4 ms·

This is an example of where conflicting policy goals of a political movement clash. Conservatives in the U.S. decry big government and have a general distaste

This is an example of where conflicting policy goals of a political movement clash. Conservatives in the U.S. decry big government and have a general distaste for unrestricted government. Their justices on the Supreme Court seem to be in favor of unrestricted government when it comes to the anything in the military/intelligence/police sphere. They oddly hold the view that the EPA can’t regulate emissions that weren’t specifically legislated but police can purposefully violate our civil rights with what is in effect impunity. It’s sort of like how they didn’t like pro abortion demonstrations at their homes but saw no problem with legalizing that harassment at abortion doctors’ homes. You don’t have civil rights if the police can beat you with impunity when you dare to exercise them. This idiocy is effectively tyrannical. One police officer I know said that his chief of police would do what he calls “releasing the dogs”. When that happened they could beat people without fear of negative consequences at work.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
There is a reason for this. I remember initially watching BLM protest with a sense not dissimilar to watching to OWS protests, but as they were becoming a little more fiery if your permit this little joke, my disposition started to change rather drastically. I am sympathetic, but there are limits and, to be perfectly honest, if you look at historical records, police is nowhere near as aggressive as they have once been ( for a good reason, as a society we see some things as not acceptable now ). I dislike police having too much power ( but I dislike any group having too much power ). I want balance. It does mean some consequences, but it also does mean cops have the power to do what needs to be done when it is necessary ( one's definition of 'necessary' will differ.. and here likely we will disagree ). edit: changed need to do
- syzarian 4y ago
  Quashing a riot and beating a detained suspect are drastically different exertions of police violence. Police should not mete out extra judicial punishment with impunity.
LanceH 4y ago
You need to take a look at who is in charge of the cities and states where these incidents happen most, and realize this is more than republicans.
- syzarian 4y ago
  I make no political judgments or make aspirations toward conservatives. It’s just that this case is an example of conflicting policy goals of a particular political movement. It is an interesting case for that reason (among others). Regardless of cause or politics or any other consideration it is still true that qualified immunity is effectively tyrannical and therefore ought to be opposed. Police should not be immune to purposefully violating civil rights. Regardless of who is in power or control.
Clubber 4y ago
>They oddly hold the view that the EPA can’t regulate emissions that weren’t specifically legislated >police can purposefully violate our civil rights with what is in effect impunity. These are separate issues. Congress gives the legislative branch (EPA) certain powers and they cannot exceed those powers without additional power grant by congress. This applies to all 3 letter agencies. Imagine if the EPA decided computers were harmful and wanted to ban them. They don't have the power to do so because congress set limits to what they can do. There is a doctrine of Chevron deference described here. This is probably what you are accustomed to. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference >Their justices on the Supreme Court seem to be in favor of unrestricted government when it comes to the anything in the military/intelligence/police sphere. The doctrine of qualified immunity states any government employee, when doing their job, cannot be sued individually. Judges have a similar protection. This was created from whole cloth and was never legislated. This is an example of "legislating from the bench." Hope that clears it up. From a layperson, it seems strange, but the judicial system only interprets laws passed and determines of they fall in line with existing laws, particularly the constitution.
- syzarian 4y ago
  I think your interpretation is wrong. The EPA was given the power to regulate emissions but the court is going in the direction that Congress must be much more explicit and state exactly which emissions can be regulated. They are requiring a level of specificity that is impractical. But the NSA can warrant less wiretap on a grand scale without a similar level of specificity. Of course qualified immunity applies to more than law enforcement. But where its application is especially dangerous and contrary to good governance is in its current application in law enforcement. Police can effectively with impunity violate your civil rights on purpose. This is a stupid state of affairs and it matters not what the legal justification is because the unintended (perhaps intended) consequence is that the state can deprive you of your civil rights. BTW, your last paragraph is contradicted by the preceding paragraph. Maybe you meant to say, “the courts are supposed to interpret laws and not make them up”
  - Clubber 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

There is a reason for this. I remember initially watching BLM protest with a sense not dissimilar to watching to OWS protests, but as they were becoming a little more fiery if your permit this little joke, my disposition started to change rather drastically. I am sympathetic, but there are limits and, to be perfectly honest, if you look at historical records, police is nowhere near as aggressive as they have once been ( for a good reason, as a society we see some things as not acceptable now ). I dislike police having too much power ( but I dislike any group having too much power ). I want balance. It does mean some consequences, but it also does mean cops have the power to do what needs to be done when it is necessary ( one's definition of 'necessary' will differ.. and here likely we will disagree ). edit: changed need to do

syzarian 4y ago
Quashing a riot and beating a detained suspect are drastically different exertions of police violence. Police should not mete out extra judicial punishment with impunity.

LanceH 4y ago

You need to take a look at who is in charge of the cities and states where these incidents happen most, and realize this is more than republicans.

syzarian 4y ago
I make no political judgments or make aspirations toward conservatives. It’s just that this case is an example of conflicting policy goals of a particular political movement. It is an interesting case for that reason (among others). Regardless of cause or politics or any other consideration it is still true that qualified immunity is effectively tyrannical and therefore ought to be opposed. Police should not be immune to purposefully violating civil rights. Regardless of who is in power or control.

Clubber 4y ago

>They oddly hold the view that the EPA can’t regulate emissions that weren’t specifically legislated >police can purposefully violate our civil rights with what is in effect impunity. These are separate issues. Congress gives the legislative branch (EPA) certain powers and they cannot exceed those powers without additional power grant by congress. This applies to all 3 letter agencies. Imagine if the EPA decided computers were harmful and wanted to ban them. They don't have the power to do so because congress set limits to what they can do. There is a doctrine of Chevron deference described here. This is probably what you are accustomed to. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/chevron_deference >Their justices on the Supreme Court seem to be in favor of unrestricted government when it comes to the anything in the military/intelligence/police sphere. The doctrine of qualified immunity states any government employee, when doing their job, cannot be sued individually. Judges have a similar protection. This was created from whole cloth and was never legislated. This is an example of "legislating from the bench." Hope that clears it up. From a layperson, it seems strange, but the judicial system only interprets laws passed and determines of they fall in line with existing laws, particularly the constitution.

syzarian 4y ago
I think your interpretation is wrong. The EPA was given the power to regulate emissions but the court is going in the direction that Congress must be much more explicit and state exactly which emissions can be regulated. They are requiring a level of specificity that is impractical. But the NSA can warrant less wiretap on a grand scale without a similar level of specificity. Of course qualified immunity applies to more than law enforcement. But where its application is especially dangerous and contrary to good governance is in its current application in law enforcement. Police can effectively with impunity violate your civil rights on purpose. This is a stupid state of affairs and it matters not what the legal justification is because the unintended (perhaps intended) consequence is that the state can deprive you of your civil rights. BTW, your last paragraph is contradicted by the preceding paragraph. Maybe you meant to say, “the courts are supposed to interpret laws and not make them up”
- Clubber 4y ago