On a side note, why is it that people unable to even bail themselves out of jail on a minor charge invariably have money for weed?
With great power comes great responsibility. They got the power but absolutely none of the responsibility. I see something very wrong with that and it astounds me how many people don't.
And ESPECIALLY don't expect to be an asshole and have a cop make allowances for you, 'cause chances are really, really good that he's an even bigger asshole AND that he's had a worse day.
Cops are tame predators we hire to protect us from other predators; they are not here to sooth us or help us improve our self-esteem. The sheep dog will take a lot more abuse than will the wolf, but at the end of the day he hasn't forgotten being a wolf and he will bite if provoked.
I got audited by the IRS one time and they came into my home to go through my files. You know what I did, I smoked the biggest damn cigar I could right at my kitchen table and turned the heat up. Yes it made the .gov guy uncomfortable but if he didn't like it he could gtfo my house.
Officer Encinia has already returned to his normal duty assignment and the jail continues to operate as it has prior to this incident (well, other than having protesters try to overrun the jail). The wrongful death lawsuit will not be successful as the jail (officials/employees) has immunity per the SCOTUS decision and the lack of evidence that the officer violated Sandra Bland's civil rights/caused her death.
How about the lady that got forcibly finger banged on the side of the road? Should she have just willingly disrobed because it's the smart thing to do? Are the injuries that she suffered while protesting her fault because she didn't immediately comply?
With great power comes great responsibility. They got the power but absolutely none of the responsibility. I see something very wrong with that and it astounds me how many people don't.
If I was a juror I would nullify that immunity.
If I was a juror I would nullify that immunity.
Jurors can't "nullify that immunity". If the court says there is immunity (I don't know if that's the case here or not, just saying in general), then there is no jury trial, the case will get tossed.
Taylor v. Barkes: Summary reversal is part of a qualified immunity trend
LMAO!!! So you as a juror would attempt to overrule the Supreme Court of the US??? Just so you know it was a unanimous decision.
Jurors can't "nullify that immunity". If the court says there is immunity (I don't know if that's the case here or not, just saying in general), then there is no jury trial, the case will get tossed.
Its certainly a long shot. However the civil case would go to court and at that point the immunity from damages could be removed by the jury (if they are of that mind). The state would then be liable.
Amazing to me how the most conservative among us are ok with states being immune from damages arising from improper treatment of citizens.
If the officer is immune the case will never reach a jury. The application of immunity is a matter of law, decided by a judge, not the jury. The jury's role is to decide questions of fact, not of law.
Jury nullification is in the constitution. The us supreme courts ruling isn't above the constitution.
Weed is much cheaper than bail, hell its generally cheaper than alcohol on a "per buzz" basis. Fines, fees and bail are prohibitively expensive for poor people. Even worse is poor people have to go through a bail bondsman which means they never see the money again. Rich, or even middle class, folk just put up the $5k and get it back when they show up in court. $500 is a LOT of weed.
Edit: Sorry, only $50 to the bail bondsman in this case which isn't that bad but the main point still stands.
Nevermind, I see Don Vito explained the situation to you..
But jury nullification is a real thing. It is to protect the citizens incase things go horribly wrong and every branch of government is corrupted. Its one of the most important constitutional rights.
There is no "right" of jury nullification in civil cases, and in any case it exists only to protect Defendants in criminal matters. The question of whether a police officer was immune for his conduct could never reach a jury, and if it did, it wouldn't operate to permit the jury to convict him over his applicable immunity.
Sure thing. If you already knew why did you make such an ignorant claim?
You honestly can't see a little space between "Would you mind putting out your cigarette" and "We're going to give you a body cavity search on the side of the road"?She was smoking in her own car. How is that forcing the cop to make allowances? I didn't see her blowing the smoke in his face or anything.
I got audited by the IRS one time and they came into my home to go through my files. You know what I did, I smoked the biggest damn cigar I could right at my kitchen table and turned the heat up. Yes it made the .gov guy uncomfortable but if he didn't like it he could gtfo my house. I shouldn't be expected to "make allowances" on or in my own damn property and damn sure not for failing to use a turn signal while getting out of the way of a cop.
What's even worse is we are talking about what should have been the very ass end of the encounter. 30 seconds and he could have been rid of the bitch who dared not put out her cig in her own vehicle.
So we have wolves "protecting and serving" the sheep.... Nice analogy there. BTW, that "predator" didn't seem very tame at all.
You do realize that we are talking about her doing something that she had every right to do in her own vehicle. If a cop can escalate a situation for you failing to stop doing a perfectly legal activity, and you take the side of the cop, what's the difference when they tell you to stop recording them? Would you agree that a person is being stupid and asking for a beatdown and arrest if they refuse to turn off their recording devices while in a public confrontation with a cop?
How about the lady that got forcibly finger banged on the side of the road? Should she have just willingly disrobed because it's the smart thing to do? Are the injuries that she suffered while protesting her fault because she didn't immediately comply? Exactly how far are we to take your "don't poke the bear" mentality?
With great power comes great responsibility. They got the power but absolutely none of the responsibility. I see something very wrong with that and it astounds me how many people don't.
Not if the sheep was picking on him. Then the shepherd and the sheep dog have mutton for dinner and the herd IQ creeps up.If he's an asshole he shouldn't be given power, authority, and weapons. Nope. And you're right...chances are that if he's a cop, he is a huge asshole. That's the problem that needs fixing...the solution is not grovel better so that the asshole doesn't shit on us.
What a stupid example, full of fallacy and self contradiction. It sounds like cop masturbatory material. Back over here in real life, the sheep dog who hurts the sheep is put down.
Jury nullification is a real thing, but if the target has immunity then no jury will be seated.But jury nullification is a real thing. It is to protect the citizens incase things go horribly wrong and every branch of government is corrupted. Its one of the most important constitutional rights.
$500 is a LOT of money to a LOT of people. $500 should be the very lowest emergency fund anyone carries, but in reality many don't and some honestly can't.She needed $500 not $50. Her bail was $5000.
If I was a juror I would nullify that immunity.