Immunity Implodes! 😳 Home Invading Cops Get Their Immunity Kicked In! No Warrant, No Bueno!

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 19 ธ.ค. 2024
  • 2022.12.07
    US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Written Decision: law.justia.com...
    Father vs. the Fuzz: 2A Fight Heads to Federal Court! 💪🔥 • Father vs. the Fuzz: 2...
    Dad Defeats DA!💥 No Immunity for Lying Prosecutors in Civil Rights Suit! • Dad Defeats DA!💥 No Im...
    Father Gets $$$ From Corrupt El Dorado County, CA: • Father Gets $$$!
    False Arrest Body-Cam One! 😳 El Dorado County, CA Obtains Warrant by Fraud & NV AG Participates!: • False Arrest Body-Cam ...
    Kidnapper Judge Cindy Hendrickson Revokes Illegal Order 😳 (2023)! Admits Denying Me Due Process! • Kidnapper Judge Cindy ...
    Ring Camera! Kidnapping Coppers Exposed! 😳 Admit I Reported Corruption But Refuse to Investigate! • Kidnapping Coppers Exp...
    Father Exposes Santa Clara Superior Court Complaint Shredding Operation: • 😳 Father Exposes Compl...
    Another Interesting Case (lots more on my channel):
    Lawyer Cites Fake Cases! 😳 Parent's Civil Rights Appeal Thrown Out Due to Professional Misconduct! • Lawyer Cites Fake Case...
    Gangsta CPS Loses Immunity! 😳 Demands the Right to Lie to Violate Citizens & Kidnap Kids! • Gangsta CPS Loses Immu...
    -----
    I'm just trying to be a dad after my kids were abducted.
    Why I am the Father in Exile:
    How to Fight Corrupt Family Court (Expose it!)
    • How to Fight Corrupt F...
    Voter Fraud and Abduction Admission Caught on Court TV in NV
    • Voter Fraud and Abduct...
    Judicial Misconduct & Rights Violations Caught on Court TV - Santa Clara, CA Judge Roberta Hayashi
    • Voter Fraud, Judicial ...
    Secret Judge Club Exposed 😳 at Corrupt California State Bar Meeting! (2023) • Secret Judge Club Expo...
    Santa Clara County California Superior Court Judges Who Deny Due Process and Participate in Misconduct and Felonies: Roberta Hayashi, Cindy Seeley Hendrickson, Brooke Blecher, Thomas Kuhnle. Transcripts and Filings Will be Released Publicly on this Channel.
    #fatherson #missingsomeone #pitbull #dogshorts #dogjokes #familycourt #vegas #vegaslocals #clarkcounty #nevada #nevergiveup #dogdad #corruption #exposed #california #santaclara #southlaketahoe #funny #entertainment #comedy #viral #music #trending #shortvideo #fun

ความคิดเห็น • 1K

  • @fatherinexile
    @fatherinexile  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +62

    2022.12.07
    US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
    Written Decision: law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/22-55082/22-55082-2023-01-04.html
    Father Gets $$$ From Corrupt El Dorado County, CA: th-cam.com/users/shortsi21jCcpJF7w?si=YiLrHHqIxxJcXp2j
    False Arrest Body-Cam One! 😳 El Dorado County, CA Obtains Warrant by Fraud & NV AG Participates!:th-cam.com/video/oJOtgCwh6OU/w-d-xo.html
    Kidnapper Judge Cindy Hendrickson Revokes Illegal Order 😳 (2023)! Admits Denying Me Due Process! th-cam.com/video/hRaX0g7rgS8/w-d-xo.html
    Ring Camera! Kidnapping Coppers Exposed! 😳 Admit I Reported Corruption But Refuse to Investigate! th-cam.com/video/ONUR0GL9Voc/w-d-xo.html
    Father Exposes Santa Clara Superior Court Complaint Shredding Operation: th-cam.com/video/u4JCc4qO30o/w-d-xo.html
    Another Interesting Case (lots more on my channel):
    Lawyer Cites Fake Cases! 😳 Parent's Civil Rights Appeal Thrown Out Due to Professional Misconduct! th-cam.com/video/1nmqZpPgfjE/w-d-xo.html
    Gangsta CPS Loses Immunity! 😳 Demands the Right to Lie to Violate Citizens & Kidnap Kids! th-cam.com/video/llXqlKB_AME/w-d-xo.htmlsi=q974eNTgxew4MKqE
    -----
    I'm just trying to be a dad after my kids were abducted.
    Why I am the Father in Exile:
    How to Fight Corrupt Family Court (Expose it!)
    th-cam.com/video/pVgudZtNYiQ/w-d-xo.html
    Voter Fraud and Abduction Admission Caught on Court TV in NV
    th-cam.com/video/J9FeWPKEFo8/w-d-xo.html
    Judicial Misconduct & Rights Violations Caught on Court TV - Santa Clara, CA Judge Roberta Hayashi
    th-cam.com/video/Zgog-NLFyC8/w-d-xo.html
    Secret Judge Club Exposed 😳 at Corrupt California State Bar Meeting! (2023) th-cam.com/video/LHRTQh0WTYk/w-d-xo.html
    Santa Clara County California Superior Court Judges Who Deny Due Process and Participate in Misconduct and Felonies: Roberta Hayashi, Cindy Seeley Hendrickson, Brooke Blecher, Thomas Kuhnle. Transcripts and Filings Will be Released Publicly on this Channel.

    • @gabikissv
      @gabikissv 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      What I understood from the Written Decision is that qualified immunity is granted on the unlawful entry and denied on use of force "We reverse the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers for plaintiffs’ claims of unlawful entry". Did I miss something? "No Warrant, No Bueno!" from the title suggests that they lost their qualified immunity.

    • @fatherinexile
      @fatherinexile  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      @@gabikissv I can only put 100 characters into a title. They lost QI because they entered the home without a warrant (its debatable if that was a constitutional violation), and then, with excessive force, arrested the occupants for demanding a warrant, which is not a crime.

    • @starbase51shiptestingfacility
      @starbase51shiptestingfacility 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@fatherinexile QI was invalidated on it's first use (1969).
      History:
      SCOTUS (1969) ruled against Civil Rights (14th Amendment Law) workers, whose Constitutional Rights (Bill of Rights, 1st Ten Amendment Laws of the United States, 1791). They broke the oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution. Even as they stated in their speech... "applicable in all case... except in cases of Established Law".
      There are no laws more "established" than the U.S. Constitution (1789), which the Bill of Rights (1789) is attached to in the United States.
      Not only that, Qualified Immunity is actually Obstruction of Justice (a crime). It prevents petitioners from having the government (judicial branch) address grievances (1st Amendment Law). QI is proof of a dysfunctional judicial system.
      Immunity is not allowed under the Guiding Principles of Checks and Balances.
      Police used what's known as "Pretext" (Wellness Check). It rapidly escalated into illegal entry (no warrant) into the home and assault (a crime) by police.
      ====
      What is so bad about violation of Constitutional Law? The U.S. Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land" and make up the framework in which U.S. Law and Government operates. While the Constitution grants the government authority, the Bill of Rights is Checks and Balances against those authorities. What government is allowed to do, what government is not allowed to do.
      Again, Immunity is not allowed under the Guiding Principles of Checks and Balances.
      ====
      Now rewatch the video and listen to the defense ramble on.

    • @kerryedavis
      @kerryedavis 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Any news on what's happened since this video? After almost 2 years?

    • @robertlogan9888
      @robertlogan9888 13 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@kerryedavis
      The officers were given back their immunity from prosecution for their actions. The 9th Circuit ruled that the police can make up a pretext of a crime if they are on a “Wellness Check”. Now they can just say, “We are doing a wellness check, we don’t have to get a warrant to enter your home. If you demand one, we get to rough you up and take you to jail.”

  • @terrymax5340
    @terrymax5340 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +666

    No qualified Immunity for any cop violating laws.

    • @chrisoakey9841
      @chrisoakey9841 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +25

      time for jail please.

    • @christopheraaron8299
      @christopheraaron8299 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      I don't think you understand what qualified immunity is. Qualified immunity only gives police protection from civil lawsuits in cases where they violate rights that aren't clearly established in statute or case law. It DOES NOT give them any immunity from criminal prosecution. They can be charged with crimes just like anyone else and there's no immunity defense available to them.

    • @3141micha
      @3141micha 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +32

      There should me no qualified immunity at all.

    • @coponetwork
      @coponetwork 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +20

      Civil lawsuit is the only remedy before the court - when state routinely refuses to bring charges against one of their own. It's in these grey areas between black and white, found in the four corners of our constitutionally protected rights, where we find judicial bias exposed by a lawyers comment, "There is no welfare 'check' in the 4th amendment" -- lending new meaning.

    • @ygrittesnow1701
      @ygrittesnow1701 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +23

      @@christopheraaron8299 Except of course when DA's refuse to charge them on the basis of qualified immunity. Essentially perverting qualified immunity into a shield from said prosecution.

  • @yadayada752
    @yadayada752 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +501

    She says, "every officer knows they can't enter a home without a warrant!". And yet there is video after video of them doing just that including these officers!

    • @dangeary2134
      @dangeary2134 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +51

      Not to mention the very FACT that whenever they do so, even in a “wrong door” raid, EVERYONE get arrested and charged for no good reason!

    • @Lanny-io9bi
      @Lanny-io9bi 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +19

      It blows my mind that in today's society there's camera's everywhere and anywhere and the police just seems to ramp up the stupidity with each passing day

    • @bones343
      @bones343 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      Or the fact that THEY reversed the denial of qualified immunity for the unlawful entry in THIS VERY CASE! "the officers could have erroneously but not unreasonably concluded that an emergency existed that would have permitted their warrantless entry."

    • @lgDukeCity5018
      @lgDukeCity5018 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      @@bones343
      Yep, that was BS. It was clear that man was being cared for if they had just bothered to put 2 and 2 together.

    • @headwrinkle9896
      @headwrinkle9896 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      They do KNOW but are explicitly trained to do what they want specifically because IA and qualified immunity will bend over backwards to protect them. Remember that the Fraternal Order of Police publicly stated that anyone who questioned the Tuttle Raid was gonna be dealt with. The same raid where the officers lied to a judge just to execute someone that disrespected them, lied to the judge and DA regarding the incident, and refused to give up the complete discovery until ordered to by police

  • @publicenemynumerouno
    @publicenemynumerouno 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +662

    "Qualified Immunity" appears in no constitution, in no bill, it was never a law proposed, passed or ratified by an elected official. It exists only as a result of judicial activism, legislating from the bench.

    • @brianpowell9239
      @brianpowell9239 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +36

      Well said!!!

    • @patverum9051
      @patverum9051 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +46

      Judges and coroners, both just honorary members of the Blue Cartel..

    • @meltdown6165
      @meltdown6165 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +40

      Congress could pass a law that ends qualified imunity. They choose not to do that.

    • @Finnssssss
      @Finnssssss 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@meltdown6165 you know it's more complicated than that.
      Big Federal Laws don't get passed without a bag of money that would run a small country for a year or an absolutely overwhelming public outcry.
      And you have to know every police Union in the country is going to throw everything and the kitchen sink into opposing such legislation. And let's not forget, QI is also the thing that protects the very people you need to propose the changes.
      Look at asset forfeiture. Massive public outcry has forced change but it's still changing at snail's pace.
      My proposal is if you really want change in police policy, behavior and training you stop worrying about qualified immunity as the priority and instead pass legislation that the individual Unions have to cover a large chunk of any settlement involving their officers.
      You start going after a Union's money and I assure you they will damn well make sure there is better training, clearer more reserved policies and a weeding out of bad apples that cost them money with blinding speed by comparison currently.
      This is the USA we're talking about here where no one does anything until the bean counters say it's more financially viable to do it.

    • @shenmisheshou7002
      @shenmisheshou7002 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

      @@meltdown6165 Unknown to most is that qualified immunity does not only protect police, qualified immunity protects all government employees except the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law. All government employees including senators, house members, supreme court justices, and the President benefit from qualified immunity. It does not prevent you from suing any of them if they violate your clearly established rights and if any one of them commits any crime against state or federal law that that a reasonable person would know to be a crime, they can be prosecuted for that crime. No one in congress is going to be inclined to pass legislation that would revoke that legal doctrine.

  • @matthewridgeway9250
    @matthewridgeway9250 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +561

    Qualified immunity is morally bankrupt.

    • @Robett-r4l
      @Robett-r4l 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      That's because the judges that implemented it have no morals and the lawmakers that have allowed it to go on have no morals

    • @chrisoakey9841
      @chrisoakey9841 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

      it also violates 42:1983. a statute written specifically to allow cops to be sued. so QI is judges saying f..k the law, we are the only lawmakers and no law exists until judges decide it is clearly established .
      they are not lawmakers, and not empowered to make laws that override the constitution or other tiers of government .they can rule that a law must be struck because of another law, not they don't like it.

    • @jesarablack1661
      @jesarablack1661 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      @@chrisoakey9841 Oh good one to cite, I normally cite 18 U.S.C. § 242 which predates the invention of Qualified Immunity, and makes very clear that not only was it never intended to be law, but that law specifically holds agents of the government accountable as a federal crime for any case in which qualified immunity would be able to be called for.
      Since yours is from After the invention of Qualified Immunity, it renders the invented immunity null by law.

    • @chrisoakey9841
      @chrisoakey9841 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@jesarablack1661 thankyou. it would be great if both were applied. 18:242 punishes the crime while 42:1983 gets reparation's for the victim. unlike a lawsuit 242 won't be paid by others bug by the criminal cop.

    • @DaveP-uv1ml
      @DaveP-uv1ml 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Qualified immunity as I understand it, has no basis in law. It was invented and started as a bad precedent by our unelected Supreme Court a long, long time ago. So long ago, no one from that era is alive now. And here we are dealing with all this time later.

  • @stevem20121
    @stevem20121 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +214

    Unless they are gonna give qualified immunity to EVERYONE , then qualified immunity should be abolished !

    • @RickSmith-s3q
      @RickSmith-s3q 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      OK. I probably agree with you in perspective, but this makes zero sense. The whole point behind qualified immunity is to allow people (in most cases, police officers) protection from being prosecuted for split second decisions when they are doing their jobs. The problem is, it has gotten SO WIDE....where they are excused for ANYTHING they do when in uniform. There are far to many cases of them purposely violating the law and citizen's rights. There is no way that anyone should be given immunity in those situations, OR in situations where they are just beyond careless or stupid... like busting in the wrong front door, etc. Just freaking verify before you tear innocent people's property up. Otherwise, is NOTHING short of tyranny. And, officers simply have not even had to consider that they may be held accountable for far too long.

    • @cameronjames3499
      @cameronjames3499 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      @@RickSmith-s3q The easiest first step would be that it presumptively doesn't apply, and they can petition for it to be applied because their case is such a unique exception (and if it is applied in more than 1% of cases then that is an indication that the entire policing industry is failing in their duty to adequately train their officers and so receive default judgements and increased penalties in all cases brought).

    • @ronallen6578
      @ronallen6578 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Cops these days COUNT on QI as a get out of jail free card. Why do you think they repeatedly say CLEARLY in video after video that they DON'T CARE about the individuals rights. The second they get a call from dispatch they are in an "I don't care attitude". Short of murder and even that has been looked over by the courts, very few face repercussions. Definitely an open season on the very people they "claimed" to protect and serve. 😢😢

    • @RickSmith-s3q
      @RickSmith-s3q 4 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@cameronjames3499 Great point. Can't say that I disagree with that idea. ...except that either way it's a legal argument. But, I like the idea that we should start with the presumption that they are NOT immune to the law/prosecution when someone's rights are violated and/or otherwise injured. Even these situations where a group of officers raid the wrong house. Where it's clear that they went to the wrong address. If they CHOSE (which they always have) to NOT slow down and verify the address, and do the reasonable due diligence before knocking down someone's door, the negligence is so agregious that it needs to be CRAZY weird circumstances in order to grant them qualified immunity. Just slow down. Get off you meth. And be sure first.

    • @Mythryl12
      @Mythryl12 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

      There are other people that have it. It depends on whether you are required to do things that would otherwise be considered illegal, except that they are part of your duties and where reasonable mistakes would expose you to legal jeopardy which would make doing that job effectively impossible. But as you can see here, the word 'qualified' has real meaning; it's not 'immunity', it's only 'immunity while you are acting reasonably within the scope of your duties'. And when you are not...the immunity goes away.

  • @camndino
    @camndino 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +215

    Qualified immunity is dangerous to the public.

    • @douglashoward9616
      @douglashoward9616 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yup. Qualified immunity created the blue line sovereign citizens.

    • @thorinpalladino2826
      @thorinpalladino2826 4 หลายเดือนก่อน

      As applied, yes. As intended, not really. You should not be able to sue a cop who pulls you over for speeding if you are actually speeding. The idea was to not clog the courts with such cases.

    • @MDNQ-ud1ty
      @MDNQ-ud1ty 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Government is a danger to the public. Notice how they pretend they are always there to help yet do 1000x more damage. Similar to how Israel blows up kids then makes up lies to justify it and convince everyone "We are the good guys". Psychopaths run the world and they use law and government to do great evil to innocent people.

    • @VelocityOfAFallingRock
      @VelocityOfAFallingRock 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @thorinpalladino2826 I agree with your premise (that QI is dangerous to the public as applied but not as intended). However, QI was not judicially invented to keep speeders from suing cops who pull them over (LOL); nor was it intended to free the courts from such ludicrous cases (which likely wouldn't go far anyway).
      Qualified immunity is a lesser from of absolute immunity, enjoyed by high-ranking federal officials such as the president, VP and cabinet members against civil lawsuits stemming from the performance of their official duties, and was extended to state and local government officials (not just the police) in order to shield them from burdensome lawsuits which might not only interfere with their ability to continue to carry out their official functions but may also deter them from making decisions in the first place for fear of getting sued.
      In a nutshell, to keep state and local governments from grinding to a halt because of lawsuits filed against their employees, it was decided that a government official such as a police officer, city engineer, county planner, etc. who makes a "good faith" error in judgment or the law while discharging the duties of his or her office should get a pass.
      Of course, the contours of QI have been refined by high courts over the years, and so today there is a plethora of case law governing very specific situations in what is a highly complex area of law.

    • @johndoe-ss9bz
      @johndoe-ss9bz 17 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      Public Safety is not important in reality, only in Rhetoric!!!

  • @stevej7139
    @stevej7139 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +218

    She's trying to argue that the unknown is plenty of reason to invade a home without a warrant, so not knowing something is enough reason to violate people's rights, that seems wrong to me.

    • @lindaward3156
      @lindaward3156 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      it is, they aren't the future police

    • @edwinmcguire6040
      @edwinmcguire6040 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

      GUILTY until you PROVE you're Innocence.

  • @MissingLink-hb9ov
    @MissingLink-hb9ov 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +170

    cops obviously never give a shit and do whatever the frock they want to do.

    • @getphuked2
      @getphuked2 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      WHY THE FUCK WOULD YOU, WILLY WONKA, in the end they find out.
      WORLDWIDE ABOLISHMENT OF IMMUNITY OF ANY LAW.
      That is the only way anything will change.

    • @MDNQ-ud1ty
      @MDNQ-ud1ty 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Yes and notice how these lunatics try to pretend cops are always there just to help and that it is their duty to help. SCOTUS already ruled cops have no obligation to help. So they are not there to actually help anyone but then they pretend they are when things go wrong.
      COPS are the problem. They are criminals that create crime(job security). They are moronic psychopathic thugs. They couldn't make the right decisions if their life depended on it.

  • @theeoarsman921
    @theeoarsman921 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +173

    The biggest part of the problem is lawyers and judges that protect corrupt cops at all costs!!!

    • @tasker6669
      @tasker6669 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      i disagree with the part of the lawyer. I think its necessary that all defendents gets the oportunity to hire any lawyer they want, and the lawyer should do his best to deffent his clients - regadless the circumstences and acts comitted. Even the thin blue line should get that treatment.
      But i agree with the part of the judges. The doctrin invented by supreme court judges and how it is handelt for years is going to far.
      I myself find it neccesary that some form of qualified immunity is granted to some form of mistakes, but how its actuall done is mindblowing. It got to the point that a rouge cop can do basicly anything and have nothing to fear.

    • @robertsmith2956
      @robertsmith2956 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      No, the judge can't prosecute people. the DA is the problem. There is no QI in criminal court.

  • @daithi1966
    @daithi1966 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +173

    The state admitted that they didn't have an emergency exception, but when the wife refused their entry without a warrant they entered anyway. If you don't have consent, a warrant, or exigent circumstances then you cannot enter. Period. Someone explicitly telling the police to leave is not justification to enter, it's just the opposite, and there is no community caretaking exception.

    • @tasker6669
      @tasker6669 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      thats the problem . state law is diffrent to federal law - and a 1983 (afaik is broguht by the familiy) case is hinged on feder law

    • @winstonwolf6791
      @winstonwolf6791 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      The court actually ruled the opposite. The court ruled the cops didn't need a warrant to enter the home and reversed. They upheld that the arrest and use of force was not justified after they entered.

    • @daithi1966
      @daithi1966 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@winstonwolf6791 You might want to read _Caniglia v Strom._ as that's the SCOTUS decision that says the police cannot enter someone's home without consent, exigent circumstances, or a warrant.

    • @tasker6669
      @tasker6669 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @@winstonwolf6791 under state law it would be otherwise. Because of federal law the court overruled the decision.
      But im not a lawyer ;)

    • @winstonwolf6791
      @winstonwolf6791 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@tasker6669 This is at the appeals court level. Only the Supreme Court could take away the qualified immunity. A state court could not now that it was granted. This court has the power to overrule any state level court.

  • @bobgoodwin5256
    @bobgoodwin5256 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +79

    Any attorney willing to argue for why an officer that's done wrong should be able to get away with it is a special kind of evil!

    • @zubetp
      @zubetp 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

      i will always square up for lawyers. she was hired to do a job.
      when i worked retail, i wasn't _really_ happy to see customers. they treated me like crap, but i was forced to pretend they're funny, drop what i'm doing to help them do stuff, etc. i wasn't smiling and being kind to them because i was so happy they were there. i was doing it because that was my job. that's what was expected of me.
      the same is true of an attorney - she's working right now. and the same should be true of a cop - they should have to know what restrictions there are as to what they're allowed to do.

    • @bluehills38
      @bluehills38 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Go watch Law Abiding Citizen with Jamie Fox

    • @VelocityOfAFallingRock
      @VelocityOfAFallingRock 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      @zubetp I understand the argument you're making, but comparing or analogizing attorneys who represent/defend cops who use excessive force and cause bodily injuries (in this case, a broken elbow and spinal injuries to an elderly woman) to retail workers who help customers with questions and service is a bit of a stretch.

    • @hendricksausges3006
      @hendricksausges3006 หลายเดือนก่อน

      ​@@zubetppeople like you need to get out of America. People who lie on purpose to make sure innocent people get punished really need to face consequences.
      People like you disgust me.

    • @DJKevvyKevCoolBreeze
      @DJKevvyKevCoolBreeze 24 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      @@VelocityOfAFallingRock Agreed. The fact that EVERYBODY is entitled to a vigorous defense does NOT mean that the person providing that defense isn't a POS. If you know someone did wrong, and you work your hardest to help them evade responsibility, you do NOT get a pass in the moral sweepstakes. "I'm just doing my job" is a terrible thing to say, when your Job is to help horrific people get away with horrific things. Period.

  • @sydnidowney3598
    @sydnidowney3598 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +118

    WHY IS THERE A LAW THAT A WARRANT IS NEEDED TO ENTER SOMEONE'S HOME IF NOW COPS BELIEVE THAT THEY DON'T NEED A WARRANT?

    • @douglashoward9616
      @douglashoward9616 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Because cops are not law enforcement. But they are lawbreakers.

    • @douglashoward-t8o
      @douglashoward-t8o 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      The red coats are back in charge

    • @MDNQ-ud1ty
      @MDNQ-ud1ty 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Exactly. "You need a warrant by law" "But the law also says if we believe X then we can come in without a warrant and we believe X".
      SCOTUS already ruled that cops have no obligation to help anyone. So why do cops ALWAYS get it wrong? It's because they are morons(provably) and psychopaths(provably) so all they can do is make the wrong moves(in their mind it is the right moves specially because they always find each other did no wrong doing).
      The constitution laid it out very clear... but then they come along and add exceptions so they can undermine the constitution and make it useless(and hence do the exact thing the constitution was trying to prevent happen).
      Then when they do their evil you get the government nuts(DA's, judges, etc) defending them because cops ultimately exist to protect the rich and their loot that they stole from the poors. Always been that way and always will be that way. Remember, they have no obligation to protect anyone... but they will protect rich people(their masters) and their crap(crap they bought with the $$$ they steal from the wage slaves using financial theft that most people are clueless about(MBS's, swaps, derivatives schemes, etc).

    • @lrdisco2005
      @lrdisco2005 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Because Q.I.

    • @BenjaminJones-y4h
      @BenjaminJones-y4h 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

      Cops have been doing this for 50 years.
      They break into whatever home they want.

  • @peteyfiske9107
    @peteyfiske9107 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +54

    “We got a call, so that’s sufficient justification to kick the door down, enter the residence and arrest anyone we want to arrest because we want to…we have guns and badges.”

  • @franklyanogre00000
    @franklyanogre00000 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +56

    If it is equally alarming that the door is answered or if it is not answered, then the alarm is being caused by the policeman's knocking, not the people inside.

  • @Facetiously.Esoteric
    @Facetiously.Esoteric 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +157

    A Texas federal judge ruled that qualified immunity has no basis in law the other day.

    • @robertsmith2956
      @robertsmith2956 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

      QI is the Dredd Scott case of the 20th century.

    • @327efrain
      @327efrain 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      What do I need to google to get more info on this????

    • @wittydisplayname1761
      @wittydisplayname1761 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Mississippi judge I believe.

    • @robertsmith2956
      @robertsmith2956 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @@327efrain a VPN if you use google.

    • @debrajol3585
      @debrajol3585 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      @@327efrainI think The Civil Rights Lawyer channel did a video on this one not too long ago too.

  • @mfbrisson
    @mfbrisson 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +59

    The people have repeatedly stressed the need to eliminate qualified immunity!! It’s not a law. It needs to go. That would be a huge step in bringing the judicial system back in line.

    • @Vazzini42
      @Vazzini42 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It is slowly getting chipped away, but nowhere near fast enough.

    • @markhellman-pn3hn
      @markhellman-pn3hn 16 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      .....and we wonder why the whole fukkin planet hates us ???

  • @wandamcgiboney5141
    @wandamcgiboney5141 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +61

    Qualified immunity is unconstitutional should be abolished ,this immunity emboldened officers who will do wrong will do WRONG with impunity. And they do .

  • @jimmyzab5476
    @jimmyzab5476 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +93

    Think of the money they will save if they get rid of qualified immunity ITS A MONEY PIT

    • @samdoe5087
      @samdoe5087 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +13

      Think how much money would be saved if cops learned the law and then actually followed the law.
      That is my question, are cops that stoopid or do they think we are?

    • @deepdragon2
      @deepdragon2 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

      @@samdoe5087 They do not think you are stupid. They think you are just a criminal...

    • @hsplash8243
      @hsplash8243 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Someone just challenged the immunity. It passed in federal court

    • @Homeboy174
      @Homeboy174 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      I think you ment to say, the money we will save. It's our state and federal tax money that pays for this shit.

    • @markhellman-pn3hn
      @markhellman-pn3hn 16 วันที่ผ่านมา

      pigs aren't interested in SAVING the sheeps money ... on the other hand .... they get BONUSES for STEALING the sheeps money !!

  • @craigbassett7146
    @craigbassett7146 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +103

    How can you defend a person that takes an elderly lady down and puts their knee on her neck?

    • @Zulu345
      @Zulu345 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Just like they allowed slavery , Rodney king, Philando Castile , the airmen who just got murdered in his home. This is American society. Chickens coming home to roost on its citizens. They flooded heroin and crack into Black and brown neighborhoods now it's in middle class white America. Karma or the universe call it what you may. When that type of energy is placed out there it circles back.

    • @lightning9279
      @lightning9279 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Brain washing. How can the jews in Israel allow their gov to wipeout innocent men, women and children? Same thing, brain washing.

    • @MDNQ-ud1ty
      @MDNQ-ud1ty 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Because you too are a psychopath. She's probably married to ac op or has a brother as a cop or has a father that steals using white collar crime and wants pigs to protect them.
      Why do cops always escalate as fast and much as possible when they have nothing better to do(but go jack off or sleep while on duty) since that is their job?
      Why not just wait around and try to get information or be patient? Why try to go to murder ASAP? They are psychopaths, that is why. They love the fight.

    • @GameCreatorOfGod
      @GameCreatorOfGod 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Jesus would if repented. Other then that others will on basic human rights for all not just for some. It is wrong what happened yes, and they should repent. That is the issue, changing people for the better.

    • @1rstBorn
      @1rstBorn 17 วันที่ผ่านมา

      @@GameCreatorOfGod What?

  • @TruthTeller-vk1du
    @TruthTeller-vk1du 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +65

    If you’re not held accountable then you never learn ! Ask any child. Abolish qualified immunity and let cops get personal insurance.

    • @edwinmcguire6040
      @edwinmcguire6040 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      And get RID of Government Unions. CORRUPT as Hell.

    • @getphuked2
      @getphuked2 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      THE WAY IT USE TO BE.

    • @bluehills38
      @bluehills38 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Bingo

    • @getphuked2
      @getphuked2 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

      But they said, "if we can't break the LAWS & STATUTES, WE CAN'T DO OUR JOB". For fear of being put in the CAGE with the people they just busted.

    • @scottmghill
      @scottmghill 18 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

      "Let them get personal insurance"? DEMAND that they carry insurance. Stop forcing the taxpayers to pay for an armed occupation force violating our rights over and over.

  • @alexmeyjes5533
    @alexmeyjes5533 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +30

    It's amazing how the Bill of Rights is under continuous attack !

  • @TemerRarious
    @TemerRarious 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +84

    violated the privacy of a home with no warrant should be a capital offense

    • @doc693
      @doc693 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      It would be where I live.

    • @stevenklein6634
      @stevenklein6634 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It is illegal, it’s called home invasion. We the people are supposed to be able to defend ourselves from home invasion and government over reach. Problem is tyrants love power. Christ warns masters do not let me return and find you abusing my servants. It’s a warning that upon his return many will be removed and sent straight to hell wearing there current flesh alive. He also said pay honor to whom honor is due, that is your neighbor fellow humans regardless of color, cops, mayors, governors etc (elected officials). So the rich and the poor deserve good treatment. The wicked do not, the old testament covers what we are dealing with today and the constitution covers it. Constitutional courts need to be set up in every city, and every public official suspected of breaking the constitution and the bill of rights need to be brought to trial. Wicked cops, judges, and politicians; as well as all bureaucrats this would resolve everything. No more blah blah blah. The governing documents clearly state that no law should be more than 1 page long. That renders many laws illegal (lawless). They know this. It’s a pipe dream, those in power will never allow real justice. I know what the real America died before I was born. So just been living my life a lowly peasant who believes in Christ being the real authority over all. I beseach all that read this read the gospels and believe, all that is in this world is outside of God, so you can do no good without Christ. He alone should be your foundation in this life and the next. I’m saddened everyday by the constant blindness and lack of shame by so many people. Even Israel was punished mightily by God, if you think the USA is immune from God and his justice you are deceived. Please study to show thyself approved, daily try and be better than all your days before. Narrow is the way through the gate to heaven.

    • @WilliamOfficeSupply9832
      @WilliamOfficeSupply9832 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      ILLEGAL Invaded a house is a Federal Crime and Felony.
      Fourth Amendment
      Eighth Amendment
      Fourteenth Amendment
      Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242
      Title 18 U.S.C. Section 241

    • @douglashoward9616
      @douglashoward9616 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      It's why the founders wrote the 2cnd amendment.

    • @WilliamOfficeSupply9832
      @WilliamOfficeSupply9832 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Privacy of the house. The structure is a house.
      Fourth Amendment.
      House.

  • @bigrich6750
    @bigrich6750 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +30

    Qualified Immunity is one of the most pernicious doctrines in the law. It should be completely abolished. Make PDs buy liability insurance like every other business. When bad cops violate rights and use excessive force, excessively, they will cause premiums to rise and departments will be forced to get rid of the rotten apples. Right now, there is no incentive to get rid of the bad cops, and departments often hire cops who have a history of abuse, because they know there are no repercussions

    • @ChestnutFarmHome
      @ChestnutFarmHome 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      As a simple contractor, I was REQUIRED to have more liability insurance than a cop

    • @kathrynleaser5093
      @kathrynleaser5093 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Excellent points😊

  • @SmittyAZ
    @SmittyAZ 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +90

    The cop's mouthpieces always ONLY mention clearly established precedent, NEVER the REASONABLE officer part.

    • @cameronjames3499
      @cameronjames3499 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      And the brief moment she touches on it she appears to be trying to twist it to mean what an officer would consider reasonable, rather than what a reasonable offer would do/consider reasonable.

    • @SmittyAZ
      @SmittyAZ 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      @@cameronjames3499 Yet, we civilians are the ones that are held to the higher standard by the cops and when Judges are reaming us.

    • @StateFarmGaming
      @StateFarmGaming 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ​@@SmittyAZit should be flipped

    • @tomricketts7821
      @tomricketts7821 หลายเดือนก่อน

      They do exist reasonable officers but the unreasonable ones are the ones who seem to be hiding their behaviour and avoiding consequences that everyone else would suffer and dragging the reputation of police and policing down behind qualified immunity

  • @FREEDOMNOW33
    @FREEDOMNOW33 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +36

    Felony braking and entering . Its a FELONY .

  • @purpleprose1315
    @purpleprose1315 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +57

    Of course a social worker was involved.

  • @KaiHouston-m6j
    @KaiHouston-m6j 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +34

    This sort of contempt for enumerated rights has got to stop.

  • @liquidflorian
    @liquidflorian 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +45

    >woman has spinal injury
    Judge: you say this was a minimal use of force?
    Lawyer: oh absolutely!
    What a farce.

    • @stevenhayes3241
      @stevenhayes3241 19 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

      This pisses me off she was 80 or 90 with a knee on her neck?

  • @davidreed6070
    @davidreed6070 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +147

    The female attorney talks a lot and doesn't say much.

    • @bastordd
      @bastordd 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      😂😂

    • @DJPLAST2
      @DJPLAST2 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      You can eliminate “attorney” out of that statement.

    • @davidreed6070
      @davidreed6070 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      @@DJPLAST2 an accurate statement.

    • @ericwsmith7722
      @ericwsmith7722 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      She took a course in copsplaing

    • @Trust-me-I-am-a-dentist
      @Trust-me-I-am-a-dentist 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      She is a member of the small hats cult that's how they role.

  • @DavidJohnsonFromSeattle
    @DavidJohnsonFromSeattle 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +63

    these a-hole judges ruled the cops had qualified immunity for breaking into the house despite the objections of the people present. apparently, if a random person says they are worried about a sick person in another's home, the cops have the authority to break into that house against the wishes of the occupants. THIS IS INSANITY

    • @__-nd5qi
      @__-nd5qi 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      It wasn’t a random person, it was his son

    • @NewmanAttack
      @NewmanAttack 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

      ​@@__-nd5qia son who didn't know that his father was married.....

    • @ygrittesnow1701
      @ygrittesnow1701 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Was there a finding issued on this? The video ends without saying this.

    • @scottmoncrief
      @scottmoncrief 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      ⁠@@ygrittesnow1701​​⁠ first link in the description of this video is the written decision for the case 🍻

    • @wood9670
      @wood9670 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

      The written decision affirms denial of qualified immunity.

  • @charlesbrasfield3774
    @charlesbrasfield3774 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +23

    the cops kneeling on an elderly woman's neck to handcuff her after they slam her down has nothing to do with her hurt neck! that takes the cake!

  • @user-neo71665
    @user-neo71665 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +16

    The cops got an answer and it hurt their egos so they broke in and assaulted them

    • @bones343
      @bones343 2 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

      Yep. That’s exactly what happened. The judges know this. Which is why their written ruling doesn’t even address the issue, intentionally avoiding saying what emergency they believed was occurring or why they believed it. They know it was purely BS, but are too big a coward to do the right thing. They’re all in the same club.

  • @staggerlee3587
    @staggerlee3587 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    The courts need to hold these cops accountable when they break the law.

  • @crinklecut3790
    @crinklecut3790 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    Keep ‘em coming, Father in Exile. I love these qualified immunity appellate cases.

  • @willsmith475
    @willsmith475 17 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    No law enforcement officers should have immunity.

  • @ThePthompson41
    @ThePthompson41 16 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    That second attorney was awesome. She started seeming sheepish then BAM! She knew her stuff with unequivocal competence and confidence.

  • @hambone2335
    @hambone2335 28 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Get rid of qualified immunity and all these cases go away.

  • @firstgoinpostal
    @firstgoinpostal 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    How to make police accountable,and think before they act???
    End qualified Immunity, PERIOD!!!
    There needs to be a point/grade based National registry for all members of law enforcement.
    All law enforcement officers should also be required to carry malpractice insurance paid out of pocket.
    No insurance, no job,no gypsy cop.
    The registry will give the insurance company a scale of whether they will cover an officer or not.
    The insurance will pay out lawsuits, instead of the taxpayer.
    Kind of like the States, and car insurance companies do.
    That's how it's set up for us truck drivers.
    We are not only graded by points violations,but also a CSA score.
    Too many points suspend/revoke your license.
    Too many points and the insurance will drop your coverage.
    Either one or both make us un-hireable .
    Share this everywhere!!
    Signed, Matthew M.Wayer.

  • @sydnidowney3598
    @sydnidowney3598 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +24

    BECAUSE OF QUALIFIED IMMUNITY COPS GO INTO EVERY SITUATION KNOWING THAT NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, AND HOW CRIMINAL IT IS, THEY WILL BE EXONERATED. QUALIFIED IMMUNITY ENCOURAGES COPS TO BE INCOMPETENT, UNEDUCATED, ABUSIVE, UNLAWFUL, AND INHUMANE. AND THEN TAXPAYERS GET THE PUNISHMENT EVEN THO THEY HAVE NO SAY IN HIRING, FIRING, OR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS TAKEN AGAINST ABUSIVE, UNLAWFUL, INCOMPETENT COPS.

    • @361c13
      @361c13 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      U Are Absolutely Correct, Well Put, Unions negotiate these Contracts and It's Ridiculous!!!!

    • @VelocityOfAFallingRock
      @VelocityOfAFallingRock 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      👌💯%

    • @bones343
      @bones343 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It’s worse than that. They know they won’t be criminally prosecuted because they are on the same team as the prosecutors, and if they miraculously are, they’re still on the same team as the judges. They’re all in the same club. QI purely prevents anyone from going forward with a civil suit. And even when QI is denied, they know they are not personally liable, it’s the taxpayers, as they additionally have civil immunity! The worse that happens is the taxpayers get to pay themselves for police CRIMES.

  • @paulraper1
    @paulraper1 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    They'll argue anything, ANYTHING to worm their way out of bad conduct or law breaking.

  • @borabora4480
    @borabora4480 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    Great point. Unknown does not qualify as an emergency.

  • @jeremybraman7933
    @jeremybraman7933 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    They have to be TOLD not to violate rights EACH time?!

  • @globyois
    @globyois 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    What if the elderly man inside was deaf and mute and COULDN’T ANSWER?!
    Does that then give an officer the authority to kick in the door, even when his caregiver is answering for him?

  • @aeonMaat19
    @aeonMaat19 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    Qualified immunity is unlawful

  • @darlenedowie2926
    @darlenedowie2926 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +15

    Wow, this female defense lawyer is delusional.

  • @LackLusterMedia
    @LackLusterMedia 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +14

    I can never tell if these attorneys really believe their rights should be stripped and handed to GED qualified, welfare recipients, or if they're just going through the motions because "it's the job".
    Arguing for QI is a job reserved for capital "A" holes.

    • @fatherinexile
      @fatherinexile  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

      1) I love your channel! 2) thank you for the comment. 3) have u seen the bodycam of my arrest or the ring doorbell footage of the NV Attorney General goons? 4) I’m suing dozens of government goons in federal court in Las Vegas right now. Stay tuned!

    • @YouveBeenMiddled
      @YouveBeenMiddled 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Making those arguments is the only way to keep raking in money from the taxpayer's teat.

    • @kristintopol1724
      @kristintopol1724 2 หลายเดือนก่อน

      It's every citizen's right to have due process and representation.

  • @TubeOnRichard
    @TubeOnRichard 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    It's the old "We got a call" gambit. The police should go and break down the door of the "caller" The caller, a son, didn't even know his father had married again so how is he even credible?

  • @KerryFairbanks-l7q
    @KerryFairbanks-l7q 20 วันที่ผ่านมา +6

    Our US needs to get rid of qualified immunity immediately.

  • @nickhayden1304
    @nickhayden1304 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    We need to get rid of qualified immunity

  • @danmartens8855
    @danmartens8855 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +25

    All of these QI Appeal arguments harp on the second prong of "clearly established" case law.
    This is the ludicrous Catch-22 of the entire Qualified Immunity facade.
    You can't get a clearly established case law if you can never win in the absence of a clearly established case law.
    The appeal arguers seek to hold a mini trial asserting that no reasonable officer would ever have any expectation of accountability because this case is utterly dissimilar to any case that ever happened before. This is a guaranteed blank check for the government to violate citizens civil rights.

    • @cherylkline142
      @cherylkline142 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      I wondered about that, too. If police have no duty to protect citizens, how can exigent circumstances even exist?

    • @AZCommunityAutoRepair
      @AZCommunityAutoRepair 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Exactly !!!

    • @danmartens8855
      @danmartens8855 8 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      @@cherylkline142 You are right. They can't be sued for not protecting citizens, and they can't be sued for ineptly "protecting" citizens.
      Bottom line is they just can't be sued.

  • @johnnytwotimez
    @johnnytwotimez 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    Welfare check is no blanket to enter sans warrant.

  • @MrDarren5012
    @MrDarren5012 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    The public does not get the same consideration when determining matters of law they are accused of….

  • @Girard-d3t
    @Girard-d3t 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    When will they learn that their ignorance doesn't give them exigency!!!!!!! If not knowing what is going on in a house gave them reason to enter they could just go door to door and search everyone's home!!!!!!!

  • @Jimbodini112
    @Jimbodini112 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +24

    BOGGLES my mind how “common sense” never factors into the Supreme Court MADE UP LAW of qualified immunity or as i like to say….the dog chasing his tail.!! (Because it can only be eatablished if the court rules it and if they don’t its not clearly established)🙄

  • @BenjaminJones-y4h
    @BenjaminJones-y4h 19 วันที่ผ่านมา +3

    "invoking the unknown is NOT sufficient for establishing exigent circumstances"
    BOOM!
    done deal.
    If they could invoke the unknown to enter a home, then they could enter any home at any time.

  • @savagefacts81
    @savagefacts81 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +27

    The defense attorney has a tough job here - she has to go against everything she was taught in law school to defend these cops who were clearly in the wrong. Whats worse, is that rather than the police just take this on the chin and take accountability for their wrongdoing, they pay this lady try to fleece the higher courts into seeing things her way. Meanwhile, the prosecuting attorney was shooting lights out! She was educated, prepared and un-biased. She was a walking Mike Ross.

    • @ygrittesnow1701
      @ygrittesnow1701 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      Minor correction. We are paying her to do that too. We paid for the officers to commit the crime and we are paying for their defense, all of it.

  • @realspacemodels
    @realspacemodels 20 วันที่ผ่านมา +4

    Qualified Immunity should not be automatic. It should be something that is AWARDED to police who show they acted in a way that supported the law and citizens rights. Because police often violate the law and citizens rights knowing there will be no accountability.

  • @michaelherring7210
    @michaelherring7210 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    So if you’re elderly or sick, you lose your rights? That’s what this lawyer is arguing! They literally asked for a warrant, and the person at the door did not communicate any emergency.

  • @KoshVorlon-xb3wq
    @KoshVorlon-xb3wq 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +8

    Steve Lehto, has a video where QI was refused as it had "no basis in law".
    If that sets a precedent that will be great.

  • @joshclearwater6461
    @joshclearwater6461 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    Watching these snakes try to argue for injustice is absolutely sickening.

    • @Trust-me-I-am-a-dentist
      @Trust-me-I-am-a-dentist 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      Agreed. It takes a certain type of folks that can do this and sleep like a baby at the end of the day.

  • @albertaaardvark966
    @albertaaardvark966 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +24

    Mixed bag on this one. The cops did get qualified immunity on the entry as the court found they believed it may have been emergent but they lost QI on the arrest and excessive force.

    • @fatherinexile
      @fatherinexile  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

      Mixed bag is better than no bag! Thank you for the comment.

    • @davidswanson5669
      @davidswanson5669 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

      @@fatherinexileyeah well then why does your video say that immunity “implodes!”? Sounds like it held up in one instance, and was denied in two instances. Try not to be a clickbait perpetuator. 99% of your audience isn’t going to read the actual ruling, so they’d be under the wrong impression about what cops can or can’t do during certain circumstances. In fact, if the wife had physically blocked the cops from entry, her arrest would have been upheld. People need to understand the nuances.

  • @bigwrig0485
    @bigwrig0485 17 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    They upheld 2 district court decisions on denying QE but reversed the decision on unlawful entry to the home. To think that if the cops didn't rough up the victim and simply entered the home without a warrant then they would have recieved qualified immunity is sickening.

  • @HelliDontKno
    @HelliDontKno 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    The cops got upset because they were told "NO". Cops do not like to be told NO. To cops it's always, respect my authority or else. That their right to be safe always Trumps any right you (civilian) have even when there's no clear & present threat.
    And they will "help you" whether you want or need it!!!

  • @gregorylane4684
    @gregorylane4684 19 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    The only reason those officers barged in is because they were told to stay out. They use the courts and these lawyers to justify the fact that they believe they above the law.

  • @mahlatsesathekge5596
    @mahlatsesathekge5596 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    When a judge said: "We have a video, and you're describing this as a minimum use of force? "
    That hit deep. You know you lost, after that.

  • @climber950
    @climber950 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    They upheld the denied QI for excessive force and for the arrest. But I can’t believe they reversed on the entry. They even said the officers were erroneous, but not unreasonable. I’m baffled by their reasoning abilities off their “investigation” They knew the man was on hospice. They had proof he was getting medical care. And the son only alleged, and I never heard they spoke to the son further alleging anything else, that he hadn’t heard from his father. Shame on the 9th circuit for allowing this bogus unlawful entry.

  • @YouveBeenMiddled
    @YouveBeenMiddled 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +7

    STUNNED that the officers were granted QI against the 4A violation of forced entry.
    They're not required to act to save someone's life, but if they violate your rights while doing so that's reasonable?

    • @fatherinexile
      @fatherinexile  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Great point!

    • @lgDukeCity5018
      @lgDukeCity5018 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      @YouveBeenMiddled
      All that was needed was a little more due diligence from the damn cops to realize the man was being cared for.

  • @SCM0NDT
    @SCM0NDT 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    Cops should be held to a higher standard, as they are in a position of authority.
    Should be the reverse of qualified immunity.

  • @matthewridgeway9250
    @matthewridgeway9250 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    Dear courts. QI is not an acceptable notion to civilians.

  • @larrybuzan7687
    @larrybuzan7687 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    The first female lawyer must be a police union lackey

  • @chrisoakey9841
    @chrisoakey9841 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +9

    so a priest visiting turns it into an emergency ? WTF?

  • @hwhack
    @hwhack 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    I love how it's always everyone else's fault for the cop's incompetence and violation of the law.

  • @ges8790
    @ges8790 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +5

    Abolish qualified immunity

  • @frankdoss6313
    @frankdoss6313 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    This raises a problem with permitting cops to lie. People know cops will lie. This also raises a problem with cops not knowing the law and making it up as they go. People know this, too.
    Oh, and the problem with using a no-answer case is there was an answer to the door knock.

  • @westmassdave7354
    @westmassdave7354 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +17

    It’s getting to the point where we the people should stop paying taxes.

    • @markhellman-pn3hn
      @markhellman-pn3hn 16 วันที่ผ่านมา

      the pigs take away your house if you don't pay taxes - the pigs take away your car if you don't pay taxes !! .... its a lose/lose situation for the sheep

  • @enderfal
    @enderfal 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +12

    So the cops get hammered on 2 of the 3 charges on them. The lower level court said you go to trial on all 3, unlawful entry, false arrest, unreasonable force. Here the 9th said, well community caretaking was still kinda maybe a thing at the time of entry, so we dismiss unlawful entry charge based on QI. I don't like it, but based on the caselaw at the time, I tend to agree.
    For the 2nd one, unlawful arrest. It is real simple. You can question cops, especially when it comes to warrant questioning. Asking questions is not obstructing. Not doing something, ie not opening the door, is not obstructing. Has they lied about something, than perhaps, this was not the case here, but obstructing requires an action, not a non-action. What we have here was a failure to comply, (with a questionable unlawful order, at best)that is not obstruction. So as such an arrest was not authorized, especially in SOMEONES house. The 3rd charge is the easy one as the arrest denial makes any force unjustified. Though some courts tend to say ones does not equal the other but I digress. In any case body cam seems to show a verbally defiant subject being punished for her mouth with an aggressive takedown arrest, when she had been IN THE HOME.
    To the poster of the video I do thank you for posting the links to the court opinions as well. makes life so much easier.

    • @fatherinexile
      @fatherinexile  6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

      You’re welcome! Thanks for the detailed comment.

  • @kn4cc755
    @kn4cc755 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Somebody call for a welfare check on that middle judge. She sounds like she's in distress.

  • @newshodgepodge6329
    @newshodgepodge6329 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +11

    There were clearly other persons present at the home. Unless the responding officers had a legitimate, observation based reason to believe that those persons were in some way incompetent, what made them think they were entitled to substitute their judgement for that of anyone in the home with the person of interest? They just never seem to know when to lay off and give it a rest. Once they get up on their high horse they always have to run it right into the ground.

  • @peterbuckley3877
    @peterbuckley3877 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +10

    They reversed to lower courts denial of QI based on they believed they had exigent circumstances but they upheld the decision on the search, arrests and excessive force. I would personally have denied the first claim because every man and his dog knows that there is no warrant no entry and to claim exigent circumstance they must have an RAS based in evidence and nit just a hunch or mistaken belief.
    If this progresses to court instead of being settled they still have a slam dunk case on 3 out of 4 of their claims.

    • @KGditto
      @KGditto 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      Again and again the courts expand the scope of 'exigent circumstances'. And LEO's know it. They know damn well they should get a warrant, but they know the state attorneys will spend millions to keep them far away from consequences.

    • @peterbuckley3877
      @peterbuckley3877 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

      @@KGditto the lower courts have been the culprits in that but over the last couple of years there’s been a change in the courts, especially the circuit courts finding against QI. I think it’s just a natural reaction against just how out of control the police have become over the years.

  • @doncordier6854
    @doncordier6854 14 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    This happened to me when I called for a ambulance and because I got a little loud the 911 people called the cops on me and held up the emergency call for help. The cop tried to open up my front door and lucky it was still locked. They entered after the ambulance people without permission to enter. I never called for their help. It almost killed my wife. These people think that they have the right to break down our front door because I got louder on the phone i never threatened anyone or did anything than repeat the address over and over because they didn't know how to write it down. Where did they go wrong. The next time I called the cops showed up and froced their way in telling me that they show up for every emergency yet never came back on the next call.

  • @dangeary2134
    @dangeary2134 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +21

    Qualified Immunity was used by the British before we broke away from them.
    We all know what happened when enough was enough.

    • @BriCairns
      @BriCairns 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      😂 you broke away from no one, long lost ancestors may of but you did jack sh#t 😂😂

  • @your_royal_highness
    @your_royal_highness 19 วันที่ผ่านมา +2

    How about courts “stressing” citizens’ rights?

    • @fatherinexile
      @fatherinexile  19 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

      We can only dream!

  • @rhettroberts9248
    @rhettroberts9248 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    Qualified immunity is over!

  • @semblt
    @semblt 10 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    Long live the Legend of Luigi

  • @t-dog8528
    @t-dog8528 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +20

    Defending unlawful cops is lower than a snakes asshole

    • @crscts
      @crscts หลายเดือนก่อน

      She works for the law firm that the cops hired to defend them, all paid with our tax dollars. She's trying to argue facts for an emergency that the cops couldn't have known when they entered the house.

  • @FUBAR199
    @FUBAR199 17 วันที่ผ่านมา +1

    District courts and state courts always tend to deny these cases it’s policy to protect the state at every level, until you go federal

  • @brentfarvors192
    @brentfarvors192 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    "Do WHAT"??? Why would it matter if they stated they were entering without a warrant? That is even worse than just barging in!!! What part of "no warrant, no entry", do these absolute tools not understand??? Go get a WARRANT, and THEN gain entry!!! All but a handful of situations require exigent circumstances. Being that of immediate harm. Otherwise, you can come back with a signed warrant! LITERALLY WHY the 4th amendment was specifically written in the first place! "No shortage of excuses will arise from a PD's desire to violate someones privacy!!! "Go tell it to a (supposed to be), neutral third party!!! Otherwise, you are comitting felonies!!!

  • @kswiss4658
    @kswiss4658 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    Crazy a lawyer argues if they dont answer they can come in..and if they answer they can come in. Does she not believe in the 4th amendment?

  • @shokprof1313
    @shokprof1313 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +6

    District Court opinion V LEGISLATION COURT OPINION V WE THE PEOPLES OPINION?⚖️✌🏽✌🏻✌🏿🤔🧐🤔✌🏿✌🏻✌🏽⚖️

  • @CathyFeihle
    @CathyFeihle 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thank you, Judge! For keeping it real and breaking it down to the basics.

  • @terryhayward7905
    @terryhayward7905 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +3

    I wonder if ANY police officer has every considered knocking gently and ASKING if they could speak to someone PLEASE ??
    The police MUST prove that there WAS an emergency, or turn around and leave.
    The police cannot assume an emergency until the occupant proves that there is NOT an emergency.
    Qualified immunity is a good idea, badly implemented.
    Qualified immunity should be APPLIED FOR by an officer who believes that they were in the right, it should NOT be automatically conferred.
    The word Qualified should be an indication it should be used ONLY if it fits the circumstances.
    The burden of proof in a court lies with the prosecution, the same should apply to the police.
    THEY must prove that qualified immunity is required before attacking a person or thing. (building / car / etc )

  • @nevisstkitts8264
    @nevisstkitts8264 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    6:10 "after the officers arrived, it escalated to an emergency" if so, then the policy should be revised from qualified immunity to qualified indictment ...

  • @TAC817
    @TAC817 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +4

    The nonsense argument that LEO (law enforcement officer) 'didn't know' our fundamental and well-established law, that LEO 'didn't know' he was not supposed to violate protected rights, that LEO didn't know that color of law or abuse of power was a crime -- that government officials should be excused for their maleficence because of magical Qualified Immunity. Imagine if we the people could argue 'the contour of the law must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable person would have understood that what he was doing would have violated that law'. This same prosecutor would laugh us out of court before locking us up.
    Legal scholar Orin Kerr put it this way, "The law only requires the public to obey a peace officer’s 'lawful' orders does not deny ordinary citizens a reasonable opportunity to know what conduct is prohibited." The courts reason for affirming that public cannot resist an 'unlawful order' -- or more significantly, cannot defend against deadly police assault (lawful or unlawful) is “Ubi jus ibi remedium - “where there is a right, there should be a remedy” -- a great aspirational ideal that we must seek remedy through the court or we'd have anarchy. 'But it is not an accurate description of the present-day American legal system.' Individuals who have protected rights violated by officials [like above] -- who suffer illegal injury from police brutality often can't obtain a remedy from today's courts. It's now made more unprincipled and one-sided than usual lack of resources or Pro Se sophistication to access due process, it's now complicated by a biased judicial forum primarily selected from prosecutorial backgrounds that stands in the way of justice by denying the right of remedy in the first place.
    The U.S. Supreme Court sent a clear message to the lower courts in 1980, long after it created QI out of thin air -- "Officers of the court have no immunity, when violating a Constitutional right, from liability. For they are deemed to know the law!” -- Owen v. Independence, 100 S.C.T. 1398, 445 US 622, U.S. (1980). The court added, "The knowledge that a municipality will be liable for all of its injurious conduct…should create an incentive for officials who may harbor doubts about the lawfulness of their intended actions to err on the side of protecting citizens."
    We can't fix stupid but we should be able to give it a court date. When people who enforce the law are not subject to it, then law has no meaning. As if by reminder, the Supreme court validated, "The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.” - U.S. Supreme Court, City of Houston v Hill, 482 U.S. 451, (1987). History has amply demonstrated where a police state will end up ...

    • @josephrankin6055
      @josephrankin6055 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

      The courts reason for affirming that public cannot resist an 'unlawful order' -- or more significantly, cannot defend against deadly police assault
      With regards to this the supreme court has ruled. You are allowed to disregard unlawful orders and you may defend yourself with whatever force is required if an officer is using force to gain compliance with an unlawful order. Force must be proportional to the actions taken by the officer. Officers are REQUIRED to have a valid an legal reason to use arrest powers.

  • @jabbastag5466
    @jabbastag5466 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    I've been a lawyer although not in USA and although I never practiced criminal law. For me this is what a lawyer says when she (the representative of the policemen) has nothing to say (but must say something cos she is paid to). She must try for the sace of appearances if for nothing else. The judges clearly don't want to listen to vague fluff, they want to see whether there's some real argument, and instead they are getting generalities and musings which don't match the facts of this simple case. They didn't know who this woman was? How is this legally relevant? On my first year in Law School one of our courses was General Theory of the Law. Our professors wanted to see that we can separate what is legally relevant under a particular rule from the noise, from the many facts that may be interesting, that may matter in terms of what is normal, moral, common-sensical, and so on, but which are not envisaged in the legal rule. She is desperatelly trying to muddy the water by mixing what is relevant with that noise.

  • @DAVIDZ-vk4yv
    @DAVIDZ-vk4yv 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    every cop lawyer WILL say OH it was minimal use of force BUT do the same thing to a cop and your going to jail for abuse

  • @Grintor
    @Grintor 6 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    "It was minimal use of force" ... "mam she has major spinal cord injuries"

  • @socalcaiman
    @socalcaiman 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Keep these videos coming. I appreciate that you give both the oral argument and link the outcome.

  • @omga14
    @omga14 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +1

    "We have a video and your describing this as minimal use of force? That's your position here?" Obviously the judge did not agree with her assesment with that question.

  • @waltersobchak9427
    @waltersobchak9427 5 หลายเดือนก่อน +2

    If the police follow the law there is no need for qualified immunity. It's just a sheild to defend the indefensible.