Patriot Picket Civil Rights Suit FILED!

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • eruby

    Confederate Jew
    MDS Supporter
    Was the Chief judge named Wormer?

    :sad20:

    Screenshot_20230503-154634~2.png
     

    whistlersmother

    Peace through strength
    Jan 29, 2013
    8,933
    Fulton, MD
    Well...

    If this were anything other than gun rights, the state would have already settled. As soon as the word "gun" appeared, it became a mountain to prevail against the state.

    So now its waiting for the opinion, which I can only assume the losing side will appeal.
     

    jc1240

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 18, 2013
    14,702
    Westminster, MD
    Political orders = immunity. I expect nothing less from today's government. I wonder what the Founding Fathers would have to say about folks being arrested for protesting. Hhmmmm
     

    4g64loser

    Bad influence
    Jan 18, 2007
    6,325
    maryland
    The days of QI, Patriot Acts and the like are over for me.

    Can't trust The Usual Suspects with a stich of power.
    I had lingering faith in the moral character of some officers and the courts to correct those who lacked the necessary moral fiber as a warning to others. As that has not been the trend, I believe I will be joining the "abolish qi" bandwagon.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,658
    I've been a sort of fence sitter on QI for some time but this might be the one that pushes me to full "hell no".
    The thing is QI is a good idea. But it should be LIMITED qualified immunity. If the actions are unconstitutional or illegal, then showing they didn’t for SURE know what they were doing was wrong should not be the standard for QI. The standard to pierce it is too high.

    Too many times judges have allowed things like “well nobody sent me a memo that I couldn’t beat a guy on his front porch for refusing to show me their ID. I thought I could demand their ID and they resisted when I tried to arrest them*” to stand for QI.

    *resisting being stiffening their arms. And that’s another thing, the standard for resisting arrest is also way too low. If police can show someone attacked them, legit ran, tried to grab their weapon(s), threw things at them, etc. I am 100% on board with a resisting/assault charge. But “stiffening arms” or even jerking their hands away, BS on a criminal charge of resisting. At least based on videos and charging documents, a lot of people get charged with it when a cop gets in to an argument with a person and grabs their arm and the person yanks their arm away. Often times without an officer even saying “I am placing you under arrest, put your hands behind you” or anything else like that.
     

    4g64loser

    Bad influence
    Jan 18, 2007
    6,325
    maryland
    The thing is QI is a good idea. But it should be LIMITED qualified immunity. If the actions are unconstitutional or illegal, then showing they didn’t for SURE know what they were doing was wrong should not be the standard for QI. The standard to pierce it is too high.

    Too many times judges have allowed things like “well nobody sent me a memo that I couldn’t beat a guy on his front porch for refusing to show me their ID. I thought I could demand their ID and they resisted when I tried to arrest them*” to stand for QI.

    *resisting being stiffening their arms. And that’s another thing, the standard for resisting arrest is also way too low. If police can show someone attacked them, legit ran, tried to grab their weapon(s), threw things at them, etc. I am 100% on board with a resisting/assault charge. But “stiffening arms” or even jerking their hands away, BS on a criminal charge of resisting. At least based on videos and charging documents, a lot of people get charged with it when a cop gets in to an argument with a person and grabs their arm and the person yanks their arm away. Often times without an officer even saying “I am placing you under arrest, put your hands behind you” or anything else like that.
    I thought roughly the same.

    I am now leaning towards no qi for anything
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,658
    I think you both missed my point, but I don't doubt I'll get a lengthy screed from lazarus (I thought you were dead), and a dancing banana from RFBfromDE)
    The rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated.

    I didn't miss your point, I thought my reply was funnier than, absolutely, you are totally right!*"

    *I do agree with you on what you were implying. Short enough? :D
     

    ADR

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 17, 2011
    4,171
    The thing is QI is a good idea. But it should be LIMITED qualified immunity. If the actions are unconstitutional or illegal, then showing they didn’t for SURE know what they were doing was wrong should not be the standard for QI. The standard to pierce it is too high.

    Too many times judges have allowed things like “well nobody sent me a memo that I couldn’t beat a guy on his front porch for refusing to show me their ID. I thought I could demand their ID and they resisted when I tried to arrest them*” to stand for QI.

    *resisting being stiffening their arms. And that’s another thing, the standard for resisting arrest is also way too low. If police can show someone attacked them, legit ran, tried to grab their weapon(s), threw things at them, etc. I am 100% on board with a resisting/assault charge. But “stiffening arms” or even jerking their hands away, BS on a criminal charge of resisting. At least based on videos and charging documents, a lot of people get charged with it when a cop gets in to an argument with a person and grabs their arm and the person yanks their arm away. Often times without an officer even saying “I am placing you under arrest, put your hands behind you” or anything else like that.
    It is in fact limited which is why it's called "Qualified Immunity" not "Guaranteed Immunity" and in reality has a fairly low bar with only 2 basic requirements to defeat. Don't confuse a judge's interpretation of events and subsequent ruling as a flaw with QI because it's not. Nothing works correctly if it's not interpreted and applied correctly and that goes from the officer(s) all the way up to the judge in cases that go that far. (I'm not defending incorrect actions of any party regardless of who/what they are and I'm not making a specific observation about this particular case.) I am an absolute hammer about this stuff when serving in a training role be it with new officers or in-service training and tolerate absolutely zero sh!t from an officer who either doesn't get it or refuses to take it seriously and will absolutely pull them from patrol duties now that I'm in a position to do so. With that being said, feel free to cite actual cases and situations you've been professionally involved in rather than "At least based on videos".... It's quality of content not quantity that makes a point.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,705
    Messages
    7,249,047
    Members
    33,310
    Latest member
    Skarface

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom