Jo Jorgensen or Sam Robb for president?

[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-jor...he-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/doc...-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-file...no-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/opin.../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/app...?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...164875612.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.