Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009

[Glocktogo]

I don't know everything but I still have to make split second decisions all the time regarding EVERY aspect of medicine yet I am not given any special legal treatment or immunity if I screw up. In fact, physicians are frequently the targets of frivolous lawsuits. I never said the system isn't viable. I'm just saying that its broad brush application could be quite dangerous. That's all.

Understood. I'm not one of those who wants to bash doctors all the time. Overall, I think they do the best they can with what they have to work with. That doesn't mean I trust doctors blindly. If I'm conscious, I'll be taking an active role in my own medical care for safety reasons. Mistakes do happen, it's just a part of life. I feel the same way about cops. I think that overall it's a noble profession and the do the best they can. A VERY small percentage are off the reservation so to speak and even the best ones can make a mistake. No need to make things worse by acting like a *********, which is everyone's right, but that doesn't make it right!

 

[Billybob]

What Pearson V. Callahan did was make the previous 2 step process in Saucier v. Katz advisory rather than mandatory. It streamlined the process, which the plaintiff lawyers don't like because it puts them on the short track to dismissal in obvious tort overreaches. In the specific case we're discussing, it will work against Mr. Draco Toter, as it should.

In Pearson v.Callahan, the Court restored the lower courts’ discretion to dismiss on legal
uncertainty grounds without definitively resolving the constitutional claim.16
Scholars have expressed concern that constitutional law will stagnate and that
lower courts will struggle with the grant of standard-less discretion apparently
recognized in Pearson.17

http://scholarlycommons.law.northwe...cgi?article=1012&context=facultyworkingpapers


If courts dismiss for uncertainty without resolving the Constitutional issue then it remains uncertain. Some would contend it allows the courts to ignore making a ruling on the Constitution,(law) and provide a buffer for the state and it's actors to avoid liability and continue in whatever actions caused the dispute. If it's never resolved an issue would remain uncertain and could be dismissed over and over. The purpose of the courts is to provide justice not protect it's own. Sounds like a stacked deck with the state dealing off the bottom to it's own. Amazing we can have a De facto tort reform for suits against the state but not for suits like the Blitz fiasco.

 

[Glocktogo]

I'm sorry, I didn't know the detention of Blitz by a law enforcement officer caused their closure?

This thread is about LE actions and the repercussions thereof. Please feel free to start your own thread about sovereign immunity, because you're just trying to muddy the waters here. As for the faculty working paper by Northwestern School of Law, a liberal Chicago school, it doesn't bolster your case. They can whine about a SCOTUS decision all they want, it's still the rule of law and law of the land.

 

[Michael Brown]

OK, I didn't know the background and then shot off me mouth. Erase, erase, erase.

Funny how that happens.......

Michael Brown

 

[Michael Brown]

I don't know everything but I still have to make split second decisions all the time regarding EVERY aspect of medicine yet I am not given any special legal treatment or immunity if I screw up. In fact, physicians are frequently the targets of frivolous lawsuits. I never said the system isn't viable. I'm just saying that its broad brush application could be quite dangerous. That's all.

Except that videotaping you is prohibited in case you screw up and if you do screw up, there is a wealthy community that comes to your defense.

Just a thought.......

Michael Brown

 

[doctorjj]

Video taping me by the patient isn't prohibited. It's their medical case. They can document it however they want. In fact, I video tape a lot of my surgeries myself (arthroscopy) and give it to the patient. I have people video taping and photographing me and my work all the time. No telling how much of it is on Facebook. They can tape the entire encounter if they want. Oh, and that wealthy community that defends me is wealthy because I have to pay them so much.

 

[Michael Brown]

Not much different other than when the cop records you for your mistake, you're fined and when you record the cop for their mistake they say oops sorry about that and you are referred to as an asshat.

Or maybe it's just like when you start a rumor based on "facts" you read somewhere on the internet and you prove you are an asshat.

Michael Brown

 

[Billybob]

I'm sorry, I didn't know the detention of Blitz by a law enforcement officer caused their closure?

This thread is about LE actions and the repercussions thereof. Please feel free to start your own thread about sovereign immunity, because you're just trying to muddy the waters here. As for the faculty working paper by Northwestern School of Law, a liberal Chicago school, it doesn't bolster your case. They can whine about a SCOTUS decision all they want, it's still the rule of law and law of the land.

The Blitz statement was a compare/contrast statement showing that it's easier to sue a company when you burn yourself up just because it's their gas can than it is to sue a police officer for their lack of knowledge or mistakes which injure others.

The rest of my post was strictly about Q.I. even if you don't like the source because it's "liberal". And the fact remains that either because there are more "problems" or just more being exposed by suits being filed it's clear this is going to continue to be a issue.

[This Article examines a crucial flaw in the qualified immunity
doctrine and explains how it results in over protection of defendants from
liability. When qualified immunity is applied in a Fourth Amendment
excessive force case, the defendant, typically a police officer, is
protected from liability by two layers of reasonableness. First, qualified
immunity absolves an individual government agent from liability under
42 U.S.C. § 1983, notwithstanding his violation of a constitutional right,
if his actions were “objectively reasonable.” Second, the agent is
likewise absolved from liability under the Fourth Amendment itself if
the amount of force used was “objectively reasonable.” When these two
doctrines converge, an almost impenetrable barrier to liability results.
Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly tried to resolve conflicts
inherent in the qualified immunity doctrine, most recently in Pearson v.
Callahan, the excessive reasonableness in the qualified immunity
regime, and the excessive force that is its practical consequence, remain.]

https://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf