Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Media Matters)   Fox News now claims ending qualified immunity would end law enforcement   (mediamatters.org) divider line
    More: Facepalm, Tucker Carlson, Police, Media Matters, police officer, end law enforcement  
•       •       •

960 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2020 at 1:45 PM (7 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



66 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-06-26 9:22:09 AM  
And nothing of value was lost.
 
2020-06-26 9:41:44 AM  
Great.

Thanks for the update.
 
2020-06-26 10:42:54 AM  
If you can't do your job without blanket permission to break the law, you can't do your job. Bye.
 
2020-06-26 12:04:53 PM  
If a bunch of heavily-armed wannabe-Dredd yahoos breaking the law with impunity is what Tucker calls "law enforcement", so much the better, get rid of that shiat and replace it with something else. Replace it with an organisation whose primary goal is to uphold the law, not one whose primary goal is to protect their legal right to violate it whenever they feel like doing some free crimes.
 
2020-06-26 12:11:58 PM  
If you are hazy on Qualified Immunity, this video should help:
https://twitter.com/thekaranmenon/sta​t​us/1270004558933221377?s=20
 
2020-06-26 12:51:48 PM  
So Faux News says something stupid. Thanks for confirming it's a day ending in -y, subs. I was wondering about that.
 
2020-06-26 1:23:06 PM  
Well, it hasn't really worked out well for the last 60 years and crime has been going down anyway. Good riddance.
 
2020-06-26 1:26:09 PM  
Fascism: it's what's for dinner.
 
2020-06-26 1:38:22 PM  
They never say the loud part quiet, do they..
 
2020-06-26 1:47:06 PM  
Listening to Faux News got us into this mess. Maybe let's stop doing that.
 
2020-06-26 1:47:19 PM  

edmo: If you can't do your job without blanket permission to break the law, you can't do your job. Bye.


A thousand times this.

I regret that I have but one smart to give to this take.
 
2020-06-26 1:47:32 PM  
'K
 
2020-06-26 1:48:11 PM  
Well it has worked out so well for all these years why go changing it now? Besides how are our heros in blue going to uphold the law if they cant break the law?
 
2020-06-26 1:48:16 PM  

edmo: If you can't do your job without blanket permission to break the law, you can't do your job. Bye.


Exactly!
 
2020-06-26 1:49:30 PM  
How can laws prohibiting murder be enforced with qualified immunity in the way?
 
2020-06-26 1:50:25 PM  
"They could be bankrupted they could lose their homes."

So they'd have to make better decisions and think about what they are doing.

This cannot stand!
 
2020-06-26 1:50:38 PM  
Ending immunity from prosecution for violating the law will lead to lawless anarchy.

Got it.
 
2020-06-26 1:50:39 PM  
sltrib.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-26 1:50:40 PM  
i.kym-cdn.comView Full Size
 
2020-06-26 1:51:06 PM  
I'd okay with that result.
 
2020-06-26 1:51:56 PM  
The pay and vacations are nice, but all cops are really only serving for the free murders.
 
2020-06-26 1:52:25 PM  

Free Radical: "They could be bankrupted they could lose their homes."


Unlike the people the cops trample over.
 
2020-06-26 1:53:21 PM  
Fine, keep qualified immunity, I'm going to militarize the EPA and have them murder everyone in a high enough income bracket to be suspected of putting lead in the water of poor neighborhoods.

Does that work for you Republicans?
Law breaking is law breaking and I know you're committing crimes!
 
2020-06-26 1:53:43 PM  
Fox News says a lot of stupid stuff. It's kind of their thing.
 
2020-06-26 1:54:41 PM  
Don't they usually argue against "activist judges"? QI is an invention of the courts. There's no legislation behind it. The conservatives at Fox News should want it gone.

Oh, that's right. They're full of shiat and believe in nothing but "gimme gimme gimme and fark everyone else."
 
2020-06-26 1:54:49 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Fine, keep qualified immunity, I'm going to militarize the EPA and have them murder everyone in a high enough income bracket to be suspected of putting lead in the water of poor neighborhoods.

Does that work for you Republicans?
Law breaking is law breaking and I know you're committing crimes!


William Atherton already has too much power.
 
2020-06-26 1:54:50 PM  
It's the end of the world as we know it.

Ummm... good.
 
2020-06-26 1:55:06 PM  
Who watches the watchers?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-26 1:55:24 PM  
Unintentional honesty is best honesty
 
2020-06-26 1:56:23 PM  

Nadie_AZ: If you are hazy on Qualified Immunity, this video should help:
https://twitter.com/thekaranmenon/stat​us/1270004558933221377?s=20


Wow, that pretty much sums it up.  Damn!
 
2020-06-26 1:56:42 PM  
They won't budge. They haven't budged.

Cops have shown absolutely no inclination to listen to protesters (that wasn't a trick to get their tear gas ready while the protesters' guards were down).

You will have to go THROUGH the police to change them, since they are utterly incapable of considering working WITH you.

Tear down the system. Fire everyone, seize their pensions, rewrite everything, and hire only smart, moral people this time.
 
2020-06-26 1:57:02 PM  
Law enforcement as we know it. That's the key part they're leaving out.

And you know what?

GOOD.
 
2020-06-26 1:57:07 PM  
[Well_Bye.gif]
 
2020-06-26 1:58:01 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Purple_Urkle: Fine, keep qualified immunity, I'm going to militarize the EPA and have them murder everyone in a high enough income bracket to be suspected of putting lead in the water of poor neighborhoods.

Does that work for you Republicans?
Law breaking is law breaking and I know you're committing crimes!

William Atherton already has too much power.


Fine, let's militarize the:
IRS, FEC, CPS, HHS, Inspectors General, Fire Marshals, Sergeant-at-Arms in Congress and OSHA too!

LAW & ORDER!!!
 
2020-06-26 1:59:32 PM  
Can we form peace keepers? Instead of cops or police?
 
2020-06-26 1:59:38 PM  
FTA: "Qualified immunity has worked so well because police officers, maybe more than anyone else in society, must make difficult split-second decisions on the job, and a lot, they do it constantly. Whether to arrest someone, whether to conduct a search, whether to use force against a suspect."

It's strange to hear this kind of bs presented as an argument against accountability.

I have a job related to medicine.  I'm not directly dealing with patients, but the reality is: if I screw up badly enough at my job, somebody could die.  I knew that when I applied, and I chose to take that on - just like every LEO in the world knew what their job would involve, when they started.  It's not "unfair" to hold someone accountable for their actions.

The worship needs to stop.
 
2020-06-26 1:59:53 PM  

Purple_Urkle: Kumana Wanalaia: Purple_Urkle: Fine, keep qualified immunity, I'm going to militarize the EPA and have them murder everyone in a high enough income bracket to be suspected of putting lead in the water of poor neighborhoods.

Does that work for you Republicans?
Law breaking is law breaking and I know you're committing crimes!

William Atherton already has too much power.

Fine, let's militarize the:
IRS, FEC, CPS, HHS, Inspectors General, Fire Marshals, Sergeant-at-Arms in Congress and OSHA too!

LAW & ORDER!!!


EMPTY NEST!!!
 
2020-06-26 2:00:48 PM  
They're forgetting the next bit.

"Enging qualified immunity would end law enforcement... as it exists now".

Sounds like the desirable outcome for regular law-abiding people.
 
2020-06-26 2:02:21 PM  
Time to repost this:

Sir Robert Peel's (father of the modern police force) Nine Principles of Policing, from 1829

PRINCIPLE 1"The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder."
PRINCIPLE 2"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions."
PRINCIPLE 3"Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public."
PRINCIPLE 4"The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force."
PRINCIPLE 5"Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law."
PRINCIPLE 6"Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient."
PRINCIPLE 7"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
PRINCIPLE 8"Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary."
PRINCIPLE 9"The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."


Don't see anything in there about qualified immunity.
 
2020-06-26 2:03:28 PM  
Qualified immunity as it was originally formulated makes sense and is necessary: law enforcement should be shielded from criminals continually frivolously suing the police in an attempt to avoid prosecution or to harass arresting officers. I get it.

But then the states started broadening its meaning to use-of-force incidents with vaguer and vaguer terms for what "reasonable" means. And here we are.
 
2020-06-26 2:04:30 PM  
If cops didn't act like an occupying force answerable to no one, maybe this wouldn't be an issue.
 
2020-06-26 2:08:53 PM  
Cool! But no, really. Imagine what it'd be like if, like many other Americans, on or off the job, cops had that moment of "my ass is grass if I fark up here" before proceeding to fark up. Why, the job might become some intolerable rigmarole to people who just want to power trip all day and maybe kill someone and get away with it.
 
2020-06-26 2:13:55 PM  

PlaidJaguar: Purple_Urkle: Kumana Wanalaia: Purple_Urkle: Fine, keep qualified immunity, I'm going to militarize the EPA and have them murder everyone in a high enough income bracket to be suspected of putting lead in the water of poor neighborhoods.

Does that work for you Republicans?
Law breaking is law breaking and I know you're committing crimes!

William Atherton already has too much power.

Fine, let's militarize the:
IRS, FEC, CPS, HHS, Inspectors General, Fire Marshals, Sergeant-at-Arms in Congress and OSHA too!

LAW & ORDER!!!

EMPTY NEST!!!


Do you want Duggars?
That's how you get Duggars.
 
2020-06-26 2:15:52 PM  
If FOX is courting special cops with a special media message, someone should look into what makes for a strong drug/human smuggling operation or other criminal enterprise quid pro quo perk.  Scratch mine and I'll scratch yours.
 
2020-06-26 2:20:04 PM  
The legal doctrine of Qualified Immunity didn't even exist until 1967, when SCOTUS invented it in Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967).

The case was from the Civil Rights era, a group of 15 Episcopal priests were Freedom Riders, and were arrested on token, obviously fabricated charges of "breach of the peace" by a local cop in Jackson, Mississippi when the cop learned why the priests were sitting together in a cafe (they were having a meal together before taking the bus on the next step of their journey).  The cop then declared their assembly unlawful and arrested them all for "breach of the peace".

The Judge immediately threw the case out, and the priests sued in civil court. . .and when it got to SCOTUS, SCOTUS ruled in favor of the cop, basically saying that being a cop is tough, so they should be immune to suits for things like abuse of their power, because policework involves a lot of discretion.

Qualified Immunity is newer than Star Trek.  It's not like it's required for enforcing the law.
 
2020-06-26 2:22:19 PM  

Persnickety: Time to repost this:

Sir Robert Peel's (father of the modern police force) Nine Principles of Policing, from 1829

PRINCIPLE 1"The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder."
PRINCIPLE 2"The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police actions."
PRINCIPLE 3"Police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public."
PRINCIPLE 4"The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force."
PRINCIPLE 5"Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to the public opinion but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law."
PRINCIPLE 6"Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient."
PRINCIPLE 7"Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence."
PRINCIPLE 8"Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary."
PRINCIPLE 9"The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it."


Don't see anything in there about qualified immunity.


American law enforcement rather takes a different take on the profession from another British source:

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-06-26 2:22:44 PM  
Just think of what it would mean if something such as qualified immunity was applied to every profession.  This would put malpractice lawyers out of business.  Now I'm conflicted...
 
2020-06-26 2:24:33 PM  
If cops are breaking the law so much that ending immunity would be a problem, then they deserve to be abolished.
 
2020-06-26 2:26:52 PM  
Hmm....so it's "if you don't break the law, you have nothing to worry about" for us, but qualified immunity for them?

Seems to me the only good cop is a dead cop.
 
2020-06-26 2:30:10 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Qualified immunity as it was originally formulated makes sense and is necessary: law enforcement should be shielded from criminals continually frivolously suing the police in an attempt to avoid prosecution or to harass arresting officers. I get it.

But then the states started broadening its meaning to use-of-force incidents with vaguer and vaguer terms for what "reasonable" means. And here we are.


Except the actual case that lead to it, Pierson v. Ray, had nothing to do with that.

The actual case that caused SCOTUS to create the doctrine was where a corrupt cop in the deep South arrested a group of priests that were Freedom Riders  He saw a group of 15 priests sitting in a cafe and wondered what was up, he asked them, they told who they were and what they were doing, so he arrested the whole crowd of priests having lunch for "breach of the peace".

The charge was immediately thrown out by the local Judge, and the priests sued in civil court for wrongful arrest and SCOTUS upheld the arrest and invented the doctrine of qualified immunity to say that they couldn't sue the cop for wrongfully arresting them, talking about how much law enforcement relies on discretion and judgment and hard calls and it's such a stressful occupation that they deserve a lot of discretion and benefit of the doubt. ..
. . .for a case that was literally arresting a group of priests that were quietly eating a meal in a cafe, just because they were on their way to a civil rights protest.

So, bullshiat on the idea that Qualified Immunity is needed to protect against frivolous lawsuits.  That's what the FOP and other cop unions have used to justify it in the last 50+ years when people ask why they're above the law, but that is NOT why it was established.

It was established so police could harass and abuse their authority on civil rights protesters without consequence.  That's right in the plain black-and-white facts of the case that created the doctrine.
 
Displayed 50 of 66 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter




In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.