The offensive has started ..the battle of Portland

No. I think all looters and criminals should be locked up. That includes violent and dangerous agitators. Make no mistake there. That includes White Collar criminals like the ones Trump surrounds himself with.

 

Trump is the biggest criminal of them all. He just isn't violent. That's the difference.

 

Then I'm not sure why you felt the need to disagree and change my original post, which was apolitical, fwiw.

 

It could be because Trump won't do his job.

 

what job do you feel he needs to do in Portland to stop the rioting, looting, and murder?

 

Pass congressional police reform starting with qualified immunity...

 

Never happen from either D's or R's.

 

It was in the House police reform bill that was passed.

 

You know they only did that as a political stunt knowing the GOP controlled Senate would shoot it down.

No way can you remove QI from police , Nobody would ever sign up for that.

And lets be honest , QI isn't a game changer. All it does is protect the "government official" immunity from Civil suits unless the plaintiff shows that the official violated "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known". .... extending to "all government officials accept the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law".

QI does not shield them from criminal cases and it doesn't completely shield them from civil suits - if they are grossly incompetent or illegal they are still subject to those civil suits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

 

Are you joking? Qualified immunity has been covering cops asses for decades. It needs to be ended or reformed period.

 

Not it's not, the guy tried to mace him and he responded by using his gun in what you guys call "self-defense".

In one case, a 17 year old is allowed to shoot people up at a protest in "self-defense" but this guy isn't? It's clear you guys are terrible hypocrits who have no sense of justice or equal application of the law. A real shame.

 

Post like these are hilarious. “You guys are terrible hypocrites”. Uh when the hell has any political party not been “terrible hypocrites”?? Finger pointing and calling the right hypocrites is pretty hypocritical.

 

I'm talking about the posters here.

Which is it? If a 17 year old can go into a protest and shoot people up because he feels threatened, or a guy can pull a gun in a protest because someone punches him - then why isn't this guy allowed to pull a gun and fire when someone is trying to mace him?

Which way does it work? Just pick one and stick to it at least.

 

No , I'm not joking , I'm pointing out the facts.

Its not the game changer people make it out to be.

It does not shield them from criminal prosecution at all and it does not shield them from all civil suits.

I posted a link to the law , did you read it ?


Here's a snippet from that page -

This law itself isn't the problem as it clearly allows for civil rights violations to remove the QI.

The problem is our courts not acting with any common sense when peoples rights are violated and removing the QI. They have made the standard too high and this needs to be re-litigated and a reasonable standard set.

 

Why Portland? Did I miss something that happened there? How did Portland become a hot spot for protest?

 

Qualified Immunity...

In part one, the court considers whether police used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
If yes, the court moves to part two of the test.
If no, qualified immunity is immediately granted.

In part two, the court determines whether police should have known their actions violated the Constitution because court precedent clearly established their conduct as unlawful.

If yes, the case goes to trial.
If no, qualified immunity is granted.

You think this is a fair system? If you do I don't know what to tell you. Police and government officials should be held to a high standard not a lower one.

Reuters found among the cases it analyzed more than three dozen in which qualified immunity protected officers whose actions had been deemed unlawful. Outside of Dallas, Texas, five officers fired 17 shots at a bicyclist who was 100 yards away, killing him, in a case of mistaken identity. In Heber City, Utah, an officer threw to the ground an unarmed man he had pulled over for a cracked windshield, leaving the man with brain damage. In Prince George's County, Maryland, an officer shot a man in a mental health crisis who was stabbing himself and trying to slit his own throat.

 

looks like he knew they were coming

https://nypost.com/2020/09/04/suspe...chael-reinoehl-had-gun-when-killed-by-police/
Antifa-supporting Portland protest shooter armed with assault rifle when killed by cops

The Antifa-supporting security guard wanted in the killing of a right-wing protester in Portland fired “40 or 50” rounds from an assault rifle at cops before he was shot to death Thursday in Washington state, witnesses said.

Michael Forest Reinoehl, 48, was fatally shot by officers around 7 p.m. in Tanglewilde after a warrant from the Portland Police Bureau was issued for his arrest earlier in the day, The Olympian reported.

Officers from the Pierce County sheriff’s fugitive apprehension team were surveilling the area when they saw Reinoehl come out of an apartment and walk to a car, appearing to be armed.

 

I really don't think you understand what QI does.

QI Does Not shield LE from Criminal prosecution - It only protects them from Personal Financial Responsibility.

Removal of QI simply allows the damaged individual to pursue civil damages - Sue the offender for damages.

QI only protects from civil suits. That is all. Civil simply means they cannot be personally held financially responsible.

The real issue we have in terms of these things is two fold -

The cops police themselves , investigations are internal in the vast majority of cases. And special investigators are just cops from another jurisdiction. Hardly impartial.

The other is that for a cop to fire on an individual all he has to do is say "I thought"

I thought he had a gun
I thought he had a knife
I thought he might harm me
I thought he might harm a bystander.

When "I thought" is all it takes and you have an impartial investigatory entity , we get what we've gotten. Which is few , if any criminally held to account for their actions.

I thought - whether he really thought that or not.


What we really need is citizens reviewing these cases for criminal wrongdoing and those citizen panels referring charges to DA's rather than the police policing themselves.

I've mentioned this before on multiple occasions - citizen review panels much like jury duty to review use of force cases. It puts the people in charge.