Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Billybob" data-source="post: 1975227" data-attributes="member: 1294"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>[This Article examines a crucial flaw in the qualified immunity</p><p>doctrine and explains how it results in over protection of defendants from</p><p>liability. When qualified immunity is applied in a Fourth Amendment</p><p>excessive force case, the defendant, typically a police officer, is</p><p>protected from liability by two layers of reasonableness. First, qualified</p><p>immunity absolves an individual government agent from liability under</p><p>42 U.S.C. § 1983, notwithstanding his violation of a constitutional right,</p><p>if his actions were “objectively reasonable.” Second, the agent is</p><p>likewise absolved from liability under the Fourth Amendment itself if</p><p>the amount of force used was “objectively reasonable.” When these two</p><p>doctrines converge, an almost impenetrable barrier to liability results.</p><p>Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly tried to resolve conflicts</p><p>inherent in the qualified immunity doctrine, most recently in Pearson v.</p><p>Callahan, the excessive reasonableness in the qualified immunity</p><p>regime, and the excessive force that is its practical consequence, remain.]</p><p></p><p><a href="https://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf" target="_blank">https://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Billybob, post: 1975227, member: 1294"] 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.] [url]https://indylaw.indiana.edu/ilr/pdf/vol43p117.pdf[/url] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
Competition, Tactics & Training
Self Defense & Handgun Carry
Guy (OC) carries i TN ak pistol gets detailed 2009
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom