The US Supreme Court Says Police Officers Can Use Force When They Feel its Warranted.

I support law enforcement personally and professionally. There are some really good people in ranks. That said, there are also quite a few that are at least problematic and at worst thugs with badges that bend or break rules at will.

I watched the George Floyd footage several times, read the reasoning from all sides and come back to my first instinct which was that regardless of what GF did or didn't do, he was killed by a callas group of cops that deserved a guilty verdict all day long. If you're that threatened or fearful of the job and what it entails, you need to go do something else, your life is not more valuable than anyone else's and you should be held to a higher standard because you're given more trust and power over citizens (which shouldn't be the case either frankly). Policing is very different than it was just 20 or 30 years ago and not in a good way.

We mock the left for their all or nothing blind support of every single instance and yet if we're going to defend them all just as blindly, we're no better.

a reply to: carewemust

This will only lead to vigilante justice and more suffering. Biden leading America to complete tyranny and eventual collapse.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

???

Biden hasn't appointed a single Supreme Court justice. The previous guy appointed three, giving the Republicans a strong hold on the court.

Outside of appointments, the President has zero impact on the Supreme Court.

So how does Biden play any role in this decision? There's plenty of legitimate things to dislike about him. When you start blaming him for things like this, it sounds like you're suffering from some BDS.

It appears to me that the alleged small government party is really about a tighter police state and less civil rights.

The only positive in this ruling is that the Supreme Court made it clear that if you violate someone's civil rights during an arrest or in the actions following it and it can be proven that you had reasonable knowledge you were doing this then you can be rightly sent to prison.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It appears to me that the alleged small government party is really about a tighter police state and less civil rights.

The only positive in this ruling is that the Supreme Court made it clear that if you violate someone's civil rights during an arrest or in the actions following it and it can be proven that you had reasonable knowledge you were doing this then you can be rightly sent to prison.

Now wait a minute guys.

The violent criminals acting up part is about ALL a "right winger" will want from LEO's.

Really, if they will just help us with the Violent criminals and the FBI handle the White collar criminals robbing people that are now operating without the government turning a blind eye to see, then we would always be happy.

Protecting our borders from criminals while vetting those who wish to actually be Americans isn't a dumb concept either. In that specific case, why would we want people bent on our destruction setting foot on our soil? Why would the Democrats encourage them to swamp the border? Then we see them literally send kids into strangers hands who are shady characters way too many times, and with no parents around some do disappear apparently from the reports.

a reply to: Justoneman

Qualified immunity protection isn't about 'violent criminals acting up', it's protecting people who knowingly violate your civil rights.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

???

Biden hasn't appointed a single Supreme Court justice. The previous guy appointed three, giving the Republicans a strong hold on the court.

Outside of appointments, the President has zero impact on the Supreme Court.

So how does Biden play any role in this decision? There's plenty of legitimate things to dislike about him. When you start blaming him for things like this, it sounds like you're suffering from some BDS.

Explain it to yourself what is happening like you would a child. If you can't see what one corrupt leader is doing, and how that gives free license to like minded people to do the same, then I can't help you. Same thing started happening after Obama was elected and it mirrors today.

originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: carewemust

I suppose I’m asking when you can’t use the law or peace I’d imagine it’s either # off or violence. I imagine there’s a lot of pain involved, supposing I come from the angle that one goes through the system the right way being delayed for months and probably lots of time and money lost to find out “I’m sorry, officer privilege. Good bye”

It means they don’t even want to hear a grievance and they don’t care about your time. It’s all so clear. Avoid the police like you avoid other people spider sense says danger danger mr Robinson. It’s clear. Don’t call the cops call your neighbor if you got one you trust

OK. Thankyou for clarifying. I wasn't sure of your stance yesterday.

a reply to: carewemust

The 2 cases that you are referring to...the cops absolutely had the right to act. In one, the guy had a knife and was refusing to yield. He was shot with bean bags and survived.

The other guy raised a hammer over his head and stepped towards police from behind covering. He was shot and killed.

Both seem wholly reasonable on their surface.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

It appears to me that the alleged small government party is really about a tighter police state and less civil rights.

The only positive in this ruling is that the Supreme Court made it clear that if you violate someone's civil rights during an arrest or in the actions following it and it can be proven that you had reasonable knowledge you were doing this then you can be rightly sent to prison.

A realistic challenge needs to be presented. A challenge where the person shot has a weapon they refuse to yield is not a good case for that. Im thinking more like Rodney King, where there is little doubt that the behavior was unwarranted.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Im thinking more like Rodney King, where there is little doubt that the behavior was unwarranted.

There's been enough examples in recent memory, not sure why these two were the ones pushed.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Not suprising. Everything is all Biden or all Trump's fault. Fanaticism on both sides.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Im thinking more like Rodney King, where there is little doubt that the behavior was unwarranted.

There's been enough examples in recent memory, not sure why these two were the ones pushed.

Didn't really want to win I guess, you're right..far more egregious cases out there.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They were pushed because the people whose lives depended on the outcome pushed them.

These were specific cases involving specific litigants. They were not some philosophical discussion of who has what rights. The opinions of the judges are now precedent, but establishing precedent was not the purpose of these cases.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
They were pushed because the people whose lives depended on the outcome pushed them.

I'm not following what you mean by that.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Well...Rodney King did flee and elude in a Yugo that hit speeds around 100mph in the streets of LA so “not having a weapon” is up in the air as he certainly represented a danger to himself and others. The other people in the car exited and cooperated fully with the police with no incident. King was the driver and refused to comply to the simplest command.

Most importantly, the media had the full tape with these things on it yet edited it to tell a narrative in the space of a sound bite. The media should be 100% responsible for the LA Riots and sympathetic riots in other cities as a result. An argument can be made that the Floyd Riots are a continuation of the LA Rodney King Riots...again fueled by the media by framing narrative.

Does Floyd being a terrible person negate that he suffered a terrible death? No. But we used to call that karma...live by the sword, die by the sword sort of thing.

But making martyrs out of terrible people doesn’t really help sway a point with the informed that already have an opinion but will entertain discussion.

a reply to: Ahabstar

Does Floyd being a terrible person negate that he suffered a terrible death? No. But we used to call that karma...live by the sword, die by the sword sort of thing.

Karma, is one thing, but at the hands of govt paid goons is another. JM2C

a reply to: vonclod

Would you feel better if it were a gang banger that kneeled on Floyd? What if he tried to rip off the drug dealer that was in the car with the fake $20 and the dealer killed him instead? Does that make Floyd a better person?

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: vonclod

Would you feel better if it were a gang banger that kneeled on Floyd? What if he tried to rip off the drug dealer that was in the car with the fake $20 and the dealer killed him instead? Does that make Floyd a better person?

It wouldn't bother me as much, go figure. Maybe because the street thug has no immunity, whils the govt ones do..mostly

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

LIkely, many were settled and never made it that far.

Shooting a man lying prone in a hotel hallway is hard to defend against, even with immunity.