You should do a video on the James King case, Brownback v King, that's now before the Supremes and what your take on it is. Basically what it comes down to this: on July 18 2014 James King was stopped, robbed, assaulted, battered, and almost killed for walking down a sidewalk to his summer internship job simply because the deep undercover criminal element cops thought he looked like an allegedly violent fugitive without doing their due diligence to make sure they had reasonable suspicion. As a reward he was arrested, jailed on $50k bail bond, and maliciously prosecuted. He was damn lucky he was cleared of all charges by a jury, the cops turned all his witnesses against him. He sued under 42 US 1983, Bivens v Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and the Federal Tort Claims Act because this was a Federal-City joint task force he was dealing with. The District Court judge threw out all his claims - the 1983 one because they were acting under colour of federal law, the Bivens one because qualified immunity, and the FTCA one due to lack of subject manner jurisdiction because Michigan governmental immunity since they were (evaluated as if) acting under colour of state law. In reality they were acting under both colours! He appealed his 1983 and Bivens claims but not his FTCA one. The Appeals Court said he could sue under Bivens. Now the Acting Solicitor General is arguing on behalf of the thug cops that the dismissal of his FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction is really a final judgement on the merits because the judge evaluated his allegation that they don't deserve q.i. under Bivens and found that they did, and applied the findings to his FTCA claim to determine that they also enjoyed Michigan governmental immunity! And they further argue that because the FTCA dismissal was really a final judgement on the basis of the merits of his claim, the sect. 2676 judgement bar is triggered precluding his Bivens claim, meaning he has no recourse whatsoever. Never mind that sect. 2679 paragraph 2 carves out an exception for Constitutional and Federal Statute violations to the FTCA's exclusiveness for all claims against the Government and its employees. AIANAL, a ruling in favour of the cops will mean that if anybody wants to bring their Bivens and FTCA claims to court, they'll have to choose one and fuggetabout the other, they can't bring both!
That qualified immunity is sickening the law enforcement in this country should face the same consequences every other person no more no less and until this happens you will never see them abide by the law we the people are the only ones to change this god bless thanks
Great insight! I believe it has gone way to far. Qualified immunity gives police the ability to violate without consequences. What other respectable occupation would grant an employee the lack of accountability? Even McDonalds hold their employees accountable. The benefits that the cops are given through tax dollars should NOT include the excused deliberate actions of constitutional rights violations.
This is how the powers that be maintain their power. Dubel standards are the key to ruling the masses. It is not just the Police but government and political officials. This defeats the whole checks and balance system in the united states.
No good cop would ever put himself in the position to need qualified immunity. Immunity is an admission of guilt. You had to have broken a law in order to require Immunity. No self respective cop would take it..
Any good cop wouldn't put himself in a position to need Qualified immunity. Any good cop wouldn't take it. He wouldn't take it because the law is clear that immunity is an admission of guilt. Because you have to be guilty of something in order to get it.
*LIKE & SUBSCRIBE* - Don’t forget to ring the bell so you don't miss a thing!
You should do a video on the James King case, Brownback v King, that's now before the Supremes and what your take on it is. Basically what it comes down to this: on July 18 2014 James King was stopped, robbed, assaulted, battered, and almost killed for walking down a sidewalk to his summer internship job simply because the deep undercover criminal element cops thought he looked like an allegedly violent fugitive without doing their due diligence to make sure they had reasonable suspicion. As a reward he was arrested, jailed on $50k bail bond, and maliciously prosecuted. He was damn lucky he was cleared of all charges by a jury, the cops turned all his witnesses against him.
He sued under 42 US 1983, Bivens v Six Unknown Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, and the Federal Tort Claims Act because this was a Federal-City joint task force he was dealing with. The District Court judge threw out all his claims - the 1983 one because they were acting under colour of federal law, the Bivens one because qualified immunity, and the FTCA one due to lack of subject manner jurisdiction because Michigan governmental immunity since they were (evaluated as if) acting under colour of state law. In reality they were acting under both colours! He appealed his 1983 and Bivens claims but not his FTCA one. The Appeals Court said he could sue under Bivens.
Now the Acting Solicitor General is arguing on behalf of the thug cops that the dismissal of his FTCA claim for lack of jurisdiction is really a final judgement on the merits because the judge evaluated his allegation that they don't deserve q.i. under Bivens and found that they did, and applied the findings to his FTCA claim to determine that they also enjoyed Michigan governmental immunity! And they further argue that because the FTCA dismissal was really a final judgement on the basis of the merits of his claim, the sect. 2676 judgement bar is triggered precluding his Bivens claim, meaning he has no recourse whatsoever. Never mind that sect. 2679 paragraph 2 carves out an exception for Constitutional and Federal Statute violations to the FTCA's exclusiveness for all claims against the Government and its employees.
AIANAL, a ruling in favour of the cops will mean that if anybody wants to bring their Bivens and FTCA claims to court, they'll have to choose one and fuggetabout the other, they can't bring both!
Thanks for the info. I will read up on it.
Yes it has gone to far. Thank you for the information!
Prior to me, has anyone ELSE told a cop his actions were criminal and the deputy retaliated by arresting the citizen ?
Or am I the first ?
I support police but police need to be held accountable!!
That qualified immunity is sickening the law enforcement in this country should face the same consequences every other person no more no less and until this happens you will never see them abide by the law we the people are the only ones to change this god bless thanks
QI is obviously a scape goat for officials when they fuck up.
Great insight! I believe it has gone way to far. Qualified immunity gives police the ability to violate without consequences. What other respectable occupation would grant an employee the lack of accountability? Even McDonalds hold their employees accountable. The benefits that the cops are given through tax dollars should NOT include the excused deliberate actions of constitutional rights violations.
Lawlessness by the law in a corporate police state. ... Imagine that! What's to debate?
I subscribed because of this video👍
This is how the powers that be maintain their power. Dubel standards are the key to ruling the masses. It is not just the Police but government and political officials. This defeats the whole checks and balance system in the united states.
No good cop would ever put himself in the position to need qualified immunity. Immunity is an admission of guilt. You had to have broken a law in order to require Immunity. No self respective cop would take it..
Immunity is for criminals
Qualified immunity illegal!
Any good cop wouldn't put himself in a position to need Qualified immunity. Any good cop wouldn't take it. He wouldn't take it because the law is clear that immunity is an admission of guilt. Because you have to be guilty of something in order to get it.
If one cop does something illegal and no other cop does anything about it. Then all cops are bad.
They don’t have to,GOD sue them and they’re family
isn't it still we the people? Right?
Tu hablas español
Same thing as disorderly conduct, it's a blank check for corrupt police.
👎
Great information. Thank you! On a separate note: whoever does your audio, fire him...or her!