2·
2 days agoI didn’t suggest there was, but I’ve rephrased my point about as many times as I’m willing to already.
Vote for no Republicans. No excuses. No exceptions.
- 57 Posts
- 359 Comments
Joined 2 months ago
Cake day: March 3rd, 2025
You are not logged in. If you use a Fediverse account that is able to follow users, you can follow this user.
14·2 days agoIf we could convince maga this was true it would solve a lot of problems.
While that fight should continue, society has more mundane tools to ostracize & make people’s lives hell.
I’m not a defender of the concept of Qualified Immunity, my point is that it’s not an absolute shield. Even if it successfully shielded them from 100% of civil rights cases (which it objectively has not) it provides no protection from criminal charges.
I won’t argue against the idea that it covers them far more than can be rationally defended, I’m just saying it’s not an absolute shield, and (in my opinion) there is every reason to imagine that the specific group we are discussing here will routinely violate the rights of the people they detain in such an egregious fashion as to satisfy even that narrow range of criteria in a higher than you might expect number of civil cases once this is all said and done.
I’d settle for fair prosecution using the body of US law that existed up to the inauguration of Trump47.
5·2 days agoYeah I’ve been a little surprised to hear that there are similar types up there, I don’t know why - I suppose it’s human nature.
What I’ve seen in recent years here has shaken and changed me.
Qualified immunity specifically does not apply in cases where someone’s clearly established civil rights were violated, though the criteria for that is specific. Further, it applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases. It may certainly help them in some instances, but it’s not going to be a blanket shield.
1 Was a constitutional right violated?
2 Was the right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation?
https://www.justia.com/civil-rights/government-violations-of-civil-rights/qualified-immunity/
Under this doctrine, government agents—including but not limited to police officers—can never be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly established law.” While this is an amorphous, malleable standard, it generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts.
In other words, it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the victim has no legal remedy, simply because that precise sort of misconduct had not occurred in past cases.
While yes, IANAL, I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated by the behaviors of ICE under Trump, in many, many circumstances.
Just so we’re clear, this isn’t Truth Social or X. Folks only engage with the bigots and racists here for fun. When it’s done being fun you just get blocked. If that’s an entertaining way for you to conduct yourself online, go right ahead.
Are you kidding me? Think of every maga you’ve seen with aggressive, hateful, pro-Trump anti-biden anti-immigration signs and such in their yards and on the back of their cars.
Every one of them with any kind of prior training and probably thousands upon thousands more without would punch their mother in the face for the chance to be given a badge and paycheck to get rid of brown people.
They are probably turning down 10x more people than they could even consider hiring.
The US is full of bigots and white supremacists, and it’s more visible now than at any time in my nearly six decades of life.
…Except that qualified immunity exists,
Qualified immunity specifically does not apply in cases where someone’s clearly established civil rights were violated, though the criteria for that is specific. Further, it applies only to civil cases, not criminal cases. It may certainly help them in some instances, but it’s not going to be a blanket shield.
1 Was a constitutional right violated?
2 Was the right clearly established at the time of the alleged violation?
https://www.justia.com/civil-rights/government-violations-of-civil-rights/qualified-immunity/
Under this doctrine, government agents—including but not limited to police officers—can never be sued for violating someone’s civil rights, unless they violated “clearly established law.” While this is an amorphous, malleable standard, it generally requires civil rights plaintiffs to show not just a clear legal rule, but a prior case with functionally identical facts.
In other words, it is entirely possible—and quite common—for courts to hold that government agents did violate someone’s rights, but that the victim has no legal remedy, simply because that precise sort of misconduct had not occurred in past cases.
While yes, IANAL, I’m exceptionally doubtful that clearly established constitutional rights aren’t being violated by the behaviors of ICE under Trump, in many, many circumstances.
2·4 days agoI wouldn’t want it as a primary monitor but I’d love love love it as a secondary.
22·4 days agoThe Vatican Is less sympathetic to their cause than the US police forces
FTFMe.
Any illusions I had a about a gram of tolerance and kindness in US police evaporated while I spent half a year watching them beat and instigate with protestors, among other things.
Every time I use my ereader I just luxuriate in the eink screen, warts and all. The very moment I can get an extenal eink display for my computer that is both of reasonable resolution and also not exorbitantly expensive, I’m doing it. I wouldn’t want it as a primary monitor but I’d love love love it as a secondary.
I definitely want an eink phone, but I doubt I’ll have the bucks to be an early adopter, which is fine.
24·5 days agoWhy not both?
And should it even matter which or either? They protect everyone involved.
No, it’s where your strawman lies.