Should you talk with the Police?

[Turpentine21]

My name is ____________ and I will provide a full statement after consult with counsel. Then STHU. Repeat as needed. Never ever offer more.

I'm thinking along these same lines. And just say, "I'd rather wait until I calm down and speak to my lawyer". "I'll be glad to give a statement after speaking to counsel". I certainly would want to calm down and have my wits about me. If I had to say something it would be". I was in fear for my life. They were in my home and threatened to kill me. I had no alternative.

 

[Bob Wright]

For those that were in my CCW class, there were certainly a few that alarmed me with questions they asked. And there was that one guy who insisted he could drag a body back into his house. I thought the instructor was going to ask him to leave.
As for me, I left with a completely different perspective, as the liability I carry drawing a weapon in a situation can have real consequences to myself or other people near me.
The lessons learned should have taken the "cowboy" out of anyone in that class. The class was very good and I got more out of that, than the benefit of just holding a card.

 

[bdlesh]

Qualified immunity has nothing to do with criminal penalties or laws, it is solely a protection against civil liability, and is ONLY applicable when an officer acts in a manner that is NOT in violation of clearly established law or civil rights, and is acting within their scope of duties, and acting in good faith. Those officers that obviously violate clearly established laws and/or are not acting in good faith are (and should be) fully liable to criminal penalties and/or civil lawsuits.

An example, would be if I attempted a traffic stop on a motorcycle with a passenger, going 105 mph in a 70 mph zone. After I initiate my emergency lights to initiate the stop, the driver of the motorcycle accelerates to a speed of 135+ mph, endangering everyone else around, and a pursuit begins. During the pursuit, the driver of the motorcycle ends up crashing. In the crash, the passenger of the motorcycle is killed. Without qualified immunity, I could, as an individual that was doing my lawful job with good faith intentions, be successfully sued by the family of the motorcycle PASSENGER, even though the passenger was killed at the actions of the driver, because I had no lawful right to stop the passenger, only the driver, as the passenger had broken no laws, even though the passenger had no control over the driver's actions. Does that seem correct to you? Because that and more, is what reality would be like for law enforcement officers without qualified immunity.

I totally understand that you said and agree with that part. What I am talking about is when they do break laws and end up costing taxpayers millions. Here is an example.

 

[codyadams]

I totally understand that you said and agree with that part. What I am talking about is when they do break laws and end up costing taxpayers millions. Here is an example.

I fail to see how that is in any way related to qualified immunity. There are several issues here.

For one, you post a video from Facebook, which has no information in the video on the circumstances surrounding the incident. Did the officers run the plate and it came back stolen? Was there an atl (attempt to locate) of a vehicle matching that description in the area? Was there any other reasons for the officers to detain them? Maybe, maybe not, who knows, the video didn't cover the entirety of the scenario, and it kept skipping and jumping around even while it was playing, leaving out portions of the interaction. That should be a red flag to anyone looking for the truth and not just attempting to push a narrative. People jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on ignorance because of videos like this is a huge problem in our society. They get enough of the story to get lots of attention and views and throw it up on social media saying "look at this look at this!!" All while often leaving out important facts surrounding the scenario that would change the perception, so as to deceive the public into believing whatever narrative they want to push.

Secondly, even if the officers had no reason to detain them, and the narrative actually does follow along with what the video is attempting to portray, than qualified immunity will not apply to those officers. There is very clearly established law in the 4th amendment against unlawful search and seizure, that people do not have to provide identification unless they are being stopped or detained for a lawful reason, an officer cannot force someone to give them id in a consensual contact. They can ask for it, but if you get told to pound sand, you pound sand, no big deal. If the scenario is in fact as the video attempts to portray, then qualified immunity wouldn't apply because the officers are violating their 4th amendment rights.

The only reason here why the individual officers weren't the main target of the lawsuit, is they won't have deep enough pockets to satisfy those fileing the lawsuit. You think your gonna get several million bucks out of a couple cops? So instead of suing them for their personal actions, they saw dollar signs, and skipped over the individual officers, and sued the department, most likely alleging that they failed to train the officers properly, which lead to a violation of the civil rights of those people, and they will get more money. And IF the full story is as this video portrays, then rightfully so. The department should have had things like that covered extensively in their FTO period, and supervisor oversight should have caught onto these kind of actions and stopped them in their tracks. 4th amendment is day 1 stuff in training in my department, and all other departments I have ever known.

Now, if the Department DID in fact, intentionally train those officers and did in fact, tell those officers that they can, at any time, for any reason, make someone show their id regardless of the kind of encounter, and there is proof of this faulty training, then yes, the officers would be protected under qualified immunity, but only because they were acting in a manner consistent with documented training that they received. However, the department or training agency would be directly liable.

If you do something at your job, exactly as you have been trained to do, and as your employer has trained all the other employees before and after you, when the employer should have known better, but they trained you like that anyway, and you do not know any other way of doing your job, but someone got hurt or violated in some way, because of you doing your job exactly how you were trained to do it, is it right for you to be at fault? No, it is not. And that isn't just me saying that, it's the high courts. You were acting as you were trained. It is the fault of the training agency that should have known better.

That is a big part of qualified immunity. The other part is related to circumstances that simply haven't happened yet, and there is no clearly established law or method of operation surrounding them, and there is no training on how to handle these specific circumstances. You act in a manner consistent with how any other prudent person may act, but bad things still happen. That is the other side of qualified immunity. Law enforcement deals with a vast number of things, it's a job where you can never say you have seen it all, because there is always something new or crazy or unprecedented that can happen. That is why the other part of qualified immunity exists, and is necessary.

If that video is portraying the whole story, than those people were illegally detained for 70 minutes. They subsequently received $117,857.00 per minute of detainment, minus maybe half that in legal fees, on the high end. They were paid their dues for the violation. As far as the department keeping the officers, and subsequently promoting them? Well, it's a Facebook video, I would refer to the second half of my second paragraph. Who knows what actually happened, and why, or the circumstances surrounding it. That is not standard practice.

This was a very long response, but it seems there is some misunderstanding as to what qualified immunity actually is in law enforcement. There is enough misinformation being spread about law enforcement by the liberal people and media. I feel if there is anywhere that needs to have the facts, and NOT be spreading false information, it's a place like this, with the good kind of people we have here.

 

[cape cove]

Fair enough. Perhaps the old guy is full of it haha, I’ll take his ideas with a grain of salt

I think you are missing the point the "old guy" is making about the warning shot. It is to be shot after everything is over and before the police arrive. or at least this is how I would take it.

 

[bdlesh]

I fail to see how that is in any way related to qualified immunity. There are several issues here.

For one, you post a video from Facebook, which has no information in the video on the circumstances surrounding the incident. Did the officers run the plate and it came back stolen? Was there an atl (attempt to locate) of a vehicle matching that description in the area? Was there any other reasons for the officers to detain them? Maybe, maybe not, who knows, the video didn't cover the entirety of the scenario, and it kept skipping and jumping around even while it was playing, leaving out portions of the interaction. That should be a red flag to anyone looking for the truth and not just attempting to push a narrative. People jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on ignorance because of videos like this is a huge problem in our society. They get enough of the story to get lots of attention and views and throw it up on social media saying "look at this look at this!!" All while often leaving out important facts surrounding the scenario that would change the perception, so as to deceive the public into believing whatever narrative they want to push.

Secondly, even if the officers had no reason to detain them, and the narrative actually does follow along with what the video is attempting to portray, than qualified immunity will not apply to those officers. There is very clearly established law in the 4th amendment against unlawful search and seizure, that people do not have to provide identification unless they are being stopped or detained for a lawful reason, an officer cannot force someone to give them id in a consensual contact. They can ask for it, but if you get told to pound sand, you pound sand, no big deal. If the scenario is in fact as the video attempts to portray, then qualified immunity wouldn't apply because the officers are violating their 4th amendment rights.

The only reason here why the individual officers weren't the main target of the lawsuit, is they won't have deep enough pockets to satisfy those fileing the lawsuit. You think your gonna get several million bucks out of a couple cops? So instead of suing them for their personal actions, they saw dollar signs, and skipped over the individual officers, and sued the department, most likely alleging that they failed to train the officers properly, which lead to a violation of the civil rights of those people, and they will get more money. And IF the full story is as this video portrays, then rightfully so. The department should have had things like that covered extensively in their FTO period, and supervisor oversight should have caught onto these kind of actions and stopped them in their tracks. 4th amendment is day 1 stuff in training in my department, and all other departments I have ever known.

Now, if the Department DID in fact, intentionally train those officers and did in fact, tell those officers that they can, at any time, for any reason, make someone show their id regardless of the kind of encounter, and there is proof of this faulty training, then yes, the officers would be protected under qualified immunity, but only because they were acting in a manner consistent with documented training that they received. However, the department or training agency would be directly liable.

If you do something at your job, exactly as you have been trained to do, and as your employer has trained all the other employees before and after you, when the employer should have known better, but they trained you like that anyway, and you do not know any other way of doing your job, but someone got hurt or violated in some way, because of you doing your job exactly how you were trained to do it, is it right for you to be at fault? No, it is not. And that isn't just me saying that, it's the high courts. You were acting as you were trained. It is the fault of the training agency that should have known better.

That is a big part of qualified immunity. The other part is related to circumstances that simply haven't happened yet, and there is no clearly established law or method of operation surrounding them, and there is no training on how to handle these specific circumstances. You act in a manner consistent with how any other prudent person may act, but bad things still happen. That is the other side of qualified immunity. Law enforcement deals with a vast number of things, it's a job where you can never say you have seen it all, because there is always something new or crazy or unprecedented that can happen. That is why the other part of qualified immunity exists, and is necessary.

If that video is portraying the whole story, than those people were illegally detained for 70 minutes. They subsequently received $117,857.00 per minute of detainment, minus maybe half that in legal fees, on the high end. They were paid their dues for the violation. As far as the department keeping the officers, and subsequently promoting them? Well, it's a Facebook video, I would refer to the second half of my second paragraph. Who knows what actually happened, and why, or the circumstances surrounding it. That is not standard practice.

This was a very long response, but it seems there is some misunderstanding as to what qualified immunity actually is in law enforcement. There is enough misinformation being spread about law enforcement by the liberal people and media. I feel if there is anywhere that needs to have the facts, and NOT be spreading false information, it's a place like this, with the good kind of people we have here.

The cops should have to carry liability insurance or take it from thr police union to pay for their crimes. Why do innocent citizens have to pay when they take a power trip?
I am 100% behind good cops. They do an amazing job difficult job. It's the bad cops that believe they can make law on the side of the road that bother me. I find it amazing how little cops actually know about the laws. I know they are trained to do everything they can to get you on some charge, even if they have to create one. In this video the people did nothing wrong , broke no laws and were treated like public enemy #1. Thr cop tried to force them to give him their ID and when they refused, he went into creating mode. He never told them why he chose to harass them. The obstruction ******** is just that, a way to say....you haven't done anything wrong....so I will pull out the obstruction card. Same goes for the license plate light crap. If you can't read the license plate while your headlight are shining on it....you have no business coating a gun. Cops like this are why people hate having any interaction with them. I have never had any use for a cop in the last 63 years.....and pretty sure won't have any use for them.

 

[Laguna Freak]

A 77-year-old woman confronted 3 person home invaders. She shot and killed one of the perps. She then held one of the three at gunpoint 'til the police arrived. She refused to make a statement to the police.

The police only had, "Person A (Homeowner) shot an killed another person B." The police, understandably, arrested the killer, Person A, homeowner. Without bail. Until the story unraveled that the dead person was part of a home invader.

https://www.gunsamerica.com/digest/77-year-old-homeowner-arrested-after-shooting-burglary-suspect/

What are we supposed to do in a situation like this? We would, probably, full of Adrenalin and might say stupid statements.


Waidmannsheil!

The only thing you might say is; “I was in fear for my life. I need to speak to my lawyer.”

 

[xsn10s]

I think you are missing the point the "old guy" is making about the warning shot. It is to be shot after everything is over and before the police arrive. or at least this is how I would take it.

I understood the point and I think he did also. It really doesn't matter because it's a poor thing to do. It increases the liability of a innocent bystander getting shot or injured. It will be scrutinized whether you were in real fear for your life . And in the end you'll be making false statements that could be proven against you.