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

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?

Don't know, but they are much less likely to be in danger with a white woman than they are a black man. Black men are responsible for over 50% of our murders in this country.

If you weren't such an anti-semite self-hating white you'd already know the police had no idea if the guy was black, white, or pink with purple pokadots. The dispatcher said "somebody sitting on the steps" and that's the only information about the subject the police had. They didn't know he was black until he came out of the bedroom. And yes, they entered the house, guns were drawn, and they had no idea the guy wasn't white. Imagine that!!!!!! I'm sure that will keep you awake half the night tonight.
 
Except this guy wasn't commiting a crime. He was sitting on the porch of a house he rented.

And the police had no idea what was up until they checked out the complaint. That's what they do.

No problem. Police Shortages is a lie.

You know OCD, you wouldn't look as stupid if you read all the posts since you were last here, especially the one I made where I gave three links to the officer shortage problem here and across the country. I know you don't read links, that way it keeps you ignorant, but you might want to try it sometime before making a fool out of yourself like you always do here.

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

Good. I hope the same thing happens to your house. I hope you come home to find your house ransacked and when you call the police, they tell you they were there while the place was getting robbed, but they didn't want to violate anybody's constitutional rights so they just left when they got no response from the person inside. Then you'd be here bitching how police are not doing their jobs.
 
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".

You never fired a gun in your life. You made that evident when I told the story about my Section 8 neighbors when he shot at his wife. You need to think your lies out better before you post OCD. Don't worry about guys like me. CCW carriers are the most law abiding citizens in this country and I posted that link as well. We use our firearms over a million times a year for self-defense or the defense of sissies like you who are too scared of guns to carry one.
 
Well...yes, he is. Ray WORSHIPS police with religious fervor. There is NOTHING a cop could do that he would not excuse.

Sure there is, when they do something wrong. But we have too many people here ignorant about police procedure to realize the officers were within their authority.
 
Suspicious of what?

There was no evidence of any crime

When burglars break into a home they don't close the door behind them in most cases. The call the officers got was about a vacant home with somebody sitting on the steps . When they got there, the door was open.
 
Shrug and file with my insurance.

And if you had to spend your own money to replace stolen items because you maxed out benefits, or had problems because they stole your identity and it would be a nightmare trying to straighten it out, you'd be the first to bitch.
 
The judge says otherwise, and I'm not playing a game.

Correct. An Obama apointee that's probably a cop hater as well. We'll see what an appeals judge says. The law is the law after all, and just because some rogue judge doesn't follow the law doesn't mean his is the final word.
 
When burglars break into a home they don't close the door behind them in most cases. The call the officers got was about a vacant home with somebody sitting on the steps . When they got there, the door was open.
You got a link for that wild assumption?

What causes more suspicion a closed door or an open one?

And the home wasn't vacant because the owner gave permission for people to stay there.
 
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.

There is nothing authoritarian about law and order. This country was built on it. When you know better than the experts that created police procedure that officers go through at the academy, then you can tell people what they should have done.
 
You got a link for that wild assumption?

What causes more suspicion a closed door or an open one?

And the home wasn't vacant because the owner gave permission for people to stay there.

And the police didn't know that. All they knew of was the complaint by the neighbor.

I listen to my police scanner all the time. When they get calls like this the officer announces they have an open door to warn the other officers on the way or already there at a different area of the house.
 
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​
I understand the ability to sue under Bivens ruling. I also understand each cause and amount must be proven individually by the plaintiff. In other words not all transgressions are presumed to be equal in the eyes of the court. A positive outcome, for the plaintiff could be as little as $1 dollar. Meaning lawyers fees become billable to the defendant(s), and that could be extensive, so the winner of the suit becomes the lawyers for the defendant, the lawyer's payday, but actually do little for the plaintiff, true justice in America served again. :auiqs.jpg:
Like I have said, I will wait to see the award and any appeals, but if I were Furdge, I wouldn't quit my day job, or in his case, he should probably continue to seek one. It is unlikely a judge would award him enough to buy that small home, on loan to him for two months.
 
And the police didn't know that. All they knew of was the complaint by the neighbor.

I listen to my police scanner all the time. When they get calls like this the officer announces they have an open door to warn the other officers on the way or already there at a different area of the house.
A complaint is still not evidence of a crime.

They should have waited outside until they got the person's attention. If the door was open he would have had to come out sooner or later
 
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.
He should have named her a defendant instead. Only problem is, it would not be worth the lawyer's time to take it on contingency. You didn't think Furdge was paying this lawyer, did you? He didn't even have a place to stay except for the two month loan of the house. If you are going to sue on somebody elses dime, you go where the money lives. In this case, the small town of Monono, population 8,400 (+/-).
 
And if you had to spend your own money to replace stolen items because you maxed out benefits, or had problems because they stole your identity and it would be a nightmare trying to straighten it out, you'd be the first to bitch.
That would be my own fault for not having the proper insurance. Stop projecting.
 

Forum List

Back
Top