamber and Exchequer of pleas
/wiki/Exchequer_of_Pleas
In layman terms, qualified immunity is the same as sovereign citizen. Laws do not apply to them.
Qualified immunity is more comparable to diplomatic immunity. As a diplomat, you can easily transport 2kg of cocaine by plane, since no one is allowed to check the cargo. Or you can drive a child to death without fear of consequences
In layman's terms you're an idiot
#LowIQrequiredForQI
Isn't qualified immunity unconstitutional
End Terry vs Ohio
Qualified Immunity = Civil Rico.
This is all baloney. qualified immunity does not dismiss a case. The plaintiff still gets their "day in court." The plaintiff's case against the govt entity is not dismissed by qualified immunity. All govt workers Fire fighters, doctors, trash collectors, etc have qualified immunity. ....and the private sector does too...they call it indemnification..e.g. the Ford assembly line worker doesnt torque the wheels enough on the car and the cars wheels fall off and kill 2 people. The worker's bad behavior is indemnified (qualified immunity) against suit, but Ford is not. Ford can still be sued.
Similar to good samaritan law....cant be sued for trying to help someone in medical need....even if they end up hurting the "victim" qualified immunity!!
This is just political BS and class hate against cops. No Police No Peace. Cops will just let you suffer and not reach out to help if they don't have civil liability protection.
MUTHAF#€K QUALIFIED IMMUNITY!!!
In all honesty should be limits especially since police kill dogs like it's a game
F12
Adai kora
Its crazy how you fight for so many things that black lives matter fights for yet you also fight for peoples "right" to deny service to someone because of who they love. I can't wait to see a video from yall where you talk about why your fighting for someone's "right" to deny service to someone because of their skin color.
The language of this video is highly biased, js.
Tokbhaj
the suprem e court is violating my first amendment rights by deleting my youtube comments can you help?
The Supreme Court itself is deleting your UA-cam comments? I doubt it. UA-cam is a private corporation, they can do whatever they want. But I also think that the internet should be considered a public square.
@@oregondude9411 Decentralize the
World Wide Web!
🤔
Thinking long term, ending Qualified Immunity will suck for society. Cops are already held to a standard. I'm no expert, but their supervisors and Internal Affairs should keep them in check. That doesn't mean police brutality doesn't exist - it does. But with first plaintiff winning a lawsuit, and a cop losing his life savings, and house, it's gonna get awful hard to find new cops. So, taxes will have to go up dramatically to pay for 2 things: some insurance policy that will cover the cop up to some limit, and cops' salaries to accept the job where (1) people can still shoot at you and (2) now they can sue you. As a taxpayer: NO. Maintain Qualified Immunity. Understand cops are imperfect. Let their department, Internal Affairs, the criminal courts and the press deal with abusive cops.
Also, if Qualified Immunity ends, we'll have more criminals resisting arrest, baiting cops, waiting for a punch in the face. Because a black eye is worth $10,000. A cracked rib? $25,000. Emotional distress? $50,000. You get the idea.
Finally the Institute For Justice is a group of lawyers. Who do lawyers look out for? Other lawyers. Similar to the fossil fuel industry promoting 'Clean Coal' 10 years ago. Don't believe everything you read, kids.
Wouldn't attorney's who work for the government, judges also benefit from QI? We don't just have laws imposed on us out of thin air? Or is that not what is vigorously defended by the constitution?
@@wandow6295 Attorneys employed by the government would be unaffected. This is only a change in civil law, not criminal law. So, both the plaintiff (the 'injured' party) and the defendant (the cop) would each need their own lawyer, who works in private practice. It would clog up existing civil courts even more, so judges would hear more cases. It may require building new courthouses and appointing new judges (both at the cost of the taxpayers).
The problem is politicians' primary goal is to get reelected. If pandering to the masses, like reversing QI will get them votes, they'll do it - even if it's a bad and expensive idea. My guess is that if overturned, it will be abused. Leave it in criminal court ONLY.
@@pavels5600 I do thank you for your response. Researching it sounds as if the very core of it's exsistance should be questioned. Criminal and civil. The SCOTUS are appointed, through a politicians whom became president, never the less with a angle to obtain. If politicians are above the law and we allow it, the greater achievement would be to become president for absolute ammunity. The checks and balance of the SCOTUS is to ensure dictatorship doesn't surpress democracy. Or am I miss educated in the job of the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS it's self directly violated that by making a law out of thin air! Placing themselves in a dictator image even though there are more than one.
Seems there was no issue prior to QI being instituted. Rarely are the bad cops truly punished. Paid leave, demotion, moved to different dept. All no big deals. Sounds like gov't arguments to keep special protections in place. Whatever happened to equal under the law. Lady justice is now on such a tilt, in danger of falling.
@@wandow6295 Bingo!!
This is pretty biased!
Sign the constitutional police reform petition