3 ms·

Does that mean that US police officers don't know the amendments of the constitution? I knew they weren't required to know the law, but to not know the basic am

• eesmith 4y ago
  The 1st amendment is not absolute. There are well-known time/place/manner restrictions, copyright and libel restrictions, and more. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity: > qualified immunity is a legal principle that grants government officials performing discretionary (optional) functions 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". From the link I gave, "The question of whether a person has the right to photograph or videotape police activities in the 9th Circuit has not been directly addressed and, thus, has not been fully answered. ... Courts in the 3rd, 4th and 5th Circuits have said that the right to videotape the police has not conclusively been established." Since these are not "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights", the police officer has qualified immunity. That all said, you've nailed it on the head. 'Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has noted a "disturbing trend" of siding with police officers using excessive force with qualified immunity,[45] describing it as "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing".' , quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brutality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity#Police_brut...