SCOTUS and Qualified Immunity

[nmoore63]

As far as responsibility not being "in".. responsibility is totally "in". It's just being required of the wrong people. Men are responsible for all the stupid shit that women do. Whites are responsible for all the stupid shit racial minorities do. Police in general get an exemption because they are a large public union, just as teachers can't be held responsible for graduating illiterate students. Somehow, the white man who doesn't work in a government sector union is responsible. It's just a matter of pinning the blame and making him (or all of us) pay for it somehow.

I consider that more of Blame is in.
Folks blame me for all sorts of stuff... because they don't want to take responsibility for their own actions.
Now sometimes punishment comes along with blaming someone, that sucks, but I still don't consider myself responsible even if I happen to be the one who's punished for it.

[kybkh]

1. What side is history on so I know who to shoot at?



*** Obamaphones (fucking knew it!!)

[Fife]

[Speaker to Animals]

Vengeance becomes acceptable when there no longer exists real justice.

[Fife]

Federal Court: Cops Accused Of Stealing Over $225,000 Have Legal Immunity

In a baffling decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, earlier this month, a panel of judges unanimously ruled that Fresno police officers accused of stealing over $225,000 were entitled to “qualified immunity” and can’t be sued. Thanks to this doctrine, police officers, sheriff’s deputies, and other public functionaries are shielded from civil rights lawsuits.

. . .

For the Fresno case, since “there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant,” the Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that “the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity.” Incredibly, even though the judges conceded that “virtually every human society teaches that theft generally is morally wrong,” the Ninth Circuit flatly denied it was “obvious” the officers were in the wrong legally.

This is not “one of those rare cases in which the constitutional right at issue is defined by a standard that is so ‘obvious’ that we must conclude . . . that qualified immunity is inapplicable, even without a case directly on point,” Judge Milan Smith wrote for the majority in Jessop v. Fresno. According to Smith, it wouldn’t be “clear to a reasonable officer” that stealing $225,000 would violate the Constitution they’ve sworn to uphold.