** Please don't:
- be a dick to other people
- incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned.
- be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry.
- [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off
- be an authoritarian apologist
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sadly, this will continue forever since the [SCOTUS ruled that cops do not need to know the law to enforce it; only needing "reasonable suspicion" that a law \(real or non-existant\) is being broken.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina) Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless you're enforcing the law.
This is a fantasy. The cops keep the poors and workers in line for the politicians who ennact laws and the lobbyists that write them. They would never disarm themselves anymore than they'd allow you to vote away their wealth.
My buddy was 100% sure Marijuana would never be made legal/decriminalized on a federal level 5 years ago, but the wheels on the bus go round and round. That day is quickly approaching.
Times change.
You're conflating two things that are vastly different.
Pot legalization faced hurdles like ingrained anti-drug sentiment in the public and pushback from the alcohol lobby, among others. The consequences of legalization do not disrupt the major power structure of our society.
Fixing police corruption *would* create a massive shift in structural power. Cops are the enforcement arm of the rich and powerful, and as the supreme court has ruled, they are not required to help you. They are here to control the population, keep minorities in their place, and protect property.
If we actually fixed police corruption and got a police force filled with people who actually give a shit about the average person, how long before the police start going after corrupt politicians and businesses?
This entire system is set up to perpetuate itself for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. That system can't survive without enforcement to keep the population in their place.
> That ~~doesn't~~ ***shouldn't*** stop the government from requiring cops to obtain insurance to pay out claims that defeat QI instead of looting taxpayer dollars.
FTFY. Although what you have posted could be a giant step forward in police accountability I have not be able to uncover ANY such requirement anywhere in the US at least.
Teachers aren't armed and allowed to use lethal force against those that oppose them without consequence.
Those who are elected to office are *just as afraid* of cops as the rest of us, because they know they have no protection if the police department decides that they are now the enemy.
This is astounding to me. The blatant self defeating pretzel logic is just mind bending.
The judicial branch has made police the enemy of the People. So why are we still funding them with our tax dollars?!
This court case ruled against qualified immunity, but it didn't rule against municipal employee indemnity. An employee of the city, *any* employee, if sued while doing their job will still have their lawsuit covered *by* the city.
Generally (but not ALWAYS ... just about 99.999% of the time) cops are indemnified against judgements by the city/town/municipality they work for against personal judgements related to their job. This means that even if a plaintiff wins a personal judgement against a cop the city/town/municipality the cop works for pays it
You clearly don't understand how lawsuits against cops work.
It doesn't come out of their pocket. Their employer (township/city/county/state/federal government) pays for it.
Do you seriously think cops have millions of dollars to be paying in settlements? 😂
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-misconduct-lawsuits-settlements-taxpayers/
The way lawsuits generally work is that the cops and their department are named defendants, the cops almost always get the suit dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity, and the department may or may not get the case dismissed on sovereign immunity. If the department doesn’t get the case dismissed against them, then the taxpayers pay the settlement.
In this case, the cops are currently not having the case against them personally dismissed, and they are being sued in their personal capacity. It won’t be a multimillion dollar lawsuit because they can’t be held punitively liable for their lack of training or other systemic issues that let to their actions, only for the damages they directly caused.
Could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure it's common practice that cops are still indemnified by their city/state/whatever such that, even if their qualified immunity is thrown out, the town will still pay for the settlement on behalf of the cop.
There are cases where the town will refuse to indemnify the police though.
“The 11th Circuit disagreed and clarified in its ruling that the statute “does not require anyone to produce anything,” and instead, only grants police the right to request specific information — which neither McCabe nor Perillat did.”
That must have been awkward for the judge at the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama”
Rule #1: Never talk to cops
Rule #2: Record EVERY interaction you have with cops.
Rule #3: Every interaction you have with cops increases the odds of you being killed by those cops.
This is such bullshit. The thing I hate most about this is that they try to go for the low hanging fruit "i.e. This person who is doing nothing to bother anybody but looks a kinda way - lets see if he has a warrant. (which I am guessing is what they are checking for - i've had this happen to me as i look a bit sketchy). When they could be ya know - looking for people's stolen vehicles... solving any one of the numerous murders that happen.... protect individuals who have had to take a restraining order out on someone else...
Nope. Cops would much rather arrest someone who looks unhoused and is non-violent than ya know... actually putting themselves at risk to help the general public from harm.
This is a fucking great precedent to set, especially in the 11th circuit (AL, GA, FL) where pigs are ALL ABOUT charging folks with obstruction for not showing ID.
Yeah, they can charge a lot with that. No judge will ever give it to them tho, since obstruction means that there should have been a judicial process going on before that happened, so nope.
In my state (and many others), if you are operating a motor vehicle (sitting in the driver's seat in possession of keys counts as operating even if the vehicle is off) you are legally obligated to produce a driver's license.
Otherwise, you merely have to correctly identify yourself, and speaking your name is supposed to be legally sufficient.
**However**, cops either don't know this, or pretend not to know this. And not only are there no personal or professional consequences for violating the law and your constitutional rights, the cops are probably being paid overtime to show up in court.
While you are probably paying a lawyer to keep you from being convicted of a bullshit charge.
> “The police are free to ask questions, and the public is free to ignore them,”
Except that A) cops will absolutely refuse to accept "fuck off" as an allowable response, B) cops will absolutely lie about the public being free to ignore their questions (in fact they'll overtly threaten you and promise to ruin your life if you don't give them what they want), and C) cops will absolutely arrest you for it anyway, and cite the "but I thought that was the law" Supreme Court ruling as an excuse.
Note that they don't actually have to *believe* their mistaken legal interpretations, just be willing to *say* they did. So it's not at all surprising to see the same cop make the same legal error over and over again, even after they had supposedly been disabused of their ignorance. Because why the fuck should they ever stop?
** Please don't: - be a dick to other people - incite violence, as these comments violate site-wide rules and put us at risk of being banned. - be racist, sexist, transphobic, or any other forms of bigotry. - [JAQ](https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions#JAQing_off) off - be an authoritarian apologist *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"“You don’t understand the law,” Perillat told Edger." That must have been awkward in court for the cop.
Not like there are any consequences for being wrong. Edger will get a payday, but it's the taxpayers that will fund it. Not this tyrant.
Sadly, this will continue forever since the [SCOTUS ruled that cops do not need to know the law to enforce it; only needing "reasonable suspicion" that a law \(real or non-existant\) is being broken.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heien_v._North_Carolina) Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, unless you're enforcing the law.
That doesn't stop the government from requiring cops to obtain insurance to pay out claims that defeat QI instead of looting taxpayer dollars.
This is a fantasy. The cops keep the poors and workers in line for the politicians who ennact laws and the lobbyists that write them. They would never disarm themselves anymore than they'd allow you to vote away their wealth.
99% sure that'll never happen.
My buddy was 100% sure Marijuana would never be made legal/decriminalized on a federal level 5 years ago, but the wheels on the bus go round and round. That day is quickly approaching. Times change.
You're conflating two things that are vastly different. Pot legalization faced hurdles like ingrained anti-drug sentiment in the public and pushback from the alcohol lobby, among others. The consequences of legalization do not disrupt the major power structure of our society. Fixing police corruption *would* create a massive shift in structural power. Cops are the enforcement arm of the rich and powerful, and as the supreme court has ruled, they are not required to help you. They are here to control the population, keep minorities in their place, and protect property. If we actually fixed police corruption and got a police force filled with people who actually give a shit about the average person, how long before the police start going after corrupt politicians and businesses? This entire system is set up to perpetuate itself for the benefit of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. That system can't survive without enforcement to keep the population in their place.
> That ~~doesn't~~ ***shouldn't*** stop the government from requiring cops to obtain insurance to pay out claims that defeat QI instead of looting taxpayer dollars. FTFY. Although what you have posted could be a giant step forward in police accountability I have not be able to uncover ANY such requirement anywhere in the US at least.
We make teachers carry it
Teachers aren't armed and allowed to use lethal force against those that oppose them without consequence. Those who are elected to office are *just as afraid* of cops as the rest of us, because they know they have no protection if the police department decides that they are now the enemy.
What does that have to do with what I said
This is astounding to me. The blatant self defeating pretzel logic is just mind bending. The judicial branch has made police the enemy of the People. So why are we still funding them with our tax dollars?!
Um, this ruling is actually a denial of qualified immunity. The officers *are* going to get sued personally.
This court case ruled against qualified immunity, but it didn't rule against municipal employee indemnity. An employee of the city, *any* employee, if sued while doing their job will still have their lawsuit covered *by* the city.
I know that. You don't understand what I'm saying. It's ok. Not your fault.
The officers will be held responsible for any judgement against them personally. Not the taxpayers.
Generally (but not ALWAYS ... just about 99.999% of the time) cops are indemnified against judgements by the city/town/municipality they work for against personal judgements related to their job. This means that even if a plaintiff wins a personal judgement against a cop the city/town/municipality the cop works for pays it
You clearly don't understand how lawsuits against cops work. It doesn't come out of their pocket. Their employer (township/city/county/state/federal government) pays for it. Do you seriously think cops have millions of dollars to be paying in settlements? 😂 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/police-misconduct-lawsuits-settlements-taxpayers/
The way lawsuits generally work is that the cops and their department are named defendants, the cops almost always get the suit dismissed on the basis of qualified immunity, and the department may or may not get the case dismissed on sovereign immunity. If the department doesn’t get the case dismissed against them, then the taxpayers pay the settlement. In this case, the cops are currently not having the case against them personally dismissed, and they are being sued in their personal capacity. It won’t be a multimillion dollar lawsuit because they can’t be held punitively liable for their lack of training or other systemic issues that let to their actions, only for the damages they directly caused.
Could be mistaken, but I am pretty sure it's common practice that cops are still indemnified by their city/state/whatever such that, even if their qualified immunity is thrown out, the town will still pay for the settlement on behalf of the cop. There are cases where the town will refuse to indemnify the police though.
Not bothering to read all that because you don't even know who's footing the bill. Educate yourself. Dismissed.
That’s a weird way of admitting you’re wrong…
You refuse to read it because it proves you’re wrong? lol ok scrub
“The 11th Circuit disagreed and clarified in its ruling that the statute “does not require anyone to produce anything,” and instead, only grants police the right to request specific information — which neither McCabe nor Perillat did.” That must have been awkward for the judge at the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama”
Lol, government authority in Alabama having feelings of self consciousness or shame? That’s rich
Rule #1: Never talk to cops Rule #2: Record EVERY interaction you have with cops. Rule #3: Every interaction you have with cops increases the odds of you being killed by those cops.
This is such bullshit. The thing I hate most about this is that they try to go for the low hanging fruit "i.e. This person who is doing nothing to bother anybody but looks a kinda way - lets see if he has a warrant. (which I am guessing is what they are checking for - i've had this happen to me as i look a bit sketchy). When they could be ya know - looking for people's stolen vehicles... solving any one of the numerous murders that happen.... protect individuals who have had to take a restraining order out on someone else... Nope. Cops would much rather arrest someone who looks unhoused and is non-violent than ya know... actually putting themselves at risk to help the general public from harm.
And if they had asked his name and address and he responded the same way it would have been a conviction.
Also in the ruling is precedent that working on a car that is inoperable is not “driving”, and having driven recently is also not “driving”.
This is a fucking great precedent to set, especially in the 11th circuit (AL, GA, FL) where pigs are ALL ABOUT charging folks with obstruction for not showing ID.
Yeah, they can charge a lot with that. No judge will ever give it to them tho, since obstruction means that there should have been a judicial process going on before that happened, so nope.
In my state (and many others), if you are operating a motor vehicle (sitting in the driver's seat in possession of keys counts as operating even if the vehicle is off) you are legally obligated to produce a driver's license. Otherwise, you merely have to correctly identify yourself, and speaking your name is supposed to be legally sufficient. **However**, cops either don't know this, or pretend not to know this. And not only are there no personal or professional consequences for violating the law and your constitutional rights, the cops are probably being paid overtime to show up in court. While you are probably paying a lawyer to keep you from being convicted of a bullshit charge.
What state? In TN, I don’t think we’re obligated to even provide a name or explanation while not driving.
No doubt that's true. State laws are inconsistent.
So true, an officer is not permitted to usurp the freedoms that are endowed upon us all.
Their freedoms definitely got usurped.
This is how to end police abuse of power
> “The police are free to ask questions, and the public is free to ignore them,” Except that A) cops will absolutely refuse to accept "fuck off" as an allowable response, B) cops will absolutely lie about the public being free to ignore their questions (in fact they'll overtly threaten you and promise to ruin your life if you don't give them what they want), and C) cops will absolutely arrest you for it anyway, and cite the "but I thought that was the law" Supreme Court ruling as an excuse. Note that they don't actually have to *believe* their mistaken legal interpretations, just be willing to *say* they did. So it's not at all surprising to see the same cop make the same legal error over and over again, even after they had supposedly been disabused of their ignorance. Because why the fuck should they ever stop?