The laws do hold them to a higher standard, but our corrupt system considers enforcing those laws to be unfair to the cops! Any rights violation you can sue a cop for and win under civil law is also a violation of criminal law. Seriously. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Department of Justice’s own website:
Under federal court doctrines, any federal crime that can be charged as a felony if a firearm is used to commit it becomes that felony for mere possession of a firearm while committing it. Even if the victim never became aware the gun was present. As such, it’s almost unheard of for a cop to commit a misdemeanor Section 242 violation. Section 242 is a law that it is almost impossible for people who are not public officials to break, since the term ‘color of law’ refers to use of official authority.
Police are only supposed to be exempt from breaking laws if that law breaking is necessary in the line of duty. And that duty NEVER includes violating rights. But between oversight that rubber-stamps every act as necessary/justified and cops lying about circumstances, they get away with almost everything.
You realize that that would require a license to have kids, and make it illegal to operate a police or military academy, right? Humans are apex predators.
Gun violence is a bad example. Yes, it’s a lot riskier than dogs, 10,200 people were murdered with guns in the last year we have complete numbers for. But... According to US government numbers, around 200 people are saved from violent crimes — including being murdered — with guns every year, for every one person murdered with a gun.
You won’t hear media corporations that are owned by staunchly anti-gun political activist billionaires reporting that, but the official government reports don’t lie.
Dog barks are their equivalent of a human yelling “Hey! Pay attention!” If shooting a dog for barking os justified, then shooting a human for raising their voice would be equally justified.
Dog barks are their equivalent of a human yelling “Hey! Pay attention!” If shooting a dog for barking os justified, then shooting a human for raising their voice would be equally justified.
Pit bulls are only as vicious as they are trained to be, the same as any dog. They were originally bred to be nanny dogs for small children, to protect them from livestock and wild animals. Although it should be mentioned that enough people equate tough with vicious, and breed dogs accordingly, that a pit bull sub-breed is starting to emerge that actually is more inclined to be vicious.
Parenting styles that don’t tell the dog “this is a puppy not an intruder” about kids contribute to the problem as well. And just like humans, some individuals are just bad, whether by nature or nurture.
Some people, including kids, die of eating clean, nutritious food or drinking pure water every year. But we don’t ban eating or drinking those things because the benefits of not dying of starvation or dehydration outweigh the risks.
Sure, people are killed by dogs. But tens of thousands benefit from dogs for every one person harmed. There is literally nothing on Earth that does not harm someone somehow, or cannot be made to harm someone. If even one person being harmed necessitated a ban, everything would be banned.
And some of those banned things would be things we cannot survive without, so those bans would harm billions.
All risk assessment is based on calculated odds. It has to be, otherwise we’d have to ban food and water. How many incidents of harm are there per 100,000 people is the standard. That lets you know the risks. Then you must look at how many people per 100,000 benefit from that thing, and whether the benefit is one of necessity or convenience.
Then you must weigh harm versus benefits. Necessity carries more weight than convenience, and only a sociopath would take high risk to others for the sake of his own convenience. But even the most empathetic person must, at some point, say “Okay, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks, so we’d harm more people by banning this than by allowing it.”
Despite your extremely obvious hatred/fear of dogs, that decision has already been made long ago about dogs. It is reviewed now and then, but the equation has not changed. The equation is highly unlikely to change. Dogs have a massively greater benefit to society than potential harm, so they stay.
Some people refuse to accept those equations, whether out of an irrational dislike of something or a personal refusal to choose one life over another, even when their refusal to make a choice condemns someone to be harmed. It also happens due to ignorance of reality, whether innate or encouraged by outside manipulation, something that is happening in the US to strengthen the anti-gun movement — over 90% of the media is owned by political activist billionaires, who ensure that the majority of the population never hears about the fact that for every 1 person murdered with a gun, around 200 are saved from being the victims of violent crimes (including murder) with guns, every year.
None of those misguided beliefs change reality or what must be done to promote the survival of the many over the few. Or the one.
When we can? By law, we always could! The definitions for the words reasonability, immediate, threat and justification are and always have been identical for all citizens, police or otherwise.
The only differences between police use if force and any use of force are that firstly, where most citizens can at most stand their ground and defend, police can advance towards danger and still claim self defense; Secondly, that police often cannot be sued (QI) for their on-duty actions while most other citizens can be sued even if they did everything right!
Police grade mace works BETTER on dogs than on humans. Bear mace is typically only half as strong as civilian grade mace, and police grade is twice as strong as civilian grade.
A smart serial killer gets a badge before going on his spree, secure in the knowledge that if there is even the most tenuous shred of plausibility that he really did reasonably fear for his life, he will be cleared of wrongdoing.
Only stupid serial killers just rush out and start killing people.
Depending on how the security test contract was worded, the Sheriff might not be on the hook for three months of extreme overtime, but the court officials that hired Coalfire might be!
The key issue here seems to be that the appeals court is claiming that the homeowner consented to the police, and therefore qualified immunity applies.
But with consent, qualified immunity wouldn't be needed. If I invite you into my house as a guest and offer you a Pepsi, you are not trespassing, illegally entering or committing burglary by taking and consuming that drink inside my house. Entering my house without my consent and stealing my Pepsi would be several different crimes.
The court ruling claims that giving permission to enter and to take something (a fugitive suspect) includes permission to destroy the place. If that is true, then qualified immunity is irrelevant because the homeowner has no standing to sue for what the cops did.
But that also means that if you are ever invited to enter a public building -- by police, by court summons, etc, it wouldn't be illegal to trash the place while you're there because you have consent!
Don't forget, the woman was under duress at the time she 'consented' to the police -- they were threatening to arrest her and search anyway if she didn't give 'consent' she was not obligated to give.
Refusing 'consent' was not an option, and attempting to negotiate terms would likely have resulted in an arrest for exercise of protected rights.
You'd think so, but no. Without an actual declaratory judgment that something is true, the fact a court merely implied that same thing, even if it being true is required for their actual ruling, does not make it legally true.
And we could even write a statute that says that using governmental authority to violate rights was illegal, and the perpetrator should be fined and jailed.
We could call it Title 18, Sections 241 & 242 of the US Code.
Unfortunately, all it takes to circumvent all of that is for our courts to declare that taking someone's property at gunpoint without proving their guilt before or after the fact is neither an unreasonable seizure nor armed robbery, and you're left where we are right now.
Agreed. But care to bet whether the perjury clause of the DMCA being 'unenforceable' somehow manages to be enforced if someone files a false DMCA against a big corporation's website or YouTube channel?
Re: Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright abolition
You realize the same flowchart applies equally well to reporting a rape or mugging (with some minor edits), right? Are you a jerk for reporting someone for any illegal act?
On the post: Federal Court Ignores Journalist Privilege For Reporting On Court Documents; Allows Bullshit Defamation Suit To Proceed
Re:
If ever there were a time for an interlocutory appeal, this would seem to be it.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Police dogs vs. everyone else's dogs
The laws do hold them to a higher standard, but our corrupt system considers enforcing those laws to be unfair to the cops! Any rights violation you can sue a cop for and win under civil law is also a violation of criminal law. Seriously. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the Department of Justice’s own website:
https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
Under federal court doctrines, any federal crime that can be charged as a felony if a firearm is used to commit it becomes that felony for mere possession of a firearm while committing it. Even if the victim never became aware the gun was present. As such, it’s almost unheard of for a cop to commit a misdemeanor Section 242 violation. Section 242 is a law that it is almost impossible for people who are not public officials to break, since the term ‘color of law’ refers to use of official authority.
Police are only supposed to be exempt from breaking laws if that law breaking is necessary in the line of duty. And that duty NEVER includes violating rights. But between oversight that rubber-stamps every act as necessary/justified and cops lying about circumstances, they get away with almost everything.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re:
Well, so long as he weighs more than a duck. Otherwise we’d have to execute him for being a witch.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You realize that that would require a license to have kids, and make it illegal to operate a police or military academy, right? Humans are apex predators.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Gun violence is a bad example. Yes, it’s a lot riskier than dogs, 10,200 people were murdered with guns in the last year we have complete numbers for. But... According to US government numbers, around 200 people are saved from violent crimes — including being murdered — with guns every year, for every one person murdered with a gun.
You won’t hear media corporations that are owned by staunchly anti-gun political activist billionaires reporting that, but the official government reports don’t lie.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re:
Dog barks are their equivalent of a human yelling “Hey! Pay attention!” If shooting a dog for barking os justified, then shooting a human for raising their voice would be equally justified.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re:
Dog barks are their equivalent of a human yelling “Hey! Pay attention!” If shooting a dog for barking os justified, then shooting a human for raising their voice would be equally justified.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Pit bulls are only as vicious as they are trained to be, the same as any dog. They were originally bred to be nanny dogs for small children, to protect them from livestock and wild animals. Although it should be mentioned that enough people equate tough with vicious, and breed dogs accordingly, that a pit bull sub-breed is starting to emerge that actually is more inclined to be vicious.
Parenting styles that don’t tell the dog “this is a puppy not an intruder” about kids contribute to the problem as well. And just like humans, some individuals are just bad, whether by nature or nurture.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re: Re:
Some people, including kids, die of eating clean, nutritious food or drinking pure water every year. But we don’t ban eating or drinking those things because the benefits of not dying of starvation or dehydration outweigh the risks.
Sure, people are killed by dogs. But tens of thousands benefit from dogs for every one person harmed. There is literally nothing on Earth that does not harm someone somehow, or cannot be made to harm someone. If even one person being harmed necessitated a ban, everything would be banned.
And some of those banned things would be things we cannot survive without, so those bans would harm billions.
All risk assessment is based on calculated odds. It has to be, otherwise we’d have to ban food and water. How many incidents of harm are there per 100,000 people is the standard. That lets you know the risks. Then you must look at how many people per 100,000 benefit from that thing, and whether the benefit is one of necessity or convenience.
Then you must weigh harm versus benefits. Necessity carries more weight than convenience, and only a sociopath would take high risk to others for the sake of his own convenience. But even the most empathetic person must, at some point, say “Okay, the benefits greatly outweigh the risks, so we’d harm more people by banning this than by allowing it.”
Despite your extremely obvious hatred/fear of dogs, that decision has already been made long ago about dogs. It is reviewed now and then, but the equation has not changed. The equation is highly unlikely to change. Dogs have a massively greater benefit to society than potential harm, so they stay.
Some people refuse to accept those equations, whether out of an irrational dislike of something or a personal refusal to choose one life over another, even when their refusal to make a choice condemns someone to be harmed. It also happens due to ignorance of reality, whether innate or encouraged by outside manipulation, something that is happening in the US to strengthen the anti-gun movement — over 90% of the media is owned by political activist billionaires, who ensure that the majority of the population never hears about the fact that for every 1 person murdered with a gun, around 200 are saved from being the victims of violent crimes (including murder) with guns, every year.
None of those misguided beliefs change reality or what must be done to promote the survival of the many over the few. Or the one.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: You know
When we can? By law, we always could! The definitions for the words reasonability, immediate, threat and justification are and always have been identical for all citizens, police or otherwise.
The only differences between police use if force and any use of force are that firstly, where most citizens can at most stand their ground and defend, police can advance towards danger and still claim self defense; Secondly, that police often cannot be sued (QI) for their on-duty actions while most other citizens can be sued even if they did everything right!
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re:
Police grade mace works BETTER on dogs than on humans. Bear mace is typically only half as strong as civilian grade mace, and police grade is twice as strong as civilian grade.
On the post: Court To Cop: We Don't Need On-Point Precedent To Deny You Immunity For Killing A Dog That Couldn't Hurt You
Re: Re:
A smart serial killer gets a badge before going on his spree, secure in the knowledge that if there is even the most tenuous shred of plausibility that he really did reasonably fear for his life, he will be cleared of wrongdoing.
Only stupid serial killers just rush out and start killing people.
On the post: Criminal Charges Finally Dropped Against Security Researchers Who Broke Into An Iowa Courthouse
Re:
Depending on how the security test contract was worded, the Sheriff might not be on the hook for three months of extreme overtime, but the court officials that hired Coalfire might be!
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed
Is this really a qualified immunity case, though?
The key issue here seems to be that the appeals court is claiming that the homeowner consented to the police, and therefore qualified immunity applies.
But with consent, qualified immunity wouldn't be needed. If I invite you into my house as a guest and offer you a Pepsi, you are not trespassing, illegally entering or committing burglary by taking and consuming that drink inside my house. Entering my house without my consent and stealing my Pepsi would be several different crimes.
The court ruling claims that giving permission to enter and to take something (a fugitive suspect) includes permission to destroy the place. If that is true, then qualified immunity is irrelevant because the homeowner has no standing to sue for what the cops did.
But that also means that if you are ever invited to enter a public building -- by police, by court summons, etc, it wouldn't be illegal to trash the place while you're there because you have consent!
On the post: Supreme Court Asked To Tell Cops That Consenting To A Search Is Not Consenting To Having Your Home Destroyed
Re: Exactly right.
Don't forget, the woman was under duress at the time she 'consented' to the police -- they were threatening to arrest her and search anyway if she didn't give 'consent' she was not obligated to give.
Refusing 'consent' was not an option, and attempting to negotiate terms would likely have resulted in an arrest for exercise of protected rights.
On the post: Welcome News: DC Circuit Revives The Constitutional Challenge Of FOSTA
Re:
You'd think so, but no. Without an actual declaratory judgment that something is true, the fact a court merely implied that same thing, even if it being true is required for their actual ruling, does not make it legally true.
On the post: DEA, TSA Sued For Stealing 79-Year-Old Man's Life Savings From His Daughter At An Airport
Re: Travelling with Cash
Not traveling with cash won't save you, they'll just seize the cashier's check on the grounds that not traveling with cash is suspicious behavior.
On the post: DEA, TSA Sued For Stealing 79-Year-Old Man's Life Savings From His Daughter At An Airport
Re: Re: Re: There oughtta
And we could even write a statute that says that using governmental authority to violate rights was illegal, and the perpetrator should be fined and jailed.
We could call it Title 18, Sections 241 & 242 of the US Code.
Unfortunately, all it takes to circumvent all of that is for our courts to declare that taking someone's property at gunpoint without proving their guilt before or after the fact is neither an unreasonable seizure nor armed robbery, and you're left where we are right now.
On the post: YouTube Streamer Hit With Demonetization Over Copyright Claims To Numbers '36' And '50'
Re: Re: The Only Way To Fix The System
Agreed. But care to bet whether the perjury clause of the DMCA being 'unenforceable' somehow manages to be enforced if someone files a false DMCA against a big corporation's website or YouTube channel?
On the post: Copyright As Censorship: Gun Rights Advocate Gets Video Taken Down With Bogus Copyright Claim
Re: Is it okay to send a DMCA takedown? By a copyright abolition
You realize the same flowchart applies equally well to reporting a rape or mugging (with some minor edits), right? Are you a jerk for reporting someone for any illegal act?
Next >>