Judge rules against Qualified Immunity for police officer who violated man's 4th Amendment rights.

[cnm]

So once again we are back to the question none of you cop haters can answer: What if this was a burglar and the cops just left because the person inside your house didn't respond to them and it was a burglar that stole $10,000 of your cash and belongings and they did nothing?

You keep posing false dichotomies. This one seems to be a favourite, where the only alternatives for the police are to do nothing or storm the place with guns drawn.

I suppose if you're a hammer every problem looks like a nail. No doubt you're itching to hammer a nail.

But those aren't the only options. A simple third option was demonstrated just a little too late ie, check with the neighbours. There were also other options. Knock repeatedly, much louder, for one.

Still, I suppose those wouldn't have satisfied your lust for authoritarianism.
Oh well.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

What harm was that, again? I must have missed it.

under the doctrine of presumed damages, in short below (the entire article really needs to be read for a full understanding)

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the fact, proximate causation, and amount of each of these types of damages, 26 except where his cause of action is based on invasion of certain dignitary" interests, 27 such as privacy 28 and voting rights.29 It is in these cases that the doctrine of presumed​

damages played a role at common law. That doctrine provides that substantial injury may be presumed to flow from ​

certain tortious acts, even though the plaintiff has presented no proof of actual loss, when the torts invade interests that are intangible, rather than physical or economic. 30 As Professor Dobbs explains, "the wrong is said to be damage in and of itself." 31​

https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/c...sredir=1&article=4769&context=penn_law_review​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Home​

Searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable.
Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980).

However, there are some exceptions. A warrantless search may be lawful:

If an officer is given consent to search; Davis v. United States, 328 U.S. 582 (1946)
If the search is incident to a lawful arrest; United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973)
If there is probable cause to search and exigent circumstances; Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980)
If the items are in plain view; Maryland v. Macon, 472 U.S. 463 (1985).

What Does the Fourth Amendment Mean?

The Constitution, through the Fourth Amendment, protects people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. Find cases that help define what the Fourth Amendment means.

www.uscourts.gov

Sorry, you lose. No constitutional rights were violated here.

The judge says otherwise, and I'm not playing a game.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

It's not my fault whites don't normally break into homes.

When you lie like that Ray it makes it harder to take your seriously.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Mental anguish, due to her racist discrimination in calling the police, I suppose.
Face it. The only reason the guy is suing is for the paycheck, not harm, and she does not have the money to make it worthwhile, though she is the one that called the police, giving them probable cause to think a crime was possibly being committed.

If that's the case, he should have named her as a defendant as well. It is my experience that people like that HATE being dragged into court.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Sorry mate. You are wrong and the judge proved it. Piss off.

He's just a copsucker.

 

[Colin norris]

He's just a copsucker.

No he's not. The copper was wrong. End if story.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It's very unfortunate for all the rest who that Sheriff abused after you that you didn't take a stand and sue. It's sad for you that you accepted such a violation of your rights though it is lucky for you to have the contacts to get your van fixed. Unfortunately, most people don't have the contacts to protect them from such abuse and as long as you allow yourself to be abused you enable the abuser to abuse the next person. Every case of civil rights violation should result in civil and/or criminal penalties and then the cops, and government as a whole, will quit violating civil rights.

Often times the reason cops violate rights is for their own safety when there are other safety protocols they can use that don't require the risk of violent confrontation or at least increase the distance and safety of that confrontation.

I'd bet money that the two cops that went into that house will investigate with neighbors or the home owner before they enter a home because some karen neighbor calls about a suspicious African-American sitting on the steps.

Oh, I forgot to mention, she waved at him when she got home and he waved back; no fear, no panic. A casual wave back and forth. And then she went into the house and called the cops.

If he'd sued, he'd be dead.

It's more unfortunate that he didn't put a boat-tail hollow point through the sheriff's melon from a quarter mile.

 

[Jarlaxle]

It wouldn't bother me. I have respect for authority. The officer would have asked politely if the subject came out of the house when the officer was outside.

No, you don't have respect for authority. You worship cops and would happily lick their jackboots if ordered to do so.

 

[Colin norris]

If he'd sued, he'd be dead.

It's more unfortunate that he didn't put a boat-tail hollow point through the sheriff's melon from a quarter mile.

Why is you gun toting republicans only answer is to shoot and kill every opposition?
The same with democrats. You'd rather they were eliminated. What is wrong with you that idiots.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You wouldn't be singing constitutional rights if a burglar ripped you off with police there not doing their job. You'd be singing lawsuit of the city for not doing anything about it.

You're projecting.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Why is you gun toting republicans only answer is to shoot and kill every opposition?
The same with democrats. You'd rather they were eliminated. What is wrong with you that idiots.

Are you on some sort of drugs?

 

[Jarlaxle]

So once again we are back to the question none of you cop haters can answer: What if this was a burglar and the cops just left because the person inside your house didn't respond to them and it was a burglar that stole $10,000 of your cash and belongings and they did nothing?

Shrug and file with my insurance.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No he's not. The copper was wrong. End if story.

Well...yes, he is. Ray WORSHIPS police with religious fervor. There is NOTHING a cop could do that he would not excuse.

 

[Colin norris]

Well...yes, he is. Ray WORSHIPS police with religious fervor. There is NOTHING a cop could do that he would not excuse.

Year sure. You've always got an excuse to support corrupt arsehol coppers.

 

[JoeB131]

That would be great because that would mean no more police. Sissies like you are fucked because you never shot a gun in your life yet alone own one. People like me can take care of ourselves because we are well armed. So go ahead, tell Lightweight that you want an end to qualified immunity in Shitcago. I'd love to see that. And if I don't see you after that, I'll just assume what happened to ya.

again, fired more guns than you have, Welfare Ray... but I don't rely on the cops because, honestly, they are kind of useless. The few times I've had to call them, they never arrived in time to do any good.

I worry more about the guys like you who own guns to compensate for your "shortcomings".

How did anybody know he was black until they seen him face to face?

You mean other than the Karen Next Door called in a Black man?

 

[JoeB131]

No she didn't because the owner recently passed away. She was being a good neighbor by calling the police. That's what I'd want somebody doing for me if I was gone and they seen a stranger in or around my apartment.

Crime is everybody's business. When you and your neighbors feel it's no longer your business, criminals celebrate.

Except this guy wasn't commiting a crime. He was sitting on the porch of a house he rented.

Oh, a one year old article. Gee, thanks.

No problem. Police Shortages is a lie.

A stranger person in a vacant home is reason to have police at least check the situation out. Nothing wrong with that. Again, our police force encourages it.

And when they start paying fines for violating the rights of black people, they'll do differently.

Right. Our Chief is making it all up. One of my closest friends I knew since I was 9 years old is making it up as well. His police officer son told him a different story. Only you know the truth, right?

Well, the police have been pretty whiny lately, about why no one loves them anymore. So I take anything they say with a truckload of road salt.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes but they detain the subject until they check things out. It doesn't take long to pull out a gun out of your back holster. Trust me, I carry one when I go out after dark.

Like I said, Ray, you are a hate crime looking for a place to happen.

Like I said, police follow standard police procedure. That's the way they are trained. If something went wrong while they were not following procedure, they could lose their job. Yes, police do handcuff everybody until they know the situation presents no threat to them, again, that's how they are trained and it's perfectly legal.

"I was only following my training". That ranks up there with "I was only following orders". Ask the Nazis how well that one works out.

I'm sure they already have because they broke no civil rights. Correct, one officer went to talk to other neighbors while the first two officers investigated the complaint. What's your problem with that? And yes, the officer immediately took off the cuffs when they concluded there was no danger to them. The term reasonable suspicion means that they have reason to believe something may be amiss. They were told by the neighbor that the house was unoccupied. Afterwards they explained to the subject they get calls all the time for squaters and burglaries of unoccupied homes.

Except their "reasonable suspicion" was "Scary Black Man". You think that if they found a white woman in that house, they'd have slapped the cuffs on her?

Only if the officers don't know what's going on just yet. Watch some old videos of C*O*P*S. You see them do the exact same thing.

You mean the edited show where they handpicked the officers and didn't show cases that put the police in a bad light?

 

[j-mac]

Your description of the events is completely wrong.

Judge rules for Black man arrested in his new Monona home

Excerpt:

"By the time an officer arrived, Furdge had moved to a bedroom. From the front door, the first officer could hear Furdge inside and said, "You want to come out here?" But Furdge, who appeared to be singing or talking on a phone, did not respond.

After a second officer showed up, they entered the home without knocking or announcing themselves, or checking with the owner.

With guns drawn, they yelled, "Police — come out with your hands up." Furdge did. He was handcuffed and held briefly until more officers came, and learned from other neighbors that Furdge had permission to stay at the home. They apologized to Furdge.

The encounter was captured on an officer's body camera."



Why is your description so factually wrong?

1st…the initial officer did announce himself as police…why are you lying about what happened?

 

[j-mac]

So, in every "terry stop" or other investigation where the cop feels like he has reasonable suspicion, those he suspects are held in handcuffs until the matter is cleared? If that's the procedure it should be in every case, not just the case of black men.

And, of course, if it were every case, I think that even you and Ray would be up in arms.

In most cases yes…At least that is the procedure…in this case they were confronting a situation where they didn’t know anyone was supposed to be in the house. Not the same as a traffic stop.