VloĆŸit
- Äas pĆidĂĄn 1. 08. 2024
- Join us for another interesting edition of Roadside Chat where Anthony Bandiero teaches law enforcement officers best practices and clarifies legal issues officers face every day. đȘ
â Drop a like and subscribe, thank you for your support! đ„°
đš Do have another roadside chat question? Send it here: www.bluetogold.com/show
Blue to Gold Training:
đ»Class Schedules - www.bluetogold.com/calendar
đ»On-demand Trainings - university.bluetogold.com/
đ»Free Legal Webinar Trainings - www.bluetogold.com/calendar?c...
đ»Book Store and Training Materials - www.bluetogold.com/store
Connect with us, learn us more. We keep our updates and news posted on social media:
đ»Facebook - / bluetogold
đ»Instagram - / bluetogold
đ»Twitter - / bluetogold
đ»LinkedIn - / bluetogold
đ»TikTok - / bluetogoldtraining
#LawEnforcementTraining #PoliceTraining #LegalEducation #qualifiedimmunity #constitutionaldecision #protection #constitutionallaw
" Learn the Law " Thats a new idea asking Law Enforcement Officers to Learn the law, there s a first for everything.
It's interesting because this is exactly the end game that is desired by many people who want change in qualified immunity. I am sure there are some lawyers who are chomping at the bit. But why are citizens accountable for laws that they didn't know about not the standard for those enforcing the law. I can see qualified immunity for situations where they crack a rib while performing CPR. But it's reliance on more than these incidental instances has basically ruining its protection for other officers.
Meanwhile, officers manufacture and twist laws to coerce and lock up the citizens. If anyone should have a clear understanding of the law, it's the tyrants.
If qualified immunity worked as it is described, fine... but what really happens is court throws out case without addressing the actual issue.
Better advice would be maybe don't violate people's rights. Officials that approach every encounter with the public with a courteous and professional attitude are probably going to be far less likely to violate someone's rights. Also, stop over policing. Not every infraction is worth going the extra mile to enforce. Police have discretion... use it. Lastly, if at the end of an encounter, the only thing you are arresting someone for is resisting arrest and or obstruction, you probably violated someone's rights or at a minimum are over policing.
Jim, thanks for the feedback.
I agree fully with Jim Cason.
Agreed but the matters you mention are a matter of policy and lack of supervision not a violation of rights. A lot of issues could be solved with a stop in micro enforcing and a start in eye contact and a heart felt "hello, how are you today? Do the job when it's time to do the job. Basic manners. Just my opinion.
police and humans have discretion, but humans have no protection from liability ergo consequences of violating another's rights
The only way to get the cops to toe the line is make them financially responsible for their actions and not the taxpayers.
Cool. Put me in that position and understand the flip side. Every complaint made, I'm sueing. You call me because of your neighbors vicious dog and I get bit? I'm sueing you and your neighbor. You call me because your home was burglarized and I cut myself on broken glass? I'm sueing you. I pull you over because you violate a traffic law and twist my ankle while approaching your vehicle? I'm sueing you. Etc, etc...
@@Splube Seems that you don't understand Workmen's Compensation? You don't get to sue if you are injured while at work, you already have insurance for that.
@@Splubethatâs because youâre a
Pu$$y and a coward just like the Uvalde cops.
But shouldn't the officer be held personally responsible? I've been an EMT for years and know that if I screw up, the private ambulance company or local municipality isn't going to cover me.
When I was taking the training, they reminded us over and over again, with personal situations as examples that we can be personally responsible for our poor choices if we do somethings. And talk about a thankless job? When you look at how much we make your going to cringe.
Just like the cops say to citizens. "If you are not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about"
No one should be above the law
All cops got to do is follow their policy , the constitution , & and have ras when contacting the public unless you see a crime in progress . Videos are surfacing everyday , old and new of cops violating citizens rights .
actually liability insurance is the right course
Dick Gregory rip did a big lecture about this and says the same thing
immune from liability..
Be as policied up as possible, but if they are unable to be held liable those monies will sit.
Former LEO and FF/EMT-P qualified immunity is destroying pur constitution. As a paramedic if I screwed up I faced not only law suit and possible prison time. Because of this I made sure that I followed my med dir orders and state guidelines. Should be the same for law enforcement
Our government was formed with the notion that anyone who has unchecked power will abuse that power. That's what is behind our checks and balances. Police are not immune from corruption. Now that everyone has a camera we are seeing more and more police blatantly abusing power. Police officers who violate the civil rights of citizens, or look the other way when other officers break the law must be held liable. Many Americans are appalled at all of the bad cops videos. Police should be held to higher standards then the population in general. The rates of domestic abuse and substance abuse among police officers is 2 to 4 times of general public. There is another group of Americans with those rates as well, the Hell's Angeles/one percent motorcycle gangs. Not holding police officers accountable has made being an honest officer more difficult. The likely hood of someone joining the police only to become corrupted is higher thanks to qualified immunity and police self investigatory power Police unions make this all the worse by protecting bad cops. Like everyone else police should be held accountable for their actions. Not doing so not only makes citizens less safe. It also makes officers more likely to have a wide range of personal liabilities and problems. Every cop understands this. How many people would jump at the idea to not be held accountable for their actions? Not holding police officers accountable, will turn many of them into thugs and abusers of power. Having them draw ranks together to keep from being accountable is why more and more Americans distrust police.
I've watched a few video's on QI. And it seems to me like the guy in this video is putting a inaccurate positive spin on QI. I'm all for cops being personally accountable when the misbehave and violate the citizens Rights.We've had enough of law enforcement running roughshod over the citizenry as if they are our lord and master.
He is selling his product which is educating officers on the law and the constitution. He points out the average officer can not pay the cost associated with the large suits and that the cities are still liable for the majority of cases.
The only shady statement was in steering officers away from insurance and more towards education.
Yes if you have 3k a year to budget on insurance and education in the long run you are better off getting training, which will keep your premiums lower.
Think of it like full coverage on a new car. Ok but as the car gets older you should cut that insurance to minimal and use the funds to keep the car running.
Don't go get professional insurance ? As a doctor, I have to have professional insurance. Why should the profession of Law Enforcement Officers be any different ?
Well, the police have to make SPLIT SECOND DECISIONS. That never happens to physicians.
Like police raiding a house, finding money, and instead of putting it in inventory as evidence, they made the split-second decision to pocket the money themselves. You can't expect a police officer to know that's not allowed by law.
The Bowling Green State police database, about a thousand police officers arrested for felony charges annually. About half the felony arrests are violent felonies, and one of the biggest categories sexual fondling. You know, another split second decision and the cops have no time to look up whether that's allowed under the stressful situation of a woman in handcuffs. The corrupt police unions fight tooth and nail to limit access to this information, that's what Bowling Green State has found, in fact it must be significantly higher numbers because the corrupt police unions (all of them) block access to data.
@@saudade2100 I almost missed your sarcasm. 'You can't expect a police officer to know that 's not allowed by law.'
....exactly !!
@@Sondan1988 my bad, should have put the /sarc tag on the post.
You mentioned you are a physician. Anesthesia promulgated practice standards in the 1980âs, one of the first specialties to do so. It did help lower lawsuits and premiums. Thing is, the standards were things like agreeing to be physically present for the anesthetic, take vitals every few minutes, that sort of thing. Very basic stuff. Implied, though, was there were places where some elementary safety measures were not done. Tragic, indefensible, and expensive results.
I was around when the guidelines came out. The specialty organization correctly got credit, but the driver was the massive power of INSURANCE.
Anesthesia became a much lower risk field when the (how do police apologists put it?) FEW BAD APPLES were dealt with. Donât need to take away their license, just take away their insurance coverage.
People often donât realize the power of insurance.
No malpractice insurance, no medical practice.
OrâŠâŠ.no police department.
Iâve seen law review articles that recognize that fact.
The BLM protesters actually want to do some good, protest the insurance companies that cover municipalities and police departments.
You want reform? Take away their insurance coverage, they will reform in a heartbeat.
harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/1539-1614-Rappaport-Online.pdf
harvardlawreview.org/2017/04/empirically-validating-police-liability-insurance/
www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/insurance-companies-police/529833/
You can find lots of articles like this on a Google search. Complain to police until you're blue in the face, nothing happens. They're all too often in corupt relations with the courts. You get a mouthpiece like this blue to gold type and bamboozle the voters.
But the insurance companies are another matter. When they talk, people listen. Google something like "insurance disband police" you get lots of hits. Typical story, the insurance company has had enough indefensible claims, they order a corrective action plan, the town does not follow through, the insurance company pulls coverage and the town finds premium exceeds total city budget, f they will cover at all. Bad apple officers fired, sometimes entire department fired.
www.metnews.com/articles/2016/mayw020316.htm
@@saudade2100 excellent post !
These comments show the feeling of the American people.
I liked your comments about being competent, knowing the law and making proactive choices on duty to avoid the violation of rights in the first place. I appreciate your work and efforts.
The wolves will only do unto you if you abuse your authority, violate citizens' rights and/or use excess force. Try following the law to avoid liability. BTW, one other reason for imposing liability on localities employee officers is to encourage localities to pick and train officers to avoid such improper police activity - kinda a salutary objective ! !
I really appreciate you Anthony for always taking the time to answer my questions. This is why I watch your videos so I get better at my job.
Read the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers if you want to be better at your job!
Cops are suppose to know the law and the dept policy and the constitution and amendments and penal codes if you dnt then you should not be a cop tax payers should not be paying for the cops illegal activity and misconduct... So we the people need the Q.I. amended that the cops do lose pension house cars college money left homeless penniless then these prks will fall in line..
Do the Louisiana State Police involved in the death of Ronald Greene deserve qualified immunity?
I am including all the employees who saw the video of his death and covered this death up for over 400 days. I would love to hear your responses.
Based on this video, I kind of like the Colorado law. It puts the officers with a little skin in the game. Now $25,000 may not sound like a lot but if youâve got a bad rogue cop, he may think twice about making false statements and violating constitutional rights because if he gets found liable for times, thatâs $100,000 in punitive damages.
sounds like personal accountability of which there is a lack of in Amerikkkan states
One of the most important trainings you can take in LE is from this man. Highly recommend the search and seizure training. Thanks for all you do Anthony!
Thanks Tom! I really appreciate that.
Thanks again for the great vid. Canât thank you enough for your time. đ
Thank you for providing the must need it education of the law, to law enforcement officers and the public.
The country becomes a much safer place that is a fact!
Police say that about us when we donât obey their commands
You must have experienced working in another job in another universe because no employer Iâm aware of is going to have someoneâs back if they get are in a lawsuit
So this is why police dont want to learn the laws, thanks for clarifying.
Interesting review of the situation. I disagree with your conclusion about holding states responsible that end qualified immunity, but I agree with the officers having a more than casual knowledge of the law and the traps that would lead to unconstitutional actions. And for goodness' sake hold fellow officers accountable for egregious actions. They are the ones making your work life more difficult.
Talk around it all you like, but The Bill of Rights is clearly defined.
Indeed, US Code Section 18, Sub-Section 242 is clearly defined.
It's not that complicated.
As far as badly written laws that seek to diminish or eliminate qualified immunity, badly written law is bad regardless of on which side of an issue it falls.
As a concept, qualified immunity would not be a hot button issue if it were not so often abused.
The best thing we can do to support good cops it to ensure that their rights are protected when (if) they do something about the bad cops and to ensure that police unions and agencies are not able to protect bad cops in the face of evidence that elevates to the level of absolute proof.
We also need to re-evaluate, as a citizenry, what it is we want our police to do; Do we want them to protect our rights or continue to engage in taxation by citation and harassing the citizenry for the exercise of their Constitutionally protected rights?
Phenomenal!
Always Top Shelf Training!
Blue to Gold Truly Does have your back! You have a question, ask.
Semper Fidelis
What a thorny topic.
Anthony, Thanks for another great video! It goes without saying at least from me, I really appreciate what you do and the knowledge that I've gained from watching all of your videos! Keep em coming!
@Fred Smith You are highly incorrect. QI is also covered with mistakes that are made such as an injuries to a suspect by actual mistake while being arrested, which happens frequently and outside of the scope of any ill intent by police. Ridding if QI goes SIGNIFICANTLY deeper than anything rights related as police have never been immune from prosecution or civil litigation for blatant rights violations even with Qualified Immunity. At the very fact that youâre making that comment proves that you have no clue what so ever as to what qualified immunity even means just like the rest of the general public.
@Fred Smith Iâm a prosecutor here in Texas. QI in itself is not the issue, it is manipulation of wording in reports or âexaggerationsâ by officers to negate any wrong doing by articulating their set of circumstances to avoid repercussions of things not covered under QI. There is no getting rid of QI but not wanting to burn officers in âsomeâ things is impossible if QI didnât exists. Before qualified immunity came around in the 1990s officers were being sued civilly for frivolous nonsense from aimless complaints. Statistically 83% of all police complaints nationally yearly are unfounded and is nothing more than a pissed off whiney civilian that didnât get their way. Decades of crying wolf by taxpayers has now gotten to the point to where most police complaints are not even fully investigated for the mere fact its more than likely bullshit. A complaint in itself means absolutely nothing. A complaint must be founded to be valid. We have a local officer at an agency here who has over 93 complaints in his file last I knew of. Of all the complaints that he has there were only four that were founded and all of it had to do with foul language. Just because an officer motherfked you doesnât mean that they did anything wrong. It just simply looks unprofessional.
@Fred Smith In reference to failure to identify that is one of the most misunderstood statutes in the state of Texas. With the wording of that statute police can detain you for as long as necessary to identify you for reasonable suspicion of a crime even if it takes hours. Youâre referencing the failure to identify statute from these auditor videos that brainwash most people in the public to thinking that the majority of police are idiots. These auditors which Iâm also an expert in do nothing but go run and video record dozens of encounters daily to eventually get that one video of that idiot cop that slept in the Academy in the last 10 years of his career. What these auditors wonât show you as them constantly losing battles and giving police probable cause to arrest them constantly and showing their staggering court cost of accumulate from their stupidity. Yet the general public will think theyâre constitutional gods who are smarter than the police. I can assure you they are not.
@Fred Smith There is no set time by the courts dictated for a detainment however âreasonablenessâ comes down to the eyes of the courts themselves and that can be dictated by severity of offense in question. Due to no set standard of the term âreasonablenessâ that can be flexible in the courts. Even in the case of Rodriguez resulting in extending a traffic stop for longer periods for a K9 sniff that in itself can even be debated as well. Depending on the nature of possible offense that the RS lies in would dictate the length of time for said detainment. We tried a case a few years ago when individual was held on the side of the road for nearly 30 minutes for a drug dog to arrive. His attorney argued that a traffic stop in general lasting 30 minutes is outside the scope of what is reasonable and tried to have the case thrown. Through extensive research we found one lone officer in Rhode Island who had a habit of initiating traffic stops and having them last nearly 30 minutes on average. Why? Because heâs slow and nothing more. If one officer in the nation spends that long on traffic stops then it is not unreasonable to hold that long for a sniff. Likewise a detainment for up to two hours has not been seen as unreasonable in the past either, depending.
@Fred Smith Iâm not talking about auditors within a lawful act nor was I EVER behind a simple reference to them four comments ago. Youâre stuck on auditors and have not even been on the same page as me. Iâm referring to reasonable suspicion as a whole in any scenario where reasonable suspicion exists. I simply mentioned auditors in a reference and am not actually talking about them nor was I ever at any point other than that one lone reference . Also there is no âstandard â time for a stop. There is no ruling what so ever anywhere in any supreme court ruling where a time limit has been given and if there was it wouldnt âseemâ to be anything. It would just flat out BE a set time. Talking to people like you is like trying to put toothpaste back in itâs container. Now that I know the type of individual Iâm dealing with here I literally have nothing else what so ever for you.
As far as I'm concerned the only thing this joker said that isn't bs copsplaining is that cops need to make sure they know the law. I feel like this one is obvious, yet I see videos everyday of cops who don't know the laws they're inforcing. Everything else is basically propaganda. If ignorance of the law isn't sufficient defense for a citizen, then it shouldn't be for the person who gets paid to enforce the law.
Copslaining. Lol. Thatâs a funny one.
@@BluetoGold Copsplaining is when members of LE override the conversation (even Consensual Contacts), talk at, down to or over the member of the Public, or bark unnecessary orders and directives in an attempt to flex their authority and show their dominance.
It can be recognized easily when you hear some of the following phrases:
Here's the deal...
Let me explain something to you...
This is MY investigation...
You don't ask the questions, I do...
It is a clear passive aggressive communication technique.
@@BluetoGold so when my County paid out 3.5 million to settle a lawsuit.....which County paid thru General Fund( self insured) for a Deputy who decided to travel at 95 mph( speedometer stuck after crash) while having no overhead lights on( as not responding to a call or in pursuit), on the phone texting girlfriend and ran a stop sign and tboned a car killing passenger of car........the citizens should pay? What services should the citizens of the County loose? Teachers, Sanitation, close a pool, or cut the Sheriff's Department budget?
Shouldn't the Deputy be held responsible? What part of his job, what part of Departmental Policy and what part of his training does....drive 95 mph, text girlfriend and not pay attention to roadway?
He wasn't even fired. The Sheriff' held up the Internal affairs investigation until the Deputy passed the 1 year of service, which allowed him to be off probation period. He resigned on his 1 year 1 day of service.
When questioned by press, Sheriff's said, as he is no longer employed, the Internal affairs investigation was ended. No findings either way. He then said, the accident or the time...1 year 1 day had nothing to do with the Deputy deciding to resign.
The County CUT funding to the parks and summer programs for the kids, along with canceling the repaving of some streets to cover the 3.5 million......according to County Supervisor.
So, this is why qualified immunity needs to end. The Deputy was hired by a City inside the County roughly 3 months after resignation. He owns his own home valued at over 200,000 and is doing quite nicely.
The family members of his victim not so. The taxpayers not so. The kids who lost a playground and summer activities not so.
Funny thing....the Sheriff's Department the next year pled, begged and demanded an increase to thier budget. One thing they said needed to be addressed rhrough additional enforcement.....carless driving due to people using phones. And then they had a month where they ( Deputies) got a lot of Overtime to enforce speeding.
So I guess the other Deputies got paid also. The Department used it to blame citizens for the unsafe practice of texting.....never bringing up THIER DEPUTY. the one who was given Qualified immunity.
@@michaeltrethaway You forgot "In this day and age" on the list. The copsplaining often comes out after they've been proven wrong but they want to gaslight you.
yeah violating someones rights should stunt your career
How can you enforce the law if you donât know the law? And yes police should take a step back and assess the situation, they should never make split decisions. A clear and present danger is just that clear and present. When in doubt donât
I'd say the frickin' Bill of Rights is clearly established. Also officers swear an oath to protect it, right? They must get training on them in the academy, right? They damn well know when they violate your rights. Get it straight. I'd rather take an officer's house than get 10 times that amount from their agency. THAT would make them think twice and be far more effective at stopping flagrant violations from the "bad apples". Why they fight to keep bad apples from getting punished tells you all you need to know about the mythical "good cop".
If I'm being honest t couldn't decide to praise your opinion off decide you ate a POS ..... You convinced me at the very end KNOW THE LAW !!! Great video I hope every LEO waths this AND learns from it
Thank you for taking the time to watch the video. -Anthony
Police in other countries in Europe have much, much more training in staying calm and de-escalating situations. My German-speaking friends are all shocked at the knee-jerk brutality of many American cops. I've seen U.S. cops do awful things that I never saw happen in Greece, Germany, Italy, Austria. (Swiss cops tend to be nasty! but watch a Turkish cop series to see truly casual violence from law enforcement. Saudi Arabia must be a nightmare, like Iran.)
Eliminating QI should allow people to bankrupt the officer. He should lose his house, car, pension etc. If there is any overage, the police union should be indemnified against these types of suits. Taxpayers should not be on the hook when officer malfeasance takes place.
Thanks for this, we need to make sure when QI is abolished, the individual cop does pay something, not just the Department or Agency they work for. Unless the individual has to pay they will continue to deprive people of rights, and the other crap they do. Citizens must be accountable, but police officers are citizens too... Their job does not change that and should not make them immune from the consequences of their actions.
So the public has to face every permutation of officer misconduct until a legal precedent is established for that exact set of circumstances? Does this seem like an intelligent system?
If real bad they always resign and go work for another department
The problem is that without legal protection, cops will not be proactive in the least. They will not act on suspicious people, vehicles, etc. They will not get to calls quickly, making sure to get there afterwards to take a report - nothing more. You say, well then fire them. Yeah, ok, who do you think will do the job? You?
There is a better way to do this.
We let participating insurance companies keep track of it.
The courts could still decide some outcomes.
Each and every official, from cops, police and fire chiefs, dispatchers, city inspectors, city sanitation workers, to mayors, should be bonded.
Then that bond becomes the target of law suits, to a point.
When that point is exceeded, like murder to any degree, the official loses their bond. Then the case can proceed like it does now in civil and criminal courts.
For suits concerning Constitutional Rights Violations, policy violations, and negligence: That would increase premiums.
If the award to the plaintiff exceeds the bond amount, then the official becomes personally liable. Tax payers are no longer on the hook for any law suit since tax payers have no say.
On the other hand, if an official loses their bond, then the official also loses their job and cannot just migrate to a different area and commit the crime all over again.
Bonds are cheap and person specific.
Bond premiums would rise and fall according to what position and type of complaints the person accrues.
A spotless record would earn lower premiums. Complaints would raise premiums or cancel your bond policy.
This way of doing things provides accountability, based upon each individuals behavior.
Officials could be fired based upon bond premium amounts or loss of a bond, including a mayor.
Qualified immunity would be unnecessary.
I love seeing police videos where the police say, "I need your ID" absent reasonable articulate suspicion of a crime having been committed, about to committed or is being committed.
In this situation, police get sued, cry for QI, gets denied due to SCOTUS cases like Terry v Ohio and Brown v Texas. Then and only then, is there talks of settling. If a cop goes on the stand and says "I just didn't like his shoes, so I wanted their ID" Doesn't bode well for the department.
That's why we teach cops not to demand ID on consensual encounters.
@@BluetoGold I was a cop. The consensual encounters were pounded into our heads that "If the person says they don't want to talk to you, let them leave. They don't have to identify themselves in that case either." One of our classmates had a brain-flush and decided to try and arrest a guy on a consensual encounter for not identifying. Needless to say, the academy law professor was not pleased, neither was his department
A person can read the constitution in about two good bowel movements. It seems as though these officers could familiarize themselves with it.
I donât think QI should be abolished, but itâs protections should be modified. Police seem to be completely ignorant of the most basic laws sometimes and illegally arrest people. Or maybe many do know the law and knowingly break the law because they have QI . That is a problem. Maybe they should be required to know certain basic laws and if they break those laws they suffer consequences. Or maybe police should be required to call someone that does know the law that they are not positive of and advise them before arresting someone that should not be. In Houston Texas , I think that the police have to have an entry number assigned to arrestee before taking them to jail and at that time they can verify, reasonably, that the arrest is valid. Maybe they were getting to many false arrests. But one thing is for sure, many police are abusing the protection of QI , prosecutors that will not charge them, and police unions. Cameras ( the truth) has changed the way people see the police.
Do lawyers and doctors buy malpractice insurance?
Yes they do!
"Clearly established" is an excuses to make any case not binding
When the laws are not clearly established? The law is never clear that is why after the incident judges weigh in on events. To say cops should have qualified immunity whenever things are not clear is saying cops always have qualified immunity because the law cannot possibly come up with ever scenario. Unfortunately things have gone so far crazy with qualified immunity that even incompetent, deadly, and excessively costly actions have been deemed acceptable under the abuse of qualified immunity. The public is pissed. It only enrages the public more defending qualified immunity when the police doe things like say "well the law never said with complete certainty I wasn't allowed to taser someone for three minutes strait stopping their heart." This is how the public views this topic. There has been gross negligence of law enforcement, judicial review, and the law to allow sheer incompetence to run rampant. So yes police should be concerned the backlash will be over reaching.
QI was invented in 1967, it is a catch 22 cut from whole cloth after the civil rights act (1964). The supreme court didn't want to get inundated by potential lawsuits from that, so they basically nullified it by saying if they hadn't made a decision on a civil right by 1967, they are not going to entertain it in the courts. So any novel violation of civil rights falls under QI. The problem now becomes, once a cop violates someone's rights and it is clear that civil rights were violated, but the case is tossed because of QI, now that action is sanctioned by the courts for future cases. The George Floyd case was enabled because the officers believed they had QI, They did in the civil courts, but as it turns out, not in the criminal courts. QI needs to end.
I know a judge that took a cops home an had it sold for the victim he pasted out in court
It would be the best damn thing to happen for the American people cops donât protect an serve the people itâs all about them NOT US
PS government officials are not Kings none of them should have any immunities whatsoever because we the people are their bosses and if anybody is to have immunities it's We the People
Qualified immunity should be earned! Itâs kinda like driving we are free to do it, but itâs not a free ride! They took the job, they should buck up and take responsibility! They all undergo training right? I donât see the issue!
I have a question and would appreciate anyone that is able to answer it for me.
Is it legal for an officer to lie to a citizen regarding a law. For example, if an officer wants to get a personâs ID, but the person is not legally not required to identify since the officer does not suspect them of either having committed a crime, in the process of a committing a crime, or about to commit a crime.
Is it legal for an officer to lie to the citizen by saying, âAnytime an officer asks for an ID, you are legally required to provide it, otherwise you can get charged with failure to ID.â
Thanks!
@@kwdblade4683 Thanks for your answer!
Maybe the word âillegalâ wouldnât be the correct word for the example that was given.
Although, I feel it absolutely should be illegal.
The example that was given regarding them lying about a person legally having to give up their ID with the threat of arrest, would technically be the officer lying for the purpose of violating the personâs fourth amendment right.
And I would hope that departments would do more than look dimly upon officers that make up laws in order to have citizens comply when they do not legally have to.
@@kwdblade4683 Actually, this has not happened to me, but I watch a ton of videos and see officers lie to people to get their identification.
By telling them they legally have to identify when when they or not suspected of having committed a crime, in the process of committing a crime, or about to commit a crime. Some of the reasons officers give as to why ID is required ....
-someone looks suspicious, -when they get a call about a person (even if theyâre not doing anything illegal) ID is required
-just because the officer wants to know who they are speaking with
-they need the personâs identification to put in their report.
Those are just a few that I can think of now.
I do agree that if there is any violation at all, even walking in the wrong direction on the road, they are then required to give their ID.
And your example of identifying the passenger of the car is a perfect example. Again, assuming there is no violation of the passenger, it seems to be common practice for officers to Tell the passengers of a vehicle that they are legally required to identify. They are part of the stop and detained with the vehicle which obligates them to ID.
Most of the time, when the passengers actually knows the law and refuse, the officer will then back off and let it go. Although, I have seen a couple of times where the officer doubled down and actually arrested them for failing to id.
I am curious, you stated that you are a patrol officer, have you ever done this? Or have you seen other officers do this?
Some states are stop and id states but not all.here in Texas a person doesn't have to id UNTIL arrested and the failure to or giving a false name is a 2ndary offense but not cause for arrest.
@@daviddickey9762 the âStop and IDâ states still need officers to have reasonable suspicion of a crime. They cannot just âStop and IDâ because they want to.
Texas is different for sure. But I have seen MANY videos of Texas officers threatening arrest or actually arresting people for not identifying. Even when the citizen knows the law and is desperately trying to explain to the officer that they have to be legally arrested, and failing to ID is a secondary charge. But the officers seem to have a problem giving a crap.
Now you tell me how it is at all possible for officers to not know their own ID law.? Because either those officers are so incompetent that they should not be doing that job, or they are straight up lying to citizens to get their ID. Either one, I feel are inexcusable and unacceptable.
@@justicefor-all3129 I totally agree with you on that.car passengers are the same and officers demand parents prove the kids in the car are theirs or atleast supposed to be in their care such as babysitting or teachers on field trips charged with kidnapping.cops don't see citizens anymore they see subjects that have to be involved in a crime or atleast could be.
Who would want to be a police officer anymore? Costs for doctors are based off their reimbursement for schooling and liability insurance. Glad Iâm towards the end of my career. I understand learning the job but lawyers go to school for years and do research before making a decision. They arenât forced to make split second decision. You get what you deserve and asked for.
Police should have no problem following laws , Police are trained and know better . There should be no problem for police to act within the laws . Unless police want protection so they can continually violate peoples rights or commit violent crimes against people .
If qualified immunity is gone then only the bad seeds would have a need to worry. The good cops would be just fine.
Thanks for the information!
Thanks for the video, bruddah
How come drs donât get immunity
They do in a sense. When doctors make mistakes the jury judges them by industry standards - not perfection. But at the end of the day we need cops to make defensible decisions. That we can agree on. Anthony
Use the money for more training in the law and the constitutional Bill of rights -case law library and less time at the firing range. ID laws, trespassing on private versus public property and the 4th Amendment seem the most obvious areas.
Well officer should be trained more in the academy so they know what the Constitution states is that f****** simple don't violate people's rights
Split decisions to not pocket money or inventory , there is only one, decision there not two. If you have to think about it your not smart enough to be a law enforceer
Either everyone or no one Should have qualified amenity The Supreme Court of the United States had no authority to create qualified immunity Out of thin air or whole cloth
QI has been abused, repeatedly. I think what CO did is a step in the right direction. I think cops SHOULD have some skin in the game. I also think that judges should have more discretion in determining if a suit can go forward or is simply frivolous. I'd much rather officers be required to carry liability insurance. It's not as if cops are ever the only ones named as parties to a lawsuit anyway, so let them pay their portion.
One of the biggest issues with QI is that it seems to act as a legal condom that stays discovery and the legal question of it being "established law" frequently fails to get answered. To some degree, the Taylor v. Riojas decision has softened this position. There should come a point where any reasonable officer should know better even without settled case law. If an officer who is angry about being filmed intentionally assaults the photographer with something, such as with a metal object - should we really need "established case law" that says you can't use a metal object to injure somebody? Imagine that it gets so nuanced that they say you can't use a metal object, so next time, they use something made of concrete, or plastic, the next time rubber; oops, well this time it was a different material, so now we have to see if this new material is a violation of case law. Absurd as that may sound, it sometimes goes in that direction, which contributes to the pushback and the criticism of qualified immunity.
Again, I reiterate that officers should have some skin in the game, in the same way that doctors do and carry malpractice insurance. Too often, justice is denied to somebody whose rights were violated, no matter how obvious and clear. There is a widening gap between police and the citizenry they are supposed to serve, and when the taxpayers have to fork out so much money over time, that means that there is less for the community to do things with, while the cop continues to get paid. That's not reasonable.
So, if qualified immunity is eliminated, why can't the insurance companies be held liable instead of the taxpayer? America pays billions to these crooks every year with very little payout. Make them hold up their end of the deal. That way, citizens retain their constitutional rights, the officer is protected (financially) if they screw up, and the taxpayer is protected as well. It all seems like a win. Hopefully, the officer doesn't violate the constitution, but if it happens, insurance should be there. The government should more heavily regulate these companies to ensure they are not discriminating against any citizen or government organization.
If abolishing qualified and sovereign immunity isn't the proper way to rid corruption then what laws would be best to abolish and use to remove said corruption be it in government or police because those that abuse the law and their position of power should be thrown in jail as fast as possible and charged accordingly but lawfully remove the corrupt. I am sorry but there's more bad public servant then there are good and their corruption is blatantly out in the open for all to see its surprising how they haven't faced any consequences for their actions yet.
I got a good idea how about if the cops did their job correctly then they wouldnât have to worry about it but they have such a big ego think that they can do anything they want and violate our rights they should be sued or go get a job at McDonaldâs
Youâre wrongâŠwe want the cops to have to pay as well as the agency as well as the police chiefs for improper training. We should actually bring back the electric chair for cops that violate rights. Fuck lawsuits, lets make fried bacon!!! Their are 1000s of videos online of cops violating rights, willfully, so fuck a few bad applesâŠ
I think all cops should have qualified immunity until they lose it when they lose it they have to get insurance. That is not cheap the state should not have to pay for an officer's mistake this way if the insurance company will not Ensure you, you don't have a job
1. Qualified immunity isn't a right. It's not in any way constitutionally protected. It is entirely made up by SCOTUS in another example of judicial activism. It is NOT supported by the constitution and goes against constitutional principles.
2. Losing qualified immunity had nothing to do with putting the taxpayer on the hook. That bit of repeated conjecture/propaganda is unfortunate coming from you. Your content is usually neutral on hot button issues. Cops will have to purchase liability insurance like a doctor. That is what happened in Colorado. No cop is going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars ever. That's just gaslighting.
3. Getting rid of qualified immunity should make it harder for prosecutors to avoid charging cops criminally where they say "I can't charge the cop for excessive force, or other crimes because of qualified immunity. "
4. Cops who violate peoples' rights SHOULD have a black cloud over their heads. And when gypsy cops go from department to department "resigning" during, or just before an INTERNAL investigation after violating peoples' rights they will still price themselves out of the market because no personal liability insurance will insure them after being repeadedly sued. They are too much of a liability to the insurance company as well as the public. It is an insanely inefficient way to get rid of bad cops, done in the most capitalistic way possible, but is it really any worse than what we already have?
Finally, why isn't KNOW THE LAW your first and most emphasized point? In a society with LAW ENFORCEMENT officers, it should be a given that they know the law and not violate people's rights.
Why is ignorance of the law an excuse for police officers yet citizens get told that ignorance of the law is no excuse đ€
Stop qualified immunity! End the practice of the public paying for officer misconduct. Require the police to provide their own malfeasance insurance to pay settlements and judgements for misconduct. Allow the underwriters to charge more based upon risk. Bad deeds lead to higher rates. Bad cops would soon be unable to afford coverage and would be forced to seek more suitable employment (perhaps flipping burgers)!
Qualified immunity is an institution that is being abused by police, to beat, injure, maim, and even kill innocent people. The recourse against a civil rights violation should be the ability to sue those responsible. It serves two purposes, to compensate the injured party as matter of justice, and to train the police and the departments they work for that there are consequences for their actions. With qualified immunity, neither of those two things happen. The clearly established part of this ends up being a catch 22. If it is not clearly established, but otherwise would be a clear violation of someone's rights, it never gets to court, and never gets to be clearly established. It may have started with good intentions, but roads to hell etc. The cops learn these tricks, and learn how to violate people's rights. There are literally hundreds of cases you can look at on the internet that are clear civil rights violations, but can't be pursued due to qualified immunity. Couple cases for thought, warrants served against the wrong address, and a toddler gets his face blown off by a flash bang. Cops were clearly in the wrong here, but hey. Qualified immunity. Shoddy investigative work leads to someone having their door blown up in a breach, causing injury and PTSD, guess what, qualified immunity. Cops find crack in a stolen car (with the known crack addict and car thief inside), in a case of gross incompetence, go to the real owners home (a 72 year old man) and shoot him. Oh yeah, qualified immunity. It actually needs to end, it protects bad cops, and incompetent cops. The good ones will be okay.
Yea till tax payers refuse to cop,the bill pun intended
Too bad so sad .. ...
You cant hide behind your badge when you break the law. Too bad.
Youâre a hero, brother! Great video and great training!
Cops would go back to the way it was for 200 years in the US. Cops don't need/deserve a get out of jail free card.
Well, not that far back. First municipal police department anywhere was London in 1829. Robert Peel established the force. Read his principles of policing, from 1829. See if you agree today.
lawenforcementactionpartnership.org/peel-policing-principles/
First municipal force in the USA, Boston in 1838.
All that being said, I agree with your point.
This dude is unbelievable look it's simple cops need to get it together and realize that they can't and don't have the right to treat people any ole way they choose whether it's spouting commands or physical force the line is not blurred we all know what is excepted behavior and what is completely wrong and if for some reason you don't then you weren't raised by good people it's not some mystery for people to finally discover just common sense so quit acting like this is a totally new concept on how you should treat someone
Hereâs the idea have more educated officers that know the Constitution and then you will have less problems with them breaking the citizens constitutional rights but then again youâre not gonna say something like that because you are absolutely biased
And qualified immunity is a skirt tail for cowardly officers to hid behind they should be held liable 100% they should lose their house cars any assets and they should have to go flip burgers somewhere and the agency should be held liable as well for allowing /encouraging these types of behaviors as weve finally seen startnto surface via first amedment audits etc. They dont deserve protection they have to be held accountable jyst the same as any other ordinary citizen really they should be held to an even higher standard than an average citizen
I wonder what other professions require insurance to cover liability due to their profession? I can think of a few and having corrupt cops should be on that list.
So let me understand this shouldnât an officers already know the constitution so basically heâs gonna get in trouble for something he shouldâve already known, so yes get rid of it. Rock through window crime so let me not throw a rock duuuuuuh
Then John Q. Public...it is time to really pony up and really pay for additional training and personnel...and quit training cops by high stress academys...all those do is teach officers to be rude, demanding, and yell at people...
So you arenât reinforcing the blue and gold to violate peoples rights
Bad facts make bad law. Way too many badge heavy officers are going to place the entire profession in harms way.
Don Johnson? A bit outdated, should have gone with Mike Lawry. Lol. Maybe even that one is outdated
Hahaha. Good point.
Iâm guessing you meant Nash Bridges, and that was a Barricada, not a Ferrari. Ferrari was Magnum PI.
Replace everything you're saying about cops with any other profession that you can have where the individual has this black cloud over their head and needs to worry if they violate someone else's rights they will be held responsible LOL. Y'all are the reason there is such a divide between the logic of police and public.
You just admitted you don't care about the text payer
I care about not violating peopleâs civil rights.
"Not clearly established..." Qualified immunity is not a blanket get away with anything.
Then they no longer admit too wrong doing and paying out. Millions.of tax money.
Thanks for watching the video and contributing your feedback.
Start taking all lawsuit settlements out of the police retirement funds instead of from the taxpayer and insurance companies and watch cops start holding other cops accountable when they can't retire
Exactly, and whenever a department has a rogue officer and causes a lawsuit. 16 hours unpaid training for the entire precinct, make it a felony if the officer skips out on the mandatory training. Thatâll force them to keep each other accountable. These are the steps we need to take nation wide
The tax players will save alot of money
Here's the problem , buddy. " Blatantly incompetent " Your perception of blatant isn't the same as the average citizen. A poor man with little to nothing to eat paying fine's and fee's for a trumped up charge , or having it hang over their heads is blatant , as felt bye the poor , but not the well fed police or court's. A victim of crime is already weakened by the crime and will loose hope in law enforcement and the judicial system when the crime perpetrated on them is ignored or denied by the onseen police officer and is blatant . Hiding evidence of any involvement of law enforcement , like shoulder and dash cam footage is blatant . This list goes on . Insurance is the better option to the officer that witnesses corrupt uses of immunity over and over by the same officer's or department . Don't be a denier . Qualified immunity does more harm than good and hurt's the poorest and most vulnerable among us in way's inconceivable to the average person. Please understand the dark side of these Immunities and encourage the corrupt among you to opt for insurance instead . You can make a difference .
This guy keeps saying to "know the law". You'd think this would be a requirement, but cops can violate people's rights without facing real penalties. QI should be national and cops should be punished (civil AND criminal) for violating people's rights.
Your "officers have to make decisions" is a straw man argument and therefore we dismiss it outright. Police have a duty to act in ways above reproach and to not violate the rights of citizens. Accountability for screwing up is not "punishment", it is a disciplining event.
If you're a bad cop then you should pay personally and lose your house your car your whole life. This guy is the epitome of bootlicker
Lol. You guys crack me up.
The fact that you're making a point to gaslight people by telling us that lawyers just want to sue the city so they'll make money? How about if you're in law enforcement, you actually learn the laws that you're supposed to be enforcing so that you won't have to run into the issue of being held liable for something. How about you learn that people have rights and it's your duty to respect and uphold them rather than acting like they're an impediment to your job. Don't like them, write your congressman. How about you all stop acting like a roving gang that looks at everyone else not behind your blue line as a threat. How about you stop profiling and violating people then wonder why youre getting cursed, only to turn around and expect them to kiss your ass. How about you all stop murdering people for sleeping in their beds, standing on their porch, and sitting on their couches, then further gaslight people claiming that you were in "fear" of something... its a uniform, not skin. You don't have to wear it. You can put on another and do something else. No one is forcing you to. You all act the way you do because you have so many impediments in place to hold you accountable for your misconduct, and people are sick of it. Will getting rid of qualified immunity stop you from operating the way you do...probably not. But in the case of Colorado, and good on them, it'll at least make you take and second and think before you make a $25k decision. I think you all should be personally held accountable since you have the ability to affect someone's freedom and life. You should have to measure twice and aim once. No exceptions. Doctors and lawyers can affect people's lives and freedoms too. Do you know what they carry? Liability insurance. The standard should be the same for you all. Taxpayers should not be held liable for the decisions of a person who shot first and asked questions later, and in a lot of cases, literally.