5 ms·

Abolishing qualified immunity leads to situations like Uvalde where police don’t want to intervene for fear of reprisal. Also, you’re probably barking up the w

Abolishing qualified immunity leads to situations like Uvalde where police don’t want to intervene for fear of reprisal. Also, you’re probably barking up the wrong tree. Instead of pissing off the police unions and dealing with the eternal backlash from that, you could instead push for something like Florida’s Sunshine Laws which would provide needed transparency into universities, the police, and the government.

delecti 3y ago
What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change.
- vGPU 3y ago
  Indeed. Hence, we get the latest FBI public execution of a “right wing terrorist”: a 75 year old obese mobility-scooter-bound vet.
  - ozaark 3y ago
    Idk much about the situation but in a few of that guys posts he made prior to being raided he talked about sniping potusa from afar with time, place in mind, pictures of him with rifles, and threats to answer FBI with guns. Afaik obese scooter bound people can still aim a rifle from afar. He basically provoked a situation and was treated as credible threat based on his own actions.
    - vGPU 3y ago
      In the video it appears to be an obvious execution. The classic fbi “shoot him through the window” maneuver.
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change. This is a confusing statement. Isn't it good if police aren't used to confronting armed criminals?
  - delecti 3y ago
    I chose the wording of "shoot back for a change" very deliberately. Cops act tough and intimidate people who they know can't fight back, but are cowards when society actually needs armed peace-keeping. If the police aren't used to confronting armed threats, then clearly in the vast majority of cases they shouldn't need to be armed themselves.
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      Well it's not all police officers you're talking about; it's these ones. Are you saying these officers' performance would've improved if they hadn't been armed? Why?
      - delecti 3y ago
        I'm saying that the stark difference in those officers' performance vs their usual behavior shows that they usually expect to not be facing armed threats. Society is worse because they usually go into situations thinking "I'm armed and they aren't", and would improve if they weren't armed by default. It wouldn't have helped in Uvalde if police weren't armed by default, but I'm not sure anything would have helped, because they already had all the tools they needed for that situation.
        robertlagrant 3y ago
        Well, better officers would've helped. There are plenty of them.
kibwen 3y ago
> Abolishing qualified immunity leads to situations like Uvalde where police won’t want to intervene for fear of reprisal. This couldn't be more wrong. Despite the existence of qualified immunity, the Texas police still cowered like cowards, and are using qualified immunity to shield themselves from the lawsuits of the families whose children they failed to protect.
- Asooka 3y ago
  Even without qualified immunity, the police in question would not face any charges, as they have no duty to protect anyone from anything.
hcayless 3y ago
But QI still exists, and Uvalde happened. It wasn’t fear of reprisal, but fear of being shot. So your argument doesn’t work.
MarkMarine 3y ago
Fear of reprisal < fear of automatic weapon fire. Trust me.
- dmoy 3y ago
  semi automatic in that case, but yea same difference
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
    Pretty sure the type of weapon is of little importance in this case, they would have stayed outside if the shooter had a muzzle loader.
    - dmoy 3y ago
      Yea exactly, that's what I mean by same difference - scary as hell either way
quickthrowman 3y ago
Uvalde cops had (and have) qualified immunity, yet they still didn’t take action. Perhaps they were more afraid of being shot?
tehwebguy 3y ago
Yeah, 370 cops stood around doing nothing while children and teachers were murdered because they were afraid of “reprisal”. They were afraid of getting shot, total cowardice with a lot of incompetence and nothing more.

delecti 3y ago

What do you mean by "fear of reprisal"? It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change.

vGPU 3y ago
Indeed. Hence, we get the latest FBI public execution of a “right wing terrorist”: a 75 year old obese mobility-scooter-bound vet.
- ozaark 3y ago
  Idk much about the situation but in a few of that guys posts he made prior to being raided he talked about sniping potusa from afar with time, place in mind, pictures of him with rifles, and threats to answer FBI with guns. Afaik obese scooter bound people can still aim a rifle from afar. He basically provoked a situation and was treated as credible threat based on his own actions.
  - vGPU 3y ago
    In the video it appears to be an obvious execution. The classic fbi “shoot him through the window” maneuver.
robertlagrant 3y ago
> It seemed pretty clear to me that they didn't want to head in for fear of confronting someone who can shoot back for a change. This is a confusing statement. Isn't it good if police aren't used to confronting armed criminals?
- delecti 3y ago
  I chose the wording of "shoot back for a change" very deliberately. Cops act tough and intimidate people who they know can't fight back, but are cowards when society actually needs armed peace-keeping. If the police aren't used to confronting armed threats, then clearly in the vast majority of cases they shouldn't need to be armed themselves.
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    Well it's not all police officers you're talking about; it's these ones. Are you saying these officers' performance would've improved if they hadn't been armed? Why?
    - delecti 3y ago
      I'm saying that the stark difference in those officers' performance vs their usual behavior shows that they usually expect to not be facing armed threats. Society is worse because they usually go into situations thinking "I'm armed and they aren't", and would improve if they weren't armed by default. It wouldn't have helped in Uvalde if police weren't armed by default, but I'm not sure anything would have helped, because they already had all the tools they needed for that situation.
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        Well, better officers would've helped. There are plenty of them.

kibwen 3y ago

> Abolishing qualified immunity leads to situations like Uvalde where police won’t want to intervene for fear of reprisal. This couldn't be more wrong. Despite the existence of qualified immunity, the Texas police still cowered like cowards, and are using qualified immunity to shield themselves from the lawsuits of the families whose children they failed to protect.

Asooka 3y ago
Even without qualified immunity, the police in question would not face any charges, as they have no duty to protect anyone from anything.

hcayless 3y ago

But QI still exists, and Uvalde happened. It wasn’t fear of reprisal, but fear of being shot. So your argument doesn’t work.

MarkMarine 3y ago

Fear of reprisal < fear of automatic weapon fire. Trust me.

dmoy 3y ago
semi automatic in that case, but yea same difference
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 3y ago
  Pretty sure the type of weapon is of little importance in this case, they would have stayed outside if the shooter had a muzzle loader.
  - dmoy 3y ago
    Yea exactly, that's what I mean by same difference - scary as hell either way

quickthrowman 3y ago

Uvalde cops had (and have) qualified immunity, yet they still didn’t take action. Perhaps they were more afraid of being shot?

tehwebguy 3y ago

Yeah, 370 cops stood around doing nothing while children and teachers were murdered because they were afraid of “reprisal”. They were afraid of getting shot, total cowardice with a lot of incompetence and nothing more.