Jo Jorgensen or Sam Robb for president?

[0ddl0t]

So the Libertarian party lacks a known/"major" presidential candidate for the first time this decade and info on the running candidates is sparse. Based solely on candidate statements on their own websites, I've narrowed it down to Jo Jorgensen & Sam Robb. Does the hive happen to know anything about either of these two candidates?

[Borderland]

So the Libertarian party lacks a known/"major" presidential candidate for the first time this decade and info on the running candidates is sparse. Based solely on candidate statements on their own websites, I've narrowed it down to Jo Jorgensen & Sam Robb. Does the hive happen to know anything about either of these two candidates?

Yeah. Neither one will get a look. It's a protest vote. Neither will probably get on your ballot depending on your primary. What's-his-name Gary Johnson was on our ballot and I voted for him and I felt good about it.

[0ddl0t]

Neither will probably get on your ballot depending on your primary. What's-his-name Gary Johnson was on our ballot and I voted for him and I felt good about it.

They are both on my primary ballot. I too was a Gary Johnson voter for the last 2 presidential elections.

[blues]

Aleppo?

[Borderland]

Aleppo?

Those are hard questions when you've smoked as much dope as he did. But he's clean and sober now , or was. Nothing that your chief of staff can't answer.:D

[blues]

Might as well just vote for Cheech & Chong.

[Borderland]

Might as well just vote for Cheech & Chong.

Dave's not here.

[0ddl0t]

Aleppo?

Yeah yeah, though to be fair why should a non interventionalist care about a battle for some city in a country halfway around the world that's been bogged down by regional conflicts for thousands of years?


Might as well just vote for Cheech & Chong.

That's how I feel about all of the major party candidates.

[AKDoug]

I took it as a pick of those two, so I voted Sam Robb. He takes the time to make a clear and concise position on his website. I actually find myself agreeing with him on just about everything I've read. I don't feel Jo Jorgensen promotes herself well on her website and provides pretty canned answers.

BUT.. I still find it a waste of vote to support either of them. It's really too bad Sam Robb couldn't get any traction. He seems like a good dude that thinks like I do.

[eb07]

While this may have made sense years ago, there are actually socialist and communists running for president now with full and open intention to destroy the US Constitution.. We need to be smart with our votes instead of trying to make a statement that bites off our noses to spite our faces.

[Suvorov]

The Libertarian party’s decision to put a hard core anti gun politician last election on its ticket pretty much sealed the fact I won’t ever waste any of my time with them again. In the old days the might not have stood a chance but at least they had principles.

[DallasBronco]

The Libertarian party’s decision to put a hard core anti gun politician last election on its ticket pretty much sealed the fact I won’t ever waste any of my time with them again. In the old days the might not have stood a chance but at least they had principles.
I have to agree. How a party that claims to be staunch Contitutionalists can be anti-gun defies logic.

[0ddl0t]

I was pleasantly surprised to see Jo Jorgensen win the Libertarian nomination the other day. If you're at all interested in a third option for president, here is a recent interview:

https://reason.com/2020/05/21/libertarian-presidential-contender-jo-jorgensen-wants-to-combine-principle-with-palatable-persuasion/

excerpt:

That government is way too intrusive [in general] is why I'm running, why we even have the Libertarian Party. But even I've been shocked at the [government's reaction to COVID-19]. Los Angeles announcing it will be closed through August? That's just unconscionable.

If cities and states continue to stay closed, it will make it much harder to campaign, of course. But the [COVID-19 reaction] has been the biggest assault on our liberties in our lifetime, and it's two-pronged. There's the personal assault, with us all under house arrest. We can't go to our jobs, we can't go to funerals, weddings, can't see our families.

That's the personal aspect, then there's the economic aspect. That fact that govenment is bailing out companies with two trillion dollars…whenever government spends money, government bureaucrat money [tends to] go to their friends, special interests, and lobbyists. It would be better if Americans got to keep their money and let them decide which companies deserve money, not the government.

[Warped Mindless]

I can't take the libertarian party seriously.

While they will all agree that the government is to big, if you ask five libertarians how they would go about it instead you get five wildly different answers.

Plus the party has become infested with leftist who believe the libertarian party is just a "legalize weed" party.

[David S.]

I look forward to hearing more about her.

I hadn't heard of her until the announcement this week.

[Casual Friday]

The Lolbertarian party is a meme, nothing more.

[David S.]

First interview with Jo Jorgenson. Pretty solid on the topics I’m concerned about. No significant discussion on drugs.


https://youtu.be/BbekO5dqeq0

[Yung]

I think Jorgenson just made a critical mistake.

[rcbusmc24]

Yeah yeah, though to be fair why should a non interventionalist care about a battle for some city in a country halfway around the world that's been bogged down by regional conflicts for thousands of years?



That's how I feel about all of the major party candidates.

Because Non Intervention didn't work in the 1770's here, didn't work in 1898, didn't work in 1917, or in the 1930's /40's or to this current day if you wish to maintain the current lifestyle that most Americans enjoy today...... Sorry. If you want to have a shot at being the face of the United States around the world then you better not be a F'ing moron when it comes to things happening around it, whether you personally wish to become involved in them or not....

Party of "All muh rights are sacrosanct but responsibilities are for other people" would be a better name for the Libertarian party.

[David S.]

I think Jorgenson just made a critical mistake.

The weird anti-liberation BLM tweet?

[Casual Friday]

Libertarians are just leftists that want to own guns and do drugs. Fight me.

[jc000]

Libertarians are just leftists that want to own guns and do drugs. Fight me.

Exactly. You’ve just described every Libertarian friend of mine. Literally the worst, most selfish political movement.

[BigT]

Libertarians are to the right what communists are to the left.

Change my mind

[Kyle Reese]

Exactly. You’ve just described every Libertarian friend of mine. Literally the worst, most selfish political movement.

They wrecked the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election by running a left-wing shill and plant, and the smug and selfish Lolberts voted for him in lieu of the pro-gun, pro-law & order Republican on the ballot, handing the reigns of the state over to the Democrats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WDR]

The weird anti-liberation BLM tweet?

I wasn't really considering a vote for her, but my wife is a strong supporter of JoJo, and I find myself agreeingwith many principles libertarians promote, so I had been reading up about her... then she posted the BLM crap, and I came to a full stop.

When I pointed this most recent baloney statement out to my wife, I basically got "Orange man bad, and Biden is dementia addled idiot! Our choices suck!"... So I guess she still isn't on the Trump Train.

She is right though, our available choices for president (and most other races) are total shit. I dont really love Trump (for many reasons), but he is a damn sight better than any of the other candidates... so here we are.

[Casual Friday]

Exactly. You’ve just described every Libertarian friend of mine. Literally the worst, most selfish political movement.

I had a business acquaintance a couple years ago who I became kinda friends with. He was a Lolbert but he didn't go around screaming "TAXATION IS THEFT, END THE FED" in response to literally everything. He was quite intelligent and could actually discuss the policies of the Lolbert party. One day we were talking about a somewhat prominent local guy who had just got caught with child porn. After the initial "Wow it's hard to believe, he was so successful, he had a family, blah blah blah" talk, his take was that possession of child porn shouldn't be illegal unless you're the one filming/photographing the child, because they're just pictures and the person in possession didn't assault them. I told him that was about the stupidest fucking thing I'd ever heard and we ceased being friends right there. It didn't cause me to believe he was a CHOMO with kiddie porn at home, but it showed just how far out in looney land many of the Lolberts have taken the NAP.

It was no great loss, I hadn't known him long.

[blues]

I think it's unfortunate that most of the terms such as liberal, libertarian, Republican, Democrat, socialist etc no longer have any demonstrable meaning as they have been bandied about for years willy-nilly by members of the media and public. They are used more as epithets and pejoratives than a means of describing what someone's actual political / economic philosophy may be.

Nowadays I just pretty much hate all of 'em. ;)


Casual Friday, you chose well to cut ties with that numbskull. My agency had a group involved in investigating child porn on a variety of levels, online and off, and it took a toll on those agents.

[0ddl0t]

Libertarians are just leftists that want to own guns and do drugs. Fight me.

and not pay obscene taxes to a government enforcing every shifting standards of rightthink...

[Casual Friday]

and not pay obscene taxes to a government enforcing every shifting standards of rightthink...

Found the lefty that just wants to own guns and do drugs.

Oh, and it's not just neckbeard lolberts that hate taxes.

[0ddl0t]

Condemning instances of violence and looting, Jorgensen doubles down on her support of BLM protests:


"We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention."

"I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement. They are going around basically inserting themselves into peaceful protest."

Jorgensen says that the Libertarian Party agrees with the national Black Lives Matter organization on several issues, such as the drug war, no-knock raids, and qualified immunity.



Regarding covid19:


"We're all adults, and it shouldn't be against the law to be stupid."

"We still have (business) entities who are requiring us to wear masks. We don't have to wait until the government tells us to. But this way, we have choice."

Jorgensen also notes the variety of ways the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies have restricted access to mass testing.



Regarding vote by mail:


"It's fine with me if we have mail-in votes, as long as we do it through FedEx."


https://reason.com/2020/08/07/jo-jorgensen-on-black-lives-matter-i-think-we-should-support-the-protesters/

[David S.]

I could cherry pick a few issues to agree with BLM, including the drug war. I’m tempted to believe that most of the problematic no knock raids would go away if the drug war was ended. I don’t understand QI enough to form an opinion, and I don’t think other libertarians do either.

I generally agree with the sentiment of BLM, as opposed to the movement or organization.

I think those quotes, as they stand, seem far more libertarian than her quotes a couple weeks ago. I haven’t read the transcript to see her broader context of her comments.


Condemning instances of violence and looting, Jorgensen doubles down on her support of BLM protests:


"We need change, and I'm glad [the protests] are getting the attention."

"I think we should support the protesters, but, at the same time, get rid of the opportunistic people hijacking the movement. They are going around basically inserting themselves into peaceful protest."

Jorgensen says that the Libertarian Party agrees with the national Black Lives Matter organization on several issues, such as the drug war, no-knock raids, and qualified immunity.



Regarding covid19:


"We're all adults, and it shouldn't be against the law to be stupid."

"We still have (business) entities who are requiring us to wear masks. We don't have to wait until the government tells us to. But this way, we have choice."

Jorgensen also notes the variety of ways the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal agencies have restricted access to mass testing.



Regarding vote by mail:


"It's fine with me if we have mail-in votes, as long as we do it through FedEx."


https://reason.com/2020/08/07/jo-jorgensen-on-black-lives-matter-i-think-we-should-support-the-protesters/

[BehindBlueI's]

I don’t understand QI enough to form an opinion

The simplest way to understand it is you can only be held responsible for clearly established rules that existed prior to your action based on the "reasonable officer" standard.

Two givens:
1) The case law constantly changes and what was fine yesterday may not be fine when the new court overturns the precedent
2) There are many areas where there are no clearly established rules

QI allows law enforcement to function because you can't be tied up in court for doing X on Monday when nobody said X was wrong until Tuesday. Flag burning was illegal in 48 of 50 states and by federal law until SCOTUS declared it an act protected by the 1st amendment in Texas vs Johnson. Officer A in 1988 arrests Mr. Sumdood for burning a flag. In 1989 SCOTUS says flag burning is protected under the 1st amendment. Officer A can't be sued for the 1988 arrest, even if it's his case that goes to SCOTUS in 1989. Arresting someone today under the exact same circumstances would mean a reasonable officer knew the act was protected and QI would not apply.

[0ddl0t]

Recent QI (Qualified Immunity) cases drawing outrage:

Cop pulls over (black) motorist, lies about receiving a phoned-in tip that there are drugs in the car. Driver foolishly (but understandably) consents to a search. For nearly 2 hours the cop tears apart the just-purchased Mercedes, doing $4,000 worth of damage. No drugs are found, motorist is left footing the repair bill.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/7013933/Jamison-v-McClendon.pdf

2 cops steal during a search warrant. Courts rule that since no precedent says stealing during the execution of a search warrant is wrong, the cops cannot be sued under qualified immunity.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jessop-v-city-of-fresno-california/

During an arrest of a compliant & unrelated party, a cop shoots at a neighbor's dog but strikes the nearby (compliant) child that the cop had previously ordered onto the ground. Parents have to foot the medical bills due to qualified immunity: Corbitt v. Vickers https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201715566.pdf

A (black) man was tackled & arrested for loitering on his own porch. The officers were granted qualified immunity because no "clearly established" case law forbid the practice. Shase Howse v. Thomas Hodous

A Texas inmate was forced to sleep naked on a concrete flow overflowing with sewage. The guards laughed and told him he "was in for a long weekend." The court agreed that the guards violated the prisoner's 8th amendment rights, but ruled that since no clearly established precedent existed the officers were entitled to qualified immunity https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/17-10253/17-10253-2019-12-20.pdf?ts=1576888214

[Wise_A]

Recent QI (Qualified Immunity) cases drawing outrage:

I don't care.

Morons are swayed by outrage and "demand change". Smart people understand that in a society of more than 300 million people, everything has a benefit and a cost. In this instance, the benefit far exceeds the cost.

Voting for libertarians in any state with the slightest chance of being contested is dumb.

[olstyn]

I don't care.

Morons are swayed by outrage and "demand change". Smart people understand that in a society of more than 300 million people, everything has a benefit and a cost. In this instance, the benefit far exceeds the cost.

Voting for libertarians in any state with the slightest chance of being contested is dumb.

No disagreement on your stance re: voting for libertarians for president in contested states, but if you read some of the cases above, it's hard not to feel that injustice has been done. The first one is a lengthy discussion by the judge who denied the plaintiff's claim of why he felt that it was morally wrong to deny that claim, but he was constrained by ever-more restrictive supreme court precedent which he argues take the enforcement of the law far from its original intent. Certainly in order for LE to function, the base concept of qualified immunity needs to exist, but the manner in which the courts have dealt with it would seem to be in need of an adjustment.

[DDTSGM]

Not defending the outlandish behavior described in the least. The courts have granted QI to some really clownshoes behavior.

The problem is that stripping QI from officers acting reasonably in rapidly evolving situations requiring split second decisions would make considering a career in LE economically unfeasible.

The other consideration is that in most these cases, while the officers may not be on the hook, the governmental entity that employed them will generally be liable.

[BehindBlueI's]

The other consideration is that in most these cases, while the officers may not be on the hook, the governmental entity that employed them will generally be liable.

...and it's no protection against criminal prosecution if applicable. The case where the officers allegedly stole cash and coins listed above, for example, would still be theft.



https://www.fresnobee.com/news/local/article164875612.html explains it a bit better then the blurb Oddlot did.


Judge Dale Drozd said Fresno police had a valid search warrant, and that even if officers did steal some of the confiscated money, it’s not clear that the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment against unreasonable search and seizures “protects against the subsequent theft of lawfully seized items.”

The issue isn't is theft illegal. The issue is if something is lawfully seized with a warrant, then subsequently stolen, does that violate the 4th amendment? Court said no, it's not clearly established that it's a 4th amendment issue. That doesn't mean the cops can't be held accountable. It means they would be held accountable through criminal court on a theft charge, not in a civil rights suit.

[0ddl0t]

The problem is that stripping QI from officers acting reasonably in rapidly evolving situations requiring split second decisions would make considering a career in LE economically unfeasible.

I think most of us wouldn't mind QI if courts removed the nearly impossible standard of finding a perfectly matching precedent so the test was simply "would the average officer find this reasonable?"

Buf if you are going to have QI for police, why not for doctors, nurses, paramedics, & EMTs? Hell, why not for lawyers, truck drivers, and construction contractors too? Since they are all essential workers and can all be economically crippled by frivolous lawsuits, why trust the jury system to determine liability? Why not do away with the need for malpractice & liability insurance?

[Wise_A]

No disagreement on your stance re: voting for libertarians for president in contested states, but if you read some of the cases above, it's hard not to feel that injustice has been done. The first one is a lengthy discussion by the judge who denied the plaintiff's claim of why he felt that it was morally wrong to deny that claim, but he was constrained by ever-more restrictive supreme court precedent which he argues take the enforcement of the law far from its original intent. Certainly in order for LE to function, the base concept of qualified immunity needs to exist, but the manner in which the courts have dealt with it would seem to be in need of an adjustment.

In any large-enough system, anything you do, no matter how good or necessary, will have heart-rending negative consequences for somebody. It's why I don't feel the need to re-evaluate my 2A beliefs every time some moron leaves a gun where his kid can find it. "Perfect" is never an option, the best you can hope for under most circumstances is "less shitty".

Number two, qualified immunity protects civil servants from personal liability. There's nothing protecting the municipality from liability, and protip, they're the ones that trained the officers that did the Bad Thing, and then supervised them while they were doing the Bad Thing.


Buf if you are going to have QI for police, why not for doctors, nurses, paramedics, & EMTs? Hell, why not for lawyers, truck drivers, and construction contractors too? Since they are all essential workers and can all be economically crippled by frivolous lawsuits, why trust the jury system to determine liability? Why not do away with the need for malpractice & liability insurance?

le sigh.

Paramedics and EMTs have protection from personal liability. In fact, around here, they're covered under the state's Good Samaritan laws. I don't know about truck drivers, but when I drove a school bus, I was covered under my employer's insurance, and virtually anything I did would have left the school district liable. Even if I acted in bad faith--say, I falsified a vehicle inspection report knowing that a critical safety feature was not functioning, the district would be liable.

But like I said, this is just a bunch of anti-cop rabblerousing rhetoric. Who the hell wants to sue the individual? The department and municipality always has much deeper pockets, and they just love to settle.

[BehindBlueI's]

I think most of us wouldn't mind QI if courts removed the nearly impossible standard of finding a perfectly matching precedent so the test was simply "would the average officer find this reasonable?"

Buf if you are going to have QI for police, why not for doctors, nurses, paramedics, & EMTs? Hell, why not for lawyers, truck drivers, and construction contractors too? Since they are all essential workers and can all be economically crippled by frivolous lawsuits, why trust the jury system to determine liability? Why not do away with the need for malpractice & liability insurance?

Kind of outside my lane, but to sue a doctor there are set standards for duty of care, etc. I'm not sure what the application to construction workers or truck drivers would be, but I largely agree in tort reform as well, particularly for medicine.

[0ddl0t]

Kind of outside my lane, but to sue a doctor there are set standards for duty of care, etc. I'm not sure what the application to construction workers or truck drivers would be, but I largely agree in tort reform as well, particularly for medicine.

And whether the doctor met the standard of care is largely a matter left to the jury, not something the plaintiff must prove to the court before even presenting to the jury.

How would it apply to truck drivers or construction workers/contractors? Here you can sue workers from either profession for not using a superior standard of service and the jury decides whether that is reasonable. Say 20% of contractors build raised decks using metal connecting brackets (e.g. Simpson Strong-Tie) which add cost, but also resilience. 80% just use overlapping wood and normal fasteners. 5 years later the deck catestrophically collapses when overloaded during a raucous house party. Even though the homeowner caused the failure, he sues because if the contractor had used the metal connecting brackets the deck would not have collapsed as rapidly (if at all), causing fewer or no injuries. They jury gets to decide whether that is reasonable.

For trucking, say a small business owner specs standard drum brakes (like 80% of fleets), a choice which saves maybe $1500 over disc brakes on the cost of a $130,000 freightliner. A car pulls out in front of the truck and the driver of that car is severely injured in the collision. The driver of the car sues because their injuries would have been less severe or avoided altogether if the truck had disc brakes. Even though the car caused the accident, the jury gets to decide whether the truck driver should be held responsible for using standard drum brakes knowing they were inferior to disc.

[DDTSGM]

Buf if you are going to have QI for police, why not for doctors, nurses, paramedics, & EMTs? Hell, why not for lawyers, truck drivers, and construction contractors too? Since they are all essential workers and can all be economically crippled by frivolous lawsuits, why trust the jury system to determine liability? Why not do away with the need for malpractice & liability insurance?

A reasonable question at the onset, then you go crazy. :cool:

I guess largely because QI for LEO's protects them from civil suit unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right or law in the performance of a discretionary act. Generally, doctors, nurses, et al. are not dealing with situations which give rise to constitutional or statutory scrutiny. The tipping point for them is breaching the standard of care.

[0ddl0t]

I guess largely because QI for LEO's protects them from civil suit unless they violate a clearly established constitutional right or law in the performance of a discretionary act.

The right for a subdued suspect to not be kneed repeatedly in the eye has not been clearly established: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/08/183519P.pdf

[BehindBlueI's]

The right for a subdued suspect to not be kneed repeatedly in the eye has not been clearly established: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/20/08/183519P.pdf

He was not subdued by your own link and lied about what happened by your own link and your statement is contradicted by your own link. When you fight the police and the police fight back, sometimes you get hit in the face.

Subdued?


Although the parties dispute
how much he resisted and why, the dash-cam video shows his legs flailing, and he
admits to having failed to comply with orders to “[q]uit resisting” and to “knock it
off.” See Oral Arg. at 1:44–1:50 (conceding that the dash-cam video “clearly”
shows that he was resisting “up until a point”). In the end, subduing McManemy
took two interlocked sets of handcuffs and six deputies.

So dash cam video and his own admission seem to make "subdued" your own invention.


As in many qualified-immunity cases, the parties have “two different
stories” about what happened. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378, 380 (2007).
McManemy claims that Deputy Dolleslager “sadistically” tased him in drive-stun
mode,2
once before handcuffing him and two-to-four times afterward. Deputy
Dolleslager says that he only tased him twice, once before placing the handcuffs on
his right wrist and once more to get them on his other wrist.


In an appeal from a summary-judgment ruling on qualified immunity, we
typically credit the plaintiff’s version of the facts. See id. at 378. In some cases,
however, the record so “blatantly contradict[s]” the plaintiff’s account that “no
reasonable jury could believe it.” ...

This is one of those cases. Many tasers have logs that record when and how
they are used. The log on Deputy Dolleslager’s device revealed that it had only
been discharged twice—each for three seconds, fifteen seconds apart. McManemy
has never challenged the log’s accuracy, so the record “blatantly contradicts” his
account that he was tased between three and five times.

So the court also determined your hero to be a liar.

I won't bother to quote the court on if the kneeing occurred or not. You did read the case you posted, right?

But let's examine your statement again:
The right for a subdued suspect to not be kneed repeatedly in the eye has not been clearly established:

Still from the link YOU POSTED:


The first, Gill, is the closer of the pair. There too, an officer slammed his
knee into an arrestee’s head. 546 F.3d at 561. The arrestee, who was lying on the
-9-
ground at the time, suffered five facial-bone fractures, a concussion, and a brain
bleed after the officer performed a standing knee-drop maneuver on him. Id. We
upheld the jury’s finding that this level of force was unreasonable under the
circumstances. Id. at 562

So the court actually has held that getting kneed in the face (admittedly not they eye) while subdued is unreasonable. Which is not what happened here.

Are you lying to further your own narrative or did you just not read your own link? I'm about done with your misinformation campaign, so I suggest you unfuck yourself.

[0ddl0t]

I won't bother to quote the court on if the kneeing occurred or not. You did read the case you posted, right?

...

So the court actually has held that getting kneed in the face (admittedly not they eye) while subdued is unreasonable. Which is not what happened here.

Are you lying to further your own narrative or did you just not read your own link?
I did, did you? If so why did you once again invent a straw man to parry? I never said his claim of being tased was valid. I said the court ruled citizens do not have a clearly established right NOT to be kneed in the eye (or face):



One of them, Deputy Bruce Tierney, used his knee as a weapon and repeatedly hit him in the head with it. Once again, the claim is excessive force, but this time it fails for a different reason: the absence of a clearly established right.
Which is what I said, no?




unfuck yourself.
:rolleyes: I expected better from you, but I won't make that mistake again.

[BehindBlueI's]

I did, did you? If so why did you once again invent a straw man to parry? I never said his claim of being tased was valid. I said the court ruled citizens do not have a clearly established right NOT to be kneed in the eye (or face):


One of them, Deputy Bruce Tierney, used his knee as a weapon and repeatedly hit him in the head with it. Once again, the claim is excessive force, but this time it fails for a different reason: the absence of a clearly established right.


Which is what I said, no?




:rolleyes: I expected better from you, but I won't make that mistake again.

There is no strawman. Read your link again. Note that there are cases discussed where the court has held you have the right to be free from excessive force.. I read and directly quoted from the court case.





Which is what I said, no?

No, what you said was:
The right for a subdued suspect to not be kneed repeatedly in the eye has not been clearly established

The suspect in this case was NOT SUBDUED. CASES DISCUSSED AS HAVING BEEN HELD BEFORE BY THE COURT WERE SUBDUED.

You do not have a right to not be kneed in the face if you're fighting and it's reasonable. Selective quoting that bit to make it seem like there is no clearly established right to be free of excessive force ignores much of the rest of case, some of which I've already posted about other cases the court has held on, and I see you've dropped the "subdued" part now.

There are only two options at this point. You can't read and understand a court case or you're lying to further your own narrative. I am tired of your constant misinformation campaigns and chiming in on things you know nothing about. So is much of the membership. Un-fuck yourself or move along, my patience with you is expired.

[0ddl0t]

Note that there are cases discussed where the court has held you have the right to be free from excessive force.. I read and directly quoted from the court case.
Yes and new cases must be a near exact match to those previous cases to even allow a jury to weigh its merits. The closest accepted case is of an officer jumping on a compliant suspect's head with his knee while the suspect was laying on the ground - a potentially lethal level of force.

This case, again weighed to give the plaintiff every benefit of doubt, says the above precedent is too different because 1) rather than jump on the suspect's head with his knee this officer allegedly repeatedly kneed the suspect in the head while kneeling, and 2) this suspect had previously been resisting arrest.

The court did not determine that the suspect was actively resisting at the time he was kneed (which is why his active resistance while being tasered was a straw man). In fact, the court noted the grainy dash cam video appeared to show the officer kneeling next to the suspect for 40 seconds during which time the suspect alleges the excessive force took place - indicating that the suspect was indeed then under restraint by the officers.



No, what you said was:

The suspect in this case was NOT SUBDUED. CASES DISCUSSED AS HAVING BEEN HELD BEFORE BY THE COURT WERE SUBDUED.
I initially used "subdued" intending the following definition: conquered; overpowered; crushed;

In hindsight, "restrained" would have been a better choice given subdued's more placid alternate meanings like: quiet; inhibited


There are only two options at this point. You can't read and understand a court case or you're lying to further your own narrative.
Or a third option: We disagree on the reasonableness of existing precedent regarding the burdens necessary to even bring an excessive force claim before a jury.

Given that much of the country is protesting and rioting over police use of force policies, I can safely say I am not alone in my assessment that knee-jerk "back the blue" policies are untenable. Not only are they morally abhorrent, but short sighted defenses of cops using retaliatory (rather than tactical) force carries the real risk of exclusion from the negotiating table when new policies are put into place.


I am tired of your constant misinformation campaigns and chiming in on things you know nothing about. So is much of the membership. Un-fuck yourself or move along, my patience with you is expired.
Shifting from straw man to ad hominem & ad populum, that's some sophisticated sophistry señor (super?)moderator! (note that I am limiting my rebut to your position & methods rather than you as a person)

[BehindBlueI's]

I initially used "subdued" intending the following definition: conquered; overpowered; crushed;

In hindsight, "restrained" would have been a better choice given subdued's more placid alternate meanings like: quiet; inhibited


You initially lied and/or can't read the case you posted and continue to do so despite trying to redefine commonly used words. Riots aside, if you can't read a holding in case law, don't try to teach what it says. You chose subdued, despite the referred to cases in your link specifically contradicting that claim, because you wanted to put forth a narrative. The facts of the case and the facts of the holding were either beyond you or irrelevant to you.

Strawmen, sophistry, whatever. Just concepts you hide behind anytime anyone asks you why you think you know about something. Case law isn't read like a storybook and not everything in the brief is the holding. You don't know what you're talking about. That's not ad hominem, that's a fact and one that's been pointed out many times by folks who do this sort of thing for a living.

[LittleLebowski]

We are done here.