Minneapolis is Burning

[HenryJames 67113]

 

[Brisketexan 106607]

7 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

But...but...most cops are good!  These are just insanely random, unique situations!

[BigHorn'13 3480]

On 7/2/2020 at 12:06 PM, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

 

I dunno. Since three strikes began to be implemented in 1994 and since  Clinton got the funds to hire 100,000 more policemen in 1998, violent crime has plummeted. 

 

I implore you to watch this documentary (13th on Netflix.) Here's the trailer

Sad thing is that this is from 2016 but could've just as been made yesterday with a few names and stories swapped. All Clinton did was ramp up and militarize the police continuing the war on drugs.

[bad_teammate 13479]

49 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

We need to just flatten the entire thing and rehire from scratch with wildly restructured contracts that prevent people like this from ever being rehired to do police work.

[elfenix 34655]

are we not aware that "meritocracy" is a satirical term?

[TwiceHorn 31982]

17 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Or the judicial branch could do its fucking job.

Well, why not both?

But, the problem that I complained of, mandatory minimum sentences, and the related problem of proliferation of federal criminal laws is entirely Congress' fault and problem.

Nixon kind of set the stage for it with the war on drugs, but Congress found how politically expedient new criminal laws could be after a couple of centuries of benign neglect.

Edited July 3, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Bama Chick 28596]

Huh. Turns out some things can result in cops getting fired.

[Parliament 14555]

Things might be going down at Mt. Rushmore.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

"Kill 'em." Houston GOP powerbroker Steve Hotze left Greg Abbott a voicemail requesting National Guard "shoot to kill" rioters

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/03/steve-hotze-texas-greg-abbott-rioters/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

[NameAlreadyInUse 5161]

5 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

"Kill 'em." Houston GOP powerbroker Steve Hotze left Greg Abbott a voicemail requesting National Guard "shoot to kill" rioters

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/03/steve-hotze-texas-greg-abbott-rioters/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

Never mind. Not funny after all. 

Edited July 4, 2020 by NameAlreadyInUse

[Huckleberry 34403]

22 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

"Kill 'em." Houston GOP powerbroker Steve Hotze left Greg Abbott a voicemail requesting National Guard "shoot to kill" rioters

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/07/03/steve-hotze-texas-greg-abbott-rioters/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I mean genuinely and honestly, if Steve Hotze got shot by someone who was at the protest or who had a loved one at the protest, would anyone not understand? Now sure, I would want that person prosecuted appropriately, but he asked the governor to shoot and kill anyone seen vandalizing a business on sight. You know, outside the judicial process that this country depends on, just Judge Dredd style.

[Brisketexan 106607]

I mean genuinely and honestly, if Steve Hotze got shot by someone who was at the protest or who had a loved one at the protest, would anyone not understand? Now sure, I would want that person prosecuted appropriately, but he asked the governor to shoot and kill anyone seen vandalizing a business on sight. You know, outside the judicial process that this country depends on, just Judge Dredd style.

The GOP is a murderous death cult, exhibit # eleventybillion.

Seriously, they are irredeemably evil. They have to go. All of them.

[cactusflinthead 27626]

 

[Texaspython 231]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, why not both?

But, the problem that I complained of, mandatory minimum sentences, and the related problem of proliferation of federal criminal laws is entirely Congress' fault and problem.

Nixon kind of set the stage for it with the war on drugs, but Congress found how politically expedient new criminal laws could be after a couple of centuries of benign neglect.

The real issue is giving Defendants the right to a jury trial on punishment. Until that happens it’s all bs.

[GRHorn 105]

🤔 🧐 🤨 

[freyguy 4363]

39 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

 

I tried showing this to the wife and she just punched me.

[SaucyJack 3517]

9 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Edited July 4, 2020 by SaucyJack

[bad_teammate 13479]

Police freed the people of Seattle from the tyranny of CHAZ! HOORAY!

papiere bitte

 

[HenryJames 67113]

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

23 hours ago, GRHorn said:

Good for Dat Dude, pointing out one of the massive red flags with BLM that I’ve mentioned here before and others like @trauma babe dismissed. How can so many people support a group that has the single biggest issue affecting their community completely wrong? 
 

 

Powerful words.

 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

22 hours ago, bolverk said:

He left out key portions of the mission statement in each of those quotes. Now, the statements themselves are admittedly open to some interpretation (it's poorly written), but an honest discussion requires viewing those statements in context. Here they are in full with the omitted portions bolded.

I do encourage you to read the whole thing and promise it's not nearly as ominous or dismissive as you seem to believe.

Dismantling the notion that families should be a mom and dad or mom and mom or dad and dad  is all you need to read about their BS thought process and mission statement.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

10 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

The GOP is a murderous death cult, exhibit # eleventybillion.

Seriously, they are irredeemably evil. They have to go. All of them.

Back on the ledge again huh ?  For an intelligent person you really state some of the dumbest, weirdest most stereotypical dumb shit.  Yes all republicans are evil and all democrats are Pollyanna pure.

[Texaspython 231]

1 hour ago, HenryJames said:

 

QI is really interesting because it was created by Judges. They decided it shouldn’t be so easy to sue government actors and decided to give them extra protection. Incredible and devious stuff. 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

13 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

QI is really interesting because it was created by Judges. They decided it shouldn’t be so easy to sue government actors and decided to give them extra protection. Incredible and devious stuff. 

Given that we are a common law jurisdiction, judge-made law is not unusual.

And sovereign immunity of governments and government actors is not exactly a novel concept in the US or anywhere else.

Certainly neither incredible nor devious.

An equally plausible outcome, that would have been considerably worse, is that government actors be given complete immunity.  Most of them have it for official actions, see, e.g. judges, prosecutors, elected officials.  Indeed, the starting place for the case law was that cops were absolutely immune and the doctrine mitigated that immunity.

It has certainly worked out rather poorly for plaintiffs.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Given that we are a common law jurisdiction, judge-made law is not unusual.

And sovereign immunity of governments and government actors is not exactly a novel concept in the US or anywhere else.

Certainly neither incredible nor devious.

An equally plausible outcome, that would have been considerably worse, is that government actors be given complete immunity.  Most of them have it for official actions, see, e.g. judges, prosecutors, elected officials.  Indeed, the starting place for the case law was that cops were absolutely immune and the doctrine mitigated that immunity.

It has certainly worked out rather poorly for plaintiffs.

The devious aspect of QI is the process by which it’s decided. That was completely invented by Judges. The fact that government actors get an interlocutory appeal for their assertion of QI is devious and designed to kill litigation by victims. It needlessly delays litigation for years regardless of how ridiculous and frivolous the appeal. So yeah, that’s devious, shitty, asinine, devoid of legal authority, and wrong.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

18 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

The devious aspect of QI is the process by which it’s decided. That was completely invented by Judges. The fact that government actors get an interlocutory appeal for their assertion of QI is devious and designed to kill litigation by victims. It needlessly delays litigation for years regardless of how ridiculous and frivolous the appeal. So yeah, that’s devious, shitty, asinine, devoid of legal authority, and wrong.

I don't disagree that its effects have been horrible.

But any kind of immunity includes immunity FROM SUIT, not just from damages or judgment.  If immunity is wrongly denied, the benefit of immunity is lost and can't be restored by an appeal after judgment..  So an interlocutory appeal of a denial of immunity only makes sense.

For the peanut gallery, one of the justifications for immunity generally is that government will grind to a halt if it has to defend every suit brought by every plaintiff with some kind of grievance.  Which is a valid point, generally speaking.

So a big concept in immunity is not only is the government immune from an award of damages, it is immune from the burden of having to defend the suit at all.  If a judge denies a government agent or agency immunity, it has the right to take an immediate appeal so as to preserve that immunity from suit to the extent possible, instead of having to defend the suit all the way to judgment and take an appeal from that final judgment, which is the normal way of taking an appeal.

What is fucked up about it is the way clearly established constitutional right is determined.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Brisketexan 106607]

I don't disagree that its effects have been horrible.
But any kind of immunity includes immunity FROM SUIT, not just from damages or judgment.  If immunity is wrongly denied, the benefit of immunity is lost and can't be restored by an appeal after judgment..  So an interlocutory appeal of a denial of immunity only makes sense.
For the peanut gallery, one of the justifications for immunity generally is that government will grind to a halt if it has to defend every suit brought by every plaintiff with some kind of grievance.  Which is a valid point, generally speaking.
So a big concept in immunity is not only is the government immune from an award of damages, it is immune from the burden of having to defend the suit at all.  If a judge denies a government agent or agency immunity, it has the right to take an immediate appeal so as to preserve that immunity from suit to the extent possible, instead of having to defend the suit all the way to judgment and take an appeal from that final judgment.
What is fucked up about it is the way clearly established constitutional right is determined.

The last sentence is spot on (well, the whole post is, but for the lay audience, that sentence captures the key problem).

The “clearly established” standard was intended to mean, in plain English, that a public official is immune unless he did something that he knew was wrong (unconstitutional). That is, it made the standard one of intentionally and knowingly violating a constitution right, instead of accidentally doing so (which - and set aside the cases of beating someone senseless - is actually quite easy to do, as what is unconstitutional or not can be quite unclear and case-specific). But what it’s been perverted into is a standard almost as absurd as “sure, there was a fact pattern like yours - pulled over for a busted tail light, pulled out of the car immediately and immediately beaten with a nightstick - but that case happened on a Tuesday, and the victim weighed 180 pounds...your case happened on a Wednesday, and the victim weighed 190, so, it wasn’t clearly established that your case would be a constitutional violation.” The 5th Cir is really bad about this (when it comes to cops...oddly enough, they are very hostile to OTHER govt employees, which fits the court’s ideology perfectly: the only good govt employees are hero cops who enforce the order of the state with violence; govt functionaries and bureaucrats on the other hand....they are agents of the ebil gubmint, and get no slack).

The doctrine in theory isn’t that objectionable. It actually makes some sense. But what it became...it’s clear that it’s unworkable, because it will inevitably become a green light for cops to do as they wish, claiming false ignorance of “was that wrong? I had no idea!” Bullshit.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The last sentence is spot on (well, the whole post is, but for the lay audience, that sentence captures the key problem).

The “clearly established” standard was intended to mean, in plain English, that a public official is immune unless he did something that he knew was wrong (unconstitutional). That is, it made the standard one of intentionally and knowingly violating a constitution right, instead of accidentally doing so (which - and set aside the cases of beating someone senseless - is actually quite easy to do, as what is unconstitutional or not can be quite unclear and case-specific). But what it’s been perverted into is a standard almost as absurd as “sure, there was a fact pattern like yours - pulled over for a busted tail light, pulled out of the car immediately and immediately beaten with a nightstick - but that case happened on a Tuesday, and the victim weighed 180 pounds...your case happened on a Wednesday, and the victim weighed 190, so, it wasn’t clearly established that your case would be a constitutional violation.” The 5th Cir is really bad about this (when it comes to cops...oddly enough, they are very hostile to OTHER govt employees, which fits the court’s ideology perfectly: the only good govt employees are hero cops who enforce the order of the state with violence; govt functionaries and bureaucrats on the other hand....they are agents of the ebil gubmint, and get no slack).

The doctrine in theory isn’t that objectionable. It actually makes some sense. But what it became...it’s clear that it’s unworkable, because it will inevitably become a green light for cops to do as they wish, claiming false ignorance of “was that wrong? I had no idea!” Bullshit.

I went and looked at the text of some of the proposed QI amendments.  One, from Amash, would abrogate it completely for all officials.  I think that's probably going too far.  The dogcatcher then is going to be subject to suit.

Others try to confine it to LEO only.  That seems like a better idea.

[Brisketexan 106607]

I went and looked at the text of some of the proposed QI amendments.  One, from Amash, would abrogate it completely for all officials.  I think that's probably going too far.  The dogcatcher then is going to be subject to suit.
Others try to confine it to LEO only.  That seems like a better idea.

And/or relax the “clearly established” standard. Maybe something that translates to English as “any reasonable person would know that it was wrong.”

[TwiceHorn 31982]

4 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And/or relax the “clearly established” standard. Maybe something that translates to English as “any reasonable person would know that it was wrong.”

Yeah, something tells me that there needs to be some defense for the "obscure" constitutional right.  

But both of the proposed versions I saw pretty much trash it completely.

[workswithseed 2201]

17 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

Pro: Nobody under 40 gives a shit about the label

Wrong

[Brisketexan 106607]

Yeah, something tells me that there needs to be some defense for the "obscure" constitutional right.  
But both of the proposed versions I saw pretty much trash it completely.

Well, exhibit 123,469 in the book of “abuse a right/privilege, and you’ll end up losing it altogether.”

Our institutions have fought even incremental reform for so long, they’re gonna have it shoved down their throat.

[bolverk 30227]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Dismantling the notion that families should be a mom and dad or mom and mom or dad and dad  is all you need to read about their BS thought process and mission statement.

Well, see, if that's what they're saying then I'd agree. To me, I interpret that statement about patriarchy to mean that they support getting rid of the notion that mothers have to have two jobs (one out in the world; one in the home to take care of kids) while dads are left free of the same expectation. It sounds like they feel that this expectation is an obstacle to women being involved in the movement.

Personally, I'd really like to hear exactly what the statement means when put into plain language, because I really do feel like it's poorly written. It reads like a college sophomore who has just recently learned a lot of new concepts and terminology and is attempting to explain those new ideas without being completely fluent with their new vocabulary.

I could well be wrong in my interpretation and it was indeed written by some wild-eyed radical who actually believed in breaking up families. But I suspect if directly questioned on that matter, you'd hear differently.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Well, exhibit 123,469 in the book of “abuse a right/privilege, and you’ll end up losing it altogether.”

Our institutions have fought even incremental reform for so long, they’re gonna have it shoved down their throat.

True dat.  There will  be a shitstorm of litigation that goes to or close to judgment and that alone is probably going to start to cripple PDs with fucked up personnel.  Even if they don't lose, the quantum of litigation is going to be substantial.

Just what the doctor ordered.

I remain curious about who pays these judgments.  I am almost certain that the Texas Municipal League provides a form of insurance or indemnity for both cities and its officers/agents in these cases.  I don't know if there's something similar in other states or quite how that works, but abrogation of QI is going to really upset some apple carts.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

38 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I don't disagree that its effects have been horrible.

But any kind of immunity includes immunity FROM SUIT, not just from damages or judgment.  If immunity is wrongly denied, the benefit of immunity is lost and can't be restored by an appeal after judgment..  So an interlocutory appeal of a denial of immunity only makes sense.

For the peanut gallery, one of the justifications for immunity generally is that government will grind to a halt if it has to defend every suit brought by every plaintiff with some kind of grievance.  Which is a valid point, generally speaking.

So a big concept in immunity is not only is the government immune from an award of damages, it is immune from the burden of having to defend the suit at all.  If a judge denies a government agent or agency immunity, it has the right to take an immediate appeal so as to preserve that immunity from suit to the extent possible, instead of having to defend the suit all the way to judgment and take an appeal from that final judgment, which is the normal way of taking an appeal.

What is fucked up about it is the way clearly established constitutional right is determined.

So, you agree that I’m right. You could have just said that.

[TwiceHorn 31982]

5 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

So, you agree that I’m right. You could have just said that.

As usual, your legal analysis is facile and frequently wrong.

You mentioned everything but clearly established constitutional right.  Had you done so, I might have agreed.

It's the law, dude, the process is often as important as the result.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

As usual, your legal analysis is facile.

It's the law, dude, the process is often as important as the result.

Man, you sure try hard to disagree with me. Sorry I’ve called out your legal analysis. I’m new here but your contributions are obviously some source of pride for you. It’s not personal, dude.

It’s just hilarious. You went out of your way to “disagree” with me then admitted the process picks the rights of government actors over those of the plaintiff. The government actor gets to assert their immunity at the district court level. The Judge can throw the case out of court at the start, before you even do discovery. No reason to give them a special appeal.

[StassneyHorn 6755]

21 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Wrong

You wouldn’t know the difference in Marxism, communism, or socialism, or any other -ism without a YouTube video and a Fox News host reading his cue card.

Neither would 95% of Americans. Don’t feel bad about it.

[workswithseed 2201]

7 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

You wouldn’t know the difference in Marxism, communism, or socialism, or any other -ism without a YouTube video and a Fox News host reading his cue card.

Neither would 95% of Americans. Don’t feel bad about it.

Yeah, I how else am I supposed to listen to the communist manifesto at work for free.

The only thing we hat to lose our chains.

[Pancho 46039]

 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

12 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

Man, you sure try hard to disagree with me. Sorry I’ve called out your legal analysis. I’m new here but your contributions are obviously some source of pride for you. It’s not personal, dude.

It’s just hilarious. You went out of your way to “disagree” with me then admitted the process picks the rights of government actors over those of the plaintiff. The government actor gets to assert their immunity at the district court level. The Judge can throw the case out of court at the start, before you even do discovery. No reason to give them a special appeal.

Well, you start off with nonsense about how it's unusual that it's judge-made law in the US.  And that it was somehow devious or incredible.

The default rule in the US, and most other jurisdictions, is that governments, government agencies, and government officials are immune from suit and from any damages from that suit.

Then you said interlocutory appeals are wrong. And I explained how interlocutory appeals of immunity issues make perfect sense.

The doctrine has completely understandable origins and was an effort by judges to mitigate the harshness of sovereign immunity, which completely bars suit and damages, for any kind of harm.

It has come to be an unwarranted burden on suits against cops, but not so much through any of the foregoing, but through the clearly established constitutional right rubric.

I take some "pride" in explaining the nuances of legal issues to laypeople or the "peanut gallery" on here.  So do a number of others, to include brisket, GoLL and others.

So when someone comes on here misrepresenting law and legal analysis, I am going to counter them.  There's already enough bad legal analysis in the press and elsewhere.

[workswithseed 2201]

33 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

Yeah, I how else am I supposed to listen to the communist manifesto at work for free.

The only thing we hat to lose our chains.

The only thing we have to lose, is our chains.

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

28 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

Dude took the Tweet down.

Holy shit.

 

[GRHorn 105]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

Well, see, if that's what they're saying then I'd agree. To me, I interpret that statement about patriarchy to mean that they support getting rid of the notion that mothers have to have two jobs (one out in the world; one in the home to take care of kids) while dads are left free of the same expectation. It sounds like they feel that this expectation is an obstacle to women being involved in the movement.

Personally, I'd really like to hear exactly what the statement means when put into plain language, because I really do feel like it's poorly written. It reads like a college sophomore who has just recently learned a lot of new concepts and terminology and is attempting to explain those new ideas without being completely fluent with their new vocabulary.

I could well be wrong in my interpretation and it was indeed written by some wild-eyed radical who actually believed in breaking up families. But I suspect if directly questioned on that matter, you'd hear differently.

2 of the founders are self proclaimed “trained Marxists”. 
 

A simple google search lead me to this article. 

https://revisesociology.com/2014/02/10/marxist-perspective-family/

It’s pretty easy to connect the dots between these ideas and their mission statement. I think it’s safe to take their written and spoken words at face value. And that’s fine obviously. They’re free to pursue any agenda they want. People can follow them.
 

I just question how many actually know the specifics of what they’re pursuing. Especially these athletes and celebrities pumping them up. 
 

Then again maybe LeBron knows and doesn’t care. China basically calls the shots for him. He might be on board. 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

36 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you start off with nonsense about how it's unusual that it's judge-made law in the US.  And that it was somehow devious or incredible.

The default rule in the US, and most other jurisdictions, is that governments, government agencies, and government officials are immune from suit and from any damages from that suit.

Then you said interlocutory appeals are wrong. And I explained how interlocutory appeals of immunity issues make perfect sense.

The doctrine has completely understandable origins and was an effort by judges to mitigate the harshness of sovereign immunity, which completely bars suit and damages, for any kind of harm.

It has come to be an unwarranted burden on suits against cops, but not so much through any of the foregoing, but through the clearly established constitutional right rubric.

I take some "pride" in explaining the nuances of legal issues to laypeople or the "peanut gallery" on here.  So do a number of others, to include brisket, GoLL and others.

So when someone comes on here misrepresenting law and legal analysis, I am going to counter them.  There's already enough bad legal analysis in the press and elsewhere.

All that said, a couple of the things you said in your early posts hit me pretty wrong, beyond that, it's no big deal.

My area of practice is pretty dry and I am interested in current legal topics like cops and shit.  I enjoy some back and forth or discussion with a number of posters on here.

Peace.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

30 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Well, you start off with nonsense about how it's unusual that it's judge-made law in the US.  And that it was somehow devious or incredible.

The default rule in the US, and most other jurisdictions, is that governments, government agencies, and government officials are immune from suit and from any damages from that suit.

Then you said interlocutory appeals are wrong. And I explained how interlocutory appeals of immunity issues make perfect sense.

The doctrine has completely understandable origins and was an effort by judges to mitigate the harshness of sovereign immunity, which completely bars suit and damages, for any kind of harm.

It has come to be an unwarranted burden on suits against cops, but not so much through any of the foregoing, but through the clearly established constitutional right rubric.

I take some "pride" in explaining the nuances of legal issues to laypeople or the "peanut gallery" on here.  So do a number of others, to include brisket, GoLL and others.

So when someone comes on here misrepresenting law and legal analysis, I am going to counter them.  There's already enough bad legal analysis in the press and elsewhere.

You’re misrepresenting the process. The governmental actor can assert immunity at the court level. They can assert it and stop the litigation process almost completely. They don’t need/deserve a special, Judge made right of appeal. You’re completely misrepresenting that part of the process. That’s what lay people need to understand. I just do it in a less condescending way.
It’s pretty sad you represent your opinions as some sort of non-biased legal analysis because it isn’t. 

[TwiceHorn 31982]

9 minutes ago, Texaspython said:

You’re misrepresenting the process. The governmental actor can assert immunity at the court level. They can assert it and stop the litigation process almost completely. They don’t need/deserve a special, Judge made right of appeal. You’re completely misrepresenting that part of the process. That’s what lay people need to understand. I just do it in a less condescending way.
It’s pretty sad you represent your opinions as some sort of non-biased legal analysis because it isn’t. 

Geezus Gawd.

I explained that in immunity, which includes immunity from suit, if a government is denied the ability to assert that immunity early in the case, then it should have the ability to immediately appeal that ruling or the benefit of immunity is lost.

That is a pretty necessary feature of having immunity from suit.  If you have to go through the whole suit to win your immunity, the immunity is more than half lost.

You can quibble about whether or under what circumstances immunity is granted or denied, which is the issue here, but if it is an immunity, the right to interlocutory appeal is a necessary feature of that.

And, on the contrary, I explain the nuances of the law without judgment as to whether the feature is wrong or right, just why it is and how it works.

You, on the other hand, let your view of the end result (bad) condemn every aspect of the process.  Which is facile.

The problem is not whether immunity is decided on motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or some other stage.  Nor is it whether an interlocutory appeal is available.  The problem is the standard for the grant of immunity.  Or the existence of immunity  at all.

Note that I am able to explain these things mostly without reference to you or your opinions.  You can't do the same.

Edited July 4, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Texaspython 231]

16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Geezus Gawd.

I explained that in immunity, which includes immunity from suit, if a government is denied the ability to assert that immunity early in the case, then it should have the ability to immediately appeal that ruling or the benefit of immunity is lost.

That is a pretty necessary feature of having immunity from suit.  If you have to go through the whole suit to win your immunity, the immunity is more than half lost.

You can quibble about whether or under what circumstances immunity is granted or denied, which is the issue here, but if it is an immunity, the right to interlocutory appeal is a necessary feature of that.

And, on the contrary, I explain the nuances of the law without judgment as to whether the feature is wrong or right, just why it is and how it works.

You, on the other hand, let your view of the end result (bad) condemn every aspect of the process.  Which is facile.

The problem is not whether immunity is decided on motion to dismiss, summary judgment, or some other stage.  Nor is it whether an interlocutory appeal is available.  The problem is the standard for the grant of immunity.  Or the existence of immunity  at all.

Note that I am able to explain these things mostly without reference to you or your opinions.  You can't do the same.

How is that different than any other defense tI suit? Why does this immunity get special treatment? 
Let’s just lay this out. You can be murdered by a police officer in your own home. If your family finds a lawyer willing to go through the process we’re arguing about, your lawyer files suit. Police officer asserts QI. This stops down all litigation. No discovery, nothing. Your lawyer is completely denied any procedural weapons. The Federal Judge evaluates the issue, correctly denies the ridiculous claim of immunity. The police officer then appeals the denial of immunity. This stops down the process completely again. The fifth circuit takes 2 years deciding whether the ridiculous claim of immunity is correct. They eventually deny the ridiculous claim of immunity. Your family is now at least 3 years into litigation dealing with a completely frivolous claim. Only at this point is your lawyer allowed to engsgr in discovery, then a couple more years until you get your trial date.

Although the police are able to assert QI, have their day in court, Twice thinks this process is necessary and fair. I do not.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 7/2/2020 at 4:19 PM, GRHorn said:

I typically admit when I’m wrong. 

 

Yeah I probably should’ve combined the two posts and when you replied, you chose to go with a nitpicking deflection. I suppose we’re both off our games. It’s 4pm at the start of a holiday weekend. 

Since you’re pretty much always wrong that must be exhausting. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Given that we are a common law jurisdiction, judge-made law is not unusual.

And sovereign immunity of governments and government actors is not exactly a novel concept in the US or anywhere else.

Certainly neither incredible nor devious.

An equally plausible outcome, that would have been considerably worse, is that government actors be given complete immunity.  Most of them have it for official actions, see, e.g. judges, prosecutors, elected officials.  Indeed, the starting place for the case law was that cops were absolutely immune and the doctrine mitigated that immunity.

It has certainly worked out rather poorly for plaintiffs.

Bullshit. Judge made common law is usually to expand rights and liability, not restrict them in the face of statutes that clearly say otherwise and grant immunity where no basis exists to do so. 
 

I realize you’re a smart and intelligent poster worthy of respect. But if you are defending qualified immunity here then you’ve gone over your skis. Just my opinion.