Lying sob's above him. What a shame for his family.
LEO's, please don't ever try to pull over a dangerous lifelong criminal by yourself. Two yrs ago, this cop was set up by the absolute stupidity of the brass above him. His wife sued over it. Yes. This case is two years old. Anyone trying to tell me it's old news, shove it up your ass sideways.
If you're a cop in New Mexico, this is apparently what you're worth in 2023 dollars. Check how the payouts went. Completely shameful. Who made out? The attorneys.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
The video says the officer survived. So which is the correct out come? Says the POS got 35 years, MFer should have just been gutted alive and left for the buzzards to eat him
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
The video says the officer survived. So which is the correct out come? Says the POS got 35 years, MFer should have just been gutted alive and left for the buzzards to eat him
.Disregard it sent me to a different video
That was the officer that rammed the scumbag's truck. There's another youtube video where he is interviewed about his wounds. Messed him up good.
All those violations and arrests in CA and the guy was on the streets. That is where the initial blame lies. The cop was set up long before this played out and it was CA that began the set up.
The video says the officer survived. So which is the correct out come? Says the POS got 35 years, MFer should have just been gutted alive and left for the buzzards to eat him
.Disregard it sent me to a different video
That was the officer that rammed the scumbag's truck. There's another youtube video where he is interviewed about his wounds. Messed him up good. Officer La Garda, I believe.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons even if it would also benefit le in situations like this.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons.
The video says the officer survived. So which is the correct out come? Says the POS got 35 years, MFer should have just been gutted alive and left for the buzzards to eat him
.Disregard it sent me to a different video
That was the officer that rammed the scumbag's truck. There's another youtube video where he is interviewed about his wounds. Messed him up good. Officer La Garda, I believe.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons.
They are.
Not often since le are typically protected from paying for civil suits over rights violations by way of qualified immunity.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons even if it would also benefit le in situations like this.
What a moron. G'bye.
At least on this thread, You have no idea what you're talking about.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons even if it would also benefit le in situations like this.
What a moron. G'bye.
At least on this thread, You have no idea what you're talking about.
You are complaining about this incident not costing his bosses anything, not even a nickel.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons.
They are.
Not often since le are typically protected from paying for civil suits over rights violations by way of qualified immunity.
Without those Lawyers she would have got Zip. Nada. Zero.
They deserved every penny they earned.
Bullpuckey.
The family didn't get anywhere near enough. The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.
So you are in favor of abolishing immunity from law suits enjoyed by the LE community?
Go back and read my original post. I'm not going to respond to an ignorant question.
I didn't figure you wanted to put le on the civil hook for wronging peons.
They are.
Not often since le are typically protected from paying for civil suits over rights violations by way of qualified immunity.
Describe what qualified immunity is
QI is a creation of the supreme Court that insulates officers from civil suits when they have committed rights violations in some novel manner versus previous civil suits over rights violations.
"Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See: Pearson v. Callahan.
When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case"
Per the Cornell Law department
(See bolded portion. LE can clearly be sued)
Officer Jarrott did not violate anyones rights the day he was murdered.
Overall, they are on our side and stand in the way of chaos.
Videos don't bother me, that one did.
Officer De Garza is a BAMF! He had enough and made it end, took fire, got knocked on his ass by a bullet, jumped back in the fight and sent that POS to hell.
"Qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a “clearly established” statutory or constitutional right. “Qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably.” See: Pearson v. Callahan.
When determining whether a right was “clearly established,” courts consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant’s conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case"
Per the Cornell Law department
(See bolded portion. LE can clearly be sued)
I never said you can't be sued.
What I did say:
QI is a creation of the supreme Court that insulates officers from civil suits when they have committed rights violations in some novel manner versus previous civil suits over rights violations.
You wouldn't ask for QI unless someones sues you and you wouldn't be granted QI unless you had violated rights, although an officer can be denied QI(rarely) due to rights violations.
Overall, they are on our side and stand in the way of chaos.
Videos don't bother me, that one did.
Officer De Garza is a BAMF! He had enough and made it end, took fire, got knocked on his ass by a bullet, jumped back in the fight and sent that POS to hell.
It bothered me too, Dillonbuck. And yes sir, Officer De La Garza is one BAMF!
My whole reason for making this post was to try to discourage LEO's from trying to make a one man stop on a known lifelong criminal who is known to be carrying firearms at all times, regardless of instruction from brass morons above them. Question authority. Get backup.
Overall, they are on our side and stand in the way of chaos.
Videos don't bother me, that one did.
Officer De Garza is a BAMF! He had enough and made it end, took fire, got knocked on his ass by a bullet, jumped back in the fight and sent that POS to hell.
It bothered me to Dillonbuck. And yes sir, Officer De La Garza is one BAMF!
My whole reason for making this post was to try to discourage LEO's from trying to make a one man stop on a known lifelong criminal who is known to be carrying firearms at all times, regardless of instruction from brass morons above them. Question authority. Get backup.
Are you wanting to punish or protect the superiors?
Overall, they are on our side and stand in the way of chaos.
Videos don't bother me, that one did.
Officer De Garza is a BAMF! He had enough and made it end, took fire, got knocked on his ass by a bullet, jumped back in the fight and sent that POS to hell.
It bothered me to Dillonbuck. And yes sir, Officer De La Garza is one BAMF!
My whole reason for making this post was to try to discourage LEO's from trying to make a one man stop on a known lifelong criminal who is known to be carrying firearms at all times, regardless of instruction from brass morons above them. Question authority. Get backup.
Are you wanting to punish or protect the superiors?
Punish, of course. Their information and disregard for that officer's life sent that officer into a no win situation.
Overall, they are on our side and stand in the way of chaos.
Videos don't bother me, that one did.
Officer De Garza is a BAMF! He had enough and made it end, took fire, got knocked on his ass by a bullet, jumped back in the fight and sent that POS to hell.
It bothered me to Dillonbuck. And yes sir, Officer De La Garza is one BAMF!
My whole reason for making this post was to try to discourage LEO's from trying to make a one man stop on a known lifelong criminal who is known to be carrying firearms at all times, regardless of instruction from brass morons above them. Question authority. Get backup.
Are you wanting to punish or protect the superiors?
Punish, of course. Their information and disregard for that officer's life sent that officer into a no win situation.
Well you might want to start supporting the elimination of qualified immunity because on top of their positions never going to receive criminal penalties there is the civil suit protection:
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
I though Jarret was cavalier in his handling of Cueva, regardless of him knowing whether or not Cueva was a dangerous felon. Officers should be trained to be prepared for any person they come across attempting to end their life. Jarret let his guard down as Cueva was stepping out of the truck. Cost him his life.
In that case, good call by the court on granting QI to NMSP SGT. MARK MADRID, in his individual capacity, and NEW MEXICO STATE POLICE CHIEF TIM Q. JOHNSON. They couldn't have possibly known they did anything wrong.
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
I though Jarret was cavalier in his handling of Cueva, regardless of him knowing whether or not Cueva was a dangerous felon. Officers should be trained to be prepared for any person they come across attempting to end their life. Jarret let his guard down as Cueva was stepping out of the truck. Cost him his life.
RIP
Yeah. That was unfortunate and cost him his life. He was being way too considerate of that bastard cueva. When that bastard gave the officer a coup de grace in the head, I was really hoping that he was gonna get done in when the chase finally ended. Thankfully, he did.
All those violations and arrests in CA and the guy was on the streets. That is where the initial blame lies. The cop was set up long before this played out and it was CA that began the set up.
I HATE CA!
In reality, the politicians failed the officers and the citizens. The bad guy pulled the trigger but the politicians set up the whole scenario to get a good man killed.
There should be no individual immunity, everyone should be held accountable for their actions.
Apparently that is not a popular position or at least some want some sort of QI annulment when the rights of an le are violated, but want QI in place for festivities like a cop shooting a 10 year old in the leg.
If criminals were punished as they should be the gene pool would be thinned out. Yet how many are roaming freely just waiting to kill, rape, etc. again. I wouldn't blame officers if it was standard procedure to carry a riot gun in hand on every stop!
If criminals were punished as they should be the gene pool would be thinned out. Yet how many are roaming freely just waiting to kill, rape, etc. again. I wouldn't blame officers if it was standard procedure to carry a riot gun in hand on every stop!
His boss has tried to make sure le aren't encountering armed individuals.
We had a sheriff order a deputy to take a barricaded nut instead if waiting it out. . . 2nd floor apartment bedroom, they knew he had a rifle. Expected outcome. My opinion is said sherrif should be relieved of job.
We had a sheriff order a deputy to take a barricaded nut instead if waiting it out. . . 2nd floor apartment bedroom, they knew he had a rifle. Expected outcome. My opinion is said sherrif should be relieved of job.
We had a sheriff order a deputy to take a barricaded nut instead if waiting it out. . . 2nd floor apartment bedroom, they knew he had a rifle. Expected outcome. My opinion is said sherrif should be relieved of job.
"Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that “the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”
So you're upset with the 9th circuit as well?
Maybe you can alternate your bìtching posts, judges/le/judges/le....equally distribution of outrage.
Bad cops, bad prosecutors, and bad judges are a 3 legged stool. Why else would the judges decide that the officers couldn't possibly know that stealing cash is violating rights?
We had a sheriff order a deputy to take a barricaded nut instead if waiting it out. . . 2nd floor apartment bedroom, they knew he had a rifle. Expected outcome. My opinion is said sherrif should be relieved of job.
It is almost always the grunts who get deaded.
That Sheriff should be fired immediately.
Why? If you are ok with a cops getting a free pass for shooting a 10 year old, stealing $225k, destroying the wrong house, and so on, wanting the sheriff to suffer a downside makes no sense.
If criminals were punished as they should be the gene pool would be thinned out. Yet how many are roaming freely just waiting to kill, rape, etc. again. I wouldn't blame officers if it was standard procedure to carry a riot gun in hand on every stop!
His boss has tried to make sure le aren't encountering armed individuals.
I'm not clicking on your link but anything with the words "gun ban" is not the solution. There would be no repeat offenders if violent thugs were executed as they should be.
If criminals were punished as they should be the gene pool would be thinned out. Yet how many are roaming freely just waiting to kill, rape, etc. again. I wouldn't blame officers if it was standard procedure to carry a riot gun in hand on every stop!
His boss has tried to make sure le aren't encountering armed individuals.
I'm not clicking on your link but anything with the words "gun ban" is not the solution. There would be no repeat offenders if violent thugs were executed as they should be.
That was the Governor of New Mexico banning the possession of firearms in public.
Apparently gun ban is a(or the) solution to NMSP and other agencies.
I would guess there would be fewer offenders if .gov got out if the gun ban business, but that isn't a popular idea with .gov, their le branch, or supporters.
There’s a difference between those who actually do the job and those who are in the office. Qualified immunity only applies if an officer was doing his job in good faith and does not exclude them for intentional misconduct or violation of the law. Argue the point as much as you like but I guarantee you that police officers are sued more than most. Let’s strap a camera on you all day long and see how much of a saint you are. Guarantee you aren’t as high and mighty as you think.
There’s a difference between those who actually do the job and those who are in the office. Qualified immunity only applies if an officer was doing his job in good faith and does not exclude them for intentional misconduct or violation of the law. Argue the point as much as you like but I guarantee you that police officers are sued more than most. Let’s strap a camera on you all day long and see how much of a saint you are. Guarantee you aren’t as high and mighty as you think.
How does a person steal $225,000 in good faith? I didn't see a Nigerian prince or military coup leader listed as the victim filing the deprivation of rights civil suit on that one.
I am sure cops get sued a lot. The issue is le not being on the hook for the payout when their behavior violated rights, but just slightly different than rights were violated in another incident like the $225k.
Not saying it doesn’t happen. Never did. And yes, they shouldn’t be entitled to any kind of immunity. Also, you’re pointing out an act committed by few amongst many. What does this have to do with the original post other than you belaboring your personal opinion because you got a parking ticket once upon a time ago and thought you were wronged. I bet if we took a hard look at your chosen career field we’d find all kinds of bad actors. I believe that the OP shared a video regarding a police officer killed in the line of duty because of piss poor policy enacted by his superiors. Not sure how that relates to your opinion on a non related matter of $225K being stolen by some other police officers and qualified immunity. But keep hating for the sake of hating and I hope you never find yourself in a position where you’re praying to god for the corrupt police to show up and save you. I’m sure you’re capable of solving all that needs to be solved on your own.
"Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that “the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”
So you're upset with the 9th circuit as well?
Maybe you can alternate your bìtching posts, judges/le/judges/le....equally distribution of outrage.
Bad cops, bad prosecutors, and bad judges are a 3 legged stool. Why else would the judges decide that the officers couldn't possibly know that stealing cash is violating rights?
I just want you to bìtch equally. The only thing you post about is your hatred for cops. Spread the wealth fùckface
"Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that “the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”
So you're upset with the 9th circuit as well?
Maybe you can alternate your bìtching posts, judges/le/judges/le....equally distribution of outrage.
Bad cops, bad prosecutors, and bad judges are a 3 legged stool. Why else would the judges decide that the officers couldn't possibly know that stealing cash is violating rights?
I just want you to bìtch equally. The only thing you post about is your hatred for cops. Spread the wealth fùckface
I post about other stuff.
I don't have a hatred for cops.
Why don't you tell us how grown adults would be unable to know stealing is wrong because they are cops?
. I believe that the OP shared a video regarding a police officer killed in the line of duty because of piss poor policy enacted by his superiors. Not sure how that relates to your opinion on a non related matter of $225K being stolen by some other police officers and qualified immunity.
OP said
quote=local_dirt] . The stupid sons A bitches that lied about what they said and did to keep the payout down need a public hanging for what they did to that family. Personally responsible and didn't cost them a nickel.[/quote]
Want to know how the acts committed by the "stupid sons A bitches" superiors "didn't cost them a nickel"?
Big hint, it's the same thing that enabled colleagues of the "stupid sons A bitches" to steal $225k and not be on the hook for the civil suit payout due to the rights violations.
Seems OP is ok with the idea of police being protected by qualified immuniity against civil suits when they violate the rights of peons, but wants qualified immunity denied when police violate the rights of other police as was the case with Jerrott's death.
"Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that “the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”
So you're upset with the 9th circuit as well?
Maybe you can alternate your bìtching posts, judges/le/judges/le....equally distribution of outrage.
Bad cops, bad prosecutors, and bad judges are a 3 legged stool. Why else would the judges decide that the officers couldn't possibly know that stealing cash is violating rights?
I just want you to bìtch equally. The only thing you post about is your hatred for cops. Spread the wealth fùckface
I post about other stuff.
I don't have a hatred for cops.
Why don't you tell us how grown adults would be unable to know stealing is wrong because they are cops?
You bìtch. You bìtch about cops. 90% of your posts. But you don't bìtch about lawyers or judges. Bìtch equally, that's all.
Keep crying on the internet. That will fix everything lol
"Ninth Circuit briskly concluded that “the city officers are entitled to qualified immunity.”
So you're upset with the 9th circuit as well?
Maybe you can alternate your bìtching posts, judges/le/judges/le....equally distribution of outrage.
Bad cops, bad prosecutors, and bad judges are a 3 legged stool. Why else would the judges decide that the officers couldn't possibly know that stealing cash is violating rights?
I just want you to bìtch equally. The only thing you post about is your hatred for cops. Spread the wealth fùckface
I post about other stuff.
I don't have a hatred for cops.
Why don't you tell us how grown adults would be unable to know stealing is wrong because they are cops?
You bìtch. You bìtch about cops. 90% of your posts. But you don't bìtch about lawyers or judges. Bìtch equally, that's all.
Keep crying on the internet. That will fix everything lol
Coward
Just minutes ago your claim was I only post about cops, now it's 90%.
Why can't you keep your story straight? Is that related to why you are defending some of your colleagues stealing $225k?
Just minutes ago your claim was I only post about cops, now it's 90%.
Why can't you keep your story straight? Is that related to why you are defending some of your colleagues stealing $225k?
Keep bìtching. I've asked you multiple times if you've taken the time to do anything other than bìtch. You haven't. You aren't interested in doing. You are only concerned with bìtching. Bìtch on.
I wanted to keep in mind you might accidentally post not bìtching about cops. But outside if that....look at your own post history you dumb fùck, it's obvious.
Just minutes ago your claim was I only post about cops, now it's 90%.
Why can't you keep your story straight? Is that related to why you are defending some of your colleagues stealing $225k?
Keep bìtching. I've asked you multiple times if you've taken the time to do anything other than bìtch. You haven't. You aren't interested in doing. You are only concerned with bìtching. Bìtch on.
I wanted to keep in mind you might accidentally post not bìtching about cops. But outside if that....look at your own post history you dumb fùck, it's obvious.
No, you asked me if I pointed out the StreetCopTraining series to LE agencies that are already attending and enjoying it so you aren't keeping your story straight again.
Just minutes ago your claim was I only post about cops, now it's 90%.
Why can't you keep your story straight? Is that related to why you are defending some of your colleagues stealing $225k?
Keep bìtching. I've asked you multiple times if you've taken the time to do anything other than bìtch. You haven't. You aren't interested in doing. You are only concerned with bìtching. Bìtch on.
I wanted to keep in mind you might accidentally post not bìtching about cops. But outside if that....look at your own post history you dumb fùck, it's obvious.
No, you asked me if I pointed out the StreetCopTraining series to LE agencies that are already attending and enjoying it so you aren't keeping your story straight again.
No you stupid fùcking idiot. I asked if you if you had made your state's law enforcement certification board aware of the issue. News flash moron, if police don't get credit hours towards their certification, they won't take the training and their department dam sure won't pay for it. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know much....except to bìtch and moan on the internet.
You are the typical do nothing coward that can't even make a phone call or send an email. You want to complain, because that's all you've done your entire pathetic life.
Just minutes ago your claim was I only post about cops, now it's 90%.
Why can't you keep your story straight? Is that related to why you are defending some of your colleagues stealing $225k?
Keep bìtching. I've asked you multiple times if you've taken the time to do anything other than bìtch. You haven't. You aren't interested in doing. You are only concerned with bìtching. Bìtch on.
I wanted to keep in mind you might accidentally post not bìtching about cops. But outside if that....look at your own post history you dumb fùck, it's obvious.
No, you asked me if I pointed out the StreetCopTraining series to LE agencies that are already attending and enjoying it so you aren't keeping your story straight again.
No you stupid fùcking idiot. I asked if you if you had made your state's law enforcement certification board aware of the issue. News flash moron, if police don't get credit hours towards their certification, they won't take the training and their department dam sure won't pay for it. But you wouldn't know that because you don't know much....except to bìtch and moan on the internet.
You are the typical do nothing coward that can't even make a phone call or send an email. You want to complain, because that's all you've done your entire pathetic life.
Oh yeah, I bet all the folks wearing uniforms get really upset about le training of that nature.
Pretty sure the superiors could and should be on the hook administratively, criminally and civilly. Qualified immunity doesn’t protect you from squat in that respect. Been in it for 25 years and I’ve seen people in law enforcement fry for much less. If cops are seemingly getting away with anything these days chances are there is evidence that you’re not seeing or is being reported that exonerates them. A lot of times the public doesn’t get everything for reasons far and above understanding. Many times it’s to protect people in places that are simply no body’s damn business. I don’t know the facts surrounding the particular case you speak of but I doubt street level cops pocketed $225 K and got away with it for no good reason. That likely connects to much higher levels than street cops. Your concern and contempt would be better aimed at elected officials much higher on the food chain such as mayors, governors and up.
Pretty sure the superiors could and should be on the hook administratively, criminally and civilly. Qualified immunity doesn’t protect you from squat in that respect. Been in it for 25 years and I’ve seen people in law enforcement fry for much less. If cops are seemingly getting away with anything these days chances are there is evidence that you’re not seeing or is being reported that exonerates them. A lot of times the public doesn’t get everything for reasons far and above understanding. Many times it’s to protect people in places that are simply no body’s damn business. I don’t know the facts surrounding the particular case you speak of but I doubt street level cops pocketed $225 K and got away with it for no good reason. That likely connects to much higher levels than street cops. Your concern and contempt would be better aimed at elected officials much higher on the food chain such as mayors, governors and up.
Why be "pretty sure: when the civil suit where Jerrott's supervisors receive qualified immunity is available for viewing.
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the JESSOP V. CITY OF FRESNO 3 Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the JESSOP V. CITY OF FRESNO 3 Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
Well of course not. Stroppy10-4 got a dui back in 86 and won't let it go lol
Nope.
Giglio-Brady
We have the EES in NH (formerly the ‘Laurie’ list). It’s more comprehensive…….and you probably don’t want to delve into the CRC that our Police Standards and Training Council has established. Neither will fit the ‘no accountability’ agenda.
It’s irrelevant, though, since you’re unlikely to change your mind and I’m going to go to work tomorrow despite that.
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
Well of course not. Stroppy10-4 got a dui back in 86 and won't let it go lol
Nope.
Giglio-Brady
We have the EES in NH (formerly the ‘Laurie’ list). It’s more comprehensive…….and you probably don’t want to delve into the CRC that our Police Standards and Training Council has established. Neither will fit the ‘no accountability’ agenda.
It’s irrelevant, though, since you’re unlikely to change your mind and I’m going to go to work tomorrow despite that.
the civil suit where Jerrott's supervisors receive qualified immunity is available for viewing.
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
"Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity as there is no clearly established authority particularized to the facts of this case that would have informed Defendants that their actions violated Officer Jarrott's constitutional rights."
"The panel held that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant. For that reason, the City Officers were entitled to qualified immunity."
