Jo Jorgensen or Sam Robb for president?

[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.

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.

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?




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.