4 ms·

That is why the judge reversed the determination of qualified immunity for the two officers. :)

dmix 10y ago
Seems like a high bar to pass to have law abiding citizens treated with respect for the law. Same with getting cops to not be so quick to pull the trigger and default to respecting people's life. This attitude of absolute power that some American police hold is as much a cultural issue than one of legal semantics. It has to be confronted without being blown off as an attack on police. The best approach is probably taking a reasoned, most cops are good, approach and focus in on the minority who flaunt the law. The solution might be via policy (making it easier to fire cops) or training. But thanks to the all powerful unions I'm sure this will be a big uphill battle.
- obstinate 10y ago
  It is far too high a bar. The police have always been very resistant to actually allowing the freedom the Constitution promises. This is only the latest example. One could wish for the police to just be decent people, and one could wish for a billion dollars. If wishes were horses ...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- convolvatron 10y ago
  I don't understand this focus on the unions. as far as I can tell the entire* justice system acts as if this kind of extra-legal violence and coercion is necessary to keep the peace. cops, judges, prosecutors, elected officials, correctional facilities are all in on it. it seems like it would be more useful to bring it out in the open and discuss whats correct rather than pretending everyone has certain rights and simultaneously building institutions which systematically violate them.
curun1r 10y ago
Only partially. The decision ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim because, while the first amendment does protect his right to film, that wasn't clearly established at the time of the incident. It was only the fourth amendment claim for which the court ruled the officers don't deserve qualified immunity. Had they only hassled him and made him stop recording, they'd be getting off without a punishment. It was only because they arrested him (and it was only ruled that they arrested him because they didn't act with enough urgency to figure out what to do with him once they'd handcuffed him and put him in the pack of the police car) that they're being denied qualified immunity.
- wyldfire 10y ago
  > that wasn't clearly established at the time of the incident. Silver lining: it is now (in the jurisdiction of the fifth circuit).

dmix 10y ago

Seems like a high bar to pass to have law abiding citizens treated with respect for the law. Same with getting cops to not be so quick to pull the trigger and default to respecting people's life. This attitude of absolute power that some American police hold is as much a cultural issue than one of legal semantics. It has to be confronted without being blown off as an attack on police. The best approach is probably taking a reasoned, most cops are good, approach and focus in on the minority who flaunt the law. The solution might be via policy (making it easier to fire cops) or training. But thanks to the all powerful unions I'm sure this will be a big uphill battle.

obstinate 10y ago
It is far too high a bar. The police have always been very resistant to actually allowing the freedom the Constitution promises. This is only the latest example. One could wish for the police to just be decent people, and one could wish for a billion dollars. If wishes were horses ...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
convolvatron 10y ago
I don't understand this focus on the unions. as far as I can tell the entire* justice system acts as if this kind of extra-legal violence and coercion is necessary to keep the peace. cops, judges, prosecutors, elected officials, correctional facilities are all in on it. it seems like it would be more useful to bring it out in the open and discuss whats correct rather than pretending everyone has certain rights and simultaneously building institutions which systematically violate them.

curun1r 10y ago

Only partially. The decision ruled that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the first amendment claim because, while the first amendment does protect his right to film, that wasn't clearly established at the time of the incident. It was only the fourth amendment claim for which the court ruled the officers don't deserve qualified immunity. Had they only hassled him and made him stop recording, they'd be getting off without a punishment. It was only because they arrested him (and it was only ruled that they arrested him because they didn't act with enough urgency to figure out what to do with him once they'd handcuffed him and put him in the pack of the police car) that they're being denied qualified immunity.

wyldfire 10y ago
> that wasn't clearly established at the time of the incident. Silver lining: it is now (in the jurisdiction of the fifth circuit).