Just Sad, "Chicago sees deadliest Memorial Day weekend in four years"

[AshyLarrysDiaper]

I’m not talking about ‘legal defense’, and I think you know that. Obviously, everyone has a right to an attorney.

I’m talking about the contract provisions that make firing violent cops extraordinarily difficult, the unions that launch public campaigns to defend cops filmed committing assault or murder, and qualified immunity which protects cops from being sued when they violate your constitutional rights.

Tell me what other profession has all that going on, and I’ll agree that we should be protesting them too.

So your problem should be with politicians, not cops. Cops don't create the law. Unions are always going to defend their own. Why is there a problem with police having unions compared to other jobs? If you want to start a discussion about unions, let's have it.

I'm not a lawyer so I won't pretend to understand the complexity around it. If you pointed to specific incidents where the immunity law protected cops, it might be more effective than just throwing the word out there.

But based on my reading of it, nothing protects you if you violate federal law or constitutional rights, so I think you have some misplaced anger about what that doctrine actually entails.

Your reading of qualified immunity is wrong. But feel free to link a source.

And regarding unions, sure, let’s have that conversation.

Show me another union that consistently operates like police unions, publicly defending literal murder and defaming the victims in the process.

I happen to work for a union, by the way. But maybe I’ll learn something.

[bullsnewdynasty]

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/medical-malpractice-causation-often-most-difficult-element-to-prove

Spoiler:

Stated simply, medical malpractice, or medical negligence, is medical care or treatment that falls below the accepted standard of care and causes actual harm to a patient. In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the law places the burden on the patient to prove that a medical provider deviated from the standard of care and caused harm. The first part of the test, establishing the medical provider deviated from the acceptable standard of care, can be fairly straightforward and is often the easier question to analyze and answer.
The process of analyzing whether a deviation from the standard of care occurred involves determining, through the right medical expert(s), what the applicable medical standard of care was under the given circumstances, and then assessing whether the subject medical provider’s care fell below that standard. Frequently, it is the next part of the medical malpractice test that proves more difficult to establish.

For medical malpractice, you literally have to prove that the medical provider caused harm to the patient. Proving causation is very difficult.

https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294987262

Spoiler:

One of the more fascinating aspects of financial reporting fraud cases is the element of intent. Unlike asset misappropriations and most corruption cases, fraudulent intent isn't always as obvious when the charges involve financial statement manipulation.
Accounting rules can be complicated and subject to a great degree of judgment and estimation. Therefore, often when a company issues a restatement of its financial statements to correct an error, no criminal fraud charges are brought. Regulators attribute the correction to nothing more than a misapplication of accounting principles because clear evidence of intent is lacking.

For financial fraud, you have to prove that there was intent to defraud or deceive, which is also very difficult.

There are many professions were there is a very high bar to cross. You also have to consider whether we want to create a society with enormous legal liability and never ending court cases.

[Dresden]

Terrible situation in Buffalo with the police knocking that old man to the ground. And then they just walked over him while he's laying there, with blood coming out of his ear. They need to approach these situations with some common sense.

to be fair, they didn't knock him to the ground. they very lightly pushed him and he tripped and fell while backpedaling. the appalling part was that they just left him there to bleed at first

i think the entire unit resigned because the people involved were punished. did they expect no punishment for the lack of humanity exhibited?

Yeah, they pushed him backwards. What do you think is the likely result when you push somebody that age backwards?

[musiqsoulchild]

Terrible situation in Buffalo with the police knocking that old man to the ground. And then they just walked over him while he's laying there, with blood coming out of his ear. They need to approach these situations with some common sense.

to be fair, they didn't knock him to the ground. they very lightly pushed him and he tripped and fell while backpedaling. the appalling part was that they just left him there to bleed at first

i think the entire unit resigned because the people involved were punished. did they expect no punishment for the lack of humanity exhibited?

Why do you know that was the reason they resigned?

Maybe they resigned because they're tired of getting disrespected by the public. Not worth it to do a job where you are not appreciated and then expected to risk your life for those same people when they're in trouble.

If anybody hates the police, don't call them the next time you need help.

They didnt resign from their jobs as cops.

Only the part of the job that puts them in Riot Policing.

These buffaloes are still policing Buffalo. In some capacity. FML.

And Ashy is right. Cops have insane protection under the law. Part of why they had to take their time to first fire Chauvin.

[dice]

Terrible situation in Buffalo with the police knocking that old man to the ground. And then they just walked over him while he's laying there, with blood coming out of his ear. They need to approach these situations with some common sense.

to be fair, they didn't knock him to the ground. they very lightly pushed him and he tripped and fell while backpedaling. the appalling part was that they just left him there to bleed at first

i think the entire unit resigned because the people involved were punished. did they expect no punishment for the lack of humanity exhibited?

Why do you know that was the reason they resigned?

the ability to use google

but following the initial reporting, a couple of them came forward to say that many of them resigned because they are no longer getting legal support from their union:

https://www.wkbw.com/news/local-news/exclusive-two-buffalo-police-ert-members-say-resignation-was-not-in-solidarity-with-suspended-officers

If anybody hates the police, don't call them the next time you need help.

brilliant

[dice]

Terrible situation in Buffalo with the police knocking that old man to the ground. And then they just walked over him while he's laying there, with blood coming out of his ear. They need to approach these situations with some common sense.

to be fair, they didn't knock him to the ground. they very lightly pushed him and he tripped and fell while backpedaling. the appalling part was that they just left him there to bleed at first

i think the entire unit resigned because the people involved were punished. did they expect no punishment for the lack of humanity exhibited?

Yeah, they pushed him backwards. What do you think is the likely result when you push somebody that age backwards?

the VERY likely result is that they move out of the way. even a 100 year old woman is unlikely to topple over if you gently shove her. even if she doesn't see it coming

i'm not sure they should have touched him at all. and if they did, they should have used a hand on each shoulder and gently escorted him aside. but make no mistake about it - this was a freak accident. they touched him at arm's length. when you forcibly shove someone, you get real close to them, bend your arms and extend outward. you don't approach them with arm extended

[OToti84]

You must not know many 100 year olds lol. I work with elderly daily... if you push a 100 year old they WILL fall thats a pretty... strange comment... most cops suck they have too much power... they think they can assault people with no repurcussion. Change needs to happen

Sent from my SM-G955U using RealGM mobile app

[dice]

You must not know many 100 year olds lol. I work with elderly daily... if you push a 100 year old they WILL fall

geez, how many 100 year olds have you pushed over?

[Jo Jo English]

the VERY likely result is that they move out of the way. even a 100 year old woman is unlikely to topple over if you gently shove her. even if she doesn't see it coming

i'm not sure they should have touched him at all. and if they did, they should have used a hand on each shoulder and gently escorted him aside. but make no mistake about it - this was a freak accident. they touched him at arm's length. when you forcibly shove someone, you get real close to them, bend your arms and extend outward. you don't approach them with arm extended

Normally I'm on the same page with you, dice, for many of the issues I see you comment on, so understand that this isn't coming from someone looking for confrontation.

I have to disagree strongly with you on this though. My parents are roughly this age and I have witnessed first hand just how much more likely they are to fall now from seemingly harmless things like standing up too quickly or something small causing them to lose just a bit of their balance. A couple of years ago my mother, who was in her 70s, fell on some uneven footing when walking to a Cubs game. No one pushed her. She just lost her balance on the brick path and she fell face first and didn't have the reaction time to protect her head. Broke a bone in her shoulder and fractured her eye socket. Ambulance ride to a trauma center. All sorts of tests to see just how extensive the damage was. It was pretty horrific.

Willfully shoving a man that age is abhorrent. He wasn't a threat. Those officers let their aggression get the best of them and they did something that maybe would have had no consequence if the guy was a couple of decades younger, but at that age it is incredibly easy for them to fall and not be capable of minimizing the damage. You just don't do that.

[DuckIII]

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/medical-malpractice-causation-often-most-difficult-element-to-prove

Spoiler:

Stated simply, medical malpractice, or medical negligence, is medical care or treatment that falls below the accepted standard of care and causes actual harm to a patient. In a medical malpractice lawsuit, the law places the burden on the patient to prove that a medical provider deviated from the standard of care and caused harm. The first part of the test, establishing the medical provider deviated from the acceptable standard of care, can be fairly straightforward and is often the easier question to analyze and answer.
The process of analyzing whether a deviation from the standard of care occurred involves determining, through the right medical expert(s), what the applicable medical standard of care was under the given circumstances, and then assessing whether the subject medical provider’s care fell below that standard. Frequently, it is the next part of the medical malpractice test that proves more difficult to establish.

For medical malpractice, you literally have to prove that the medical provider caused harm to the patient. Proving causation is very difficult.

https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=4294987262

Spoiler:

One of the more fascinating aspects of financial reporting fraud cases is the element of intent. Unlike asset misappropriations and most corruption cases, fraudulent intent isn't always as obvious when the charges involve financial statement manipulation.
Accounting rules can be complicated and subject to a great degree of judgment and estimation. Therefore, often when a company issues a restatement of its financial statements to correct an error, no criminal fraud charges are brought. Regulators attribute the correction to nothing more than a misapplication of accounting principles because clear evidence of intent is lacking.

For financial fraud, you have to prove that there was intent to defraud or deceive, which is also very difficult.

There are many professions were there is a very high bar to cross. You also have to consider whether we want to create a society with enormous legal liability and never ending court cases.

Oh my. Please, for the love of all thats good, stop playing lawyer. You suck at it, even for a layperson.

I’ve prosecuted qualified immunity cases multiple times against law enforcement, all the way through trial and final federal appeal. It’s a higher bar than applied to any type of civil action in existence. Everyone can even agree that a private citizen’s constitutional rights were violated and law enforcement can still win.

That said, there are some sound public policy reasons for its existence. I don’t agree with them and have believed for about 20 years it needs to be modified somewhat. But it’s not an arbitrary legal doctrine.

[bullsnewdynasty]

Oh my. Please, for the love of all thats good, stop playing lawyer. You suck at it, even for a layperson.

I’ve prosecuted qualified immunity cases multiple times against law enforcement, all the way through trial final federal appeal. It’s a higher bar than applied to any type of civil action in existence. Everyone can even agree agree that a private citizens constitutional rights were violated and they still win.

That said, there are sound public policy reasons for its existence. I don’t agree with them and have believed for about 20 years it needs to be modified somewhat. But it’s not an arbitrary legal doctrine.

You didn't actually counter anything I said. There's a high bar to pass for a lot of different situations.

But you're right. Qualified immunity explains why police officers are murderers, and we should defund the police.

Show a little respect, you're talking to an educated person. Don't talk down to people.

[dice]

the VERY likely result is that they move out of the way. even a 100 year old woman is unlikely to topple over if you gently shove her. even if she doesn't see it coming

i'm not sure they should have touched him at all. and if they did, they should have used a hand on each shoulder and gently escorted him aside. but make no mistake about it - this was a freak accident. they touched him at arm's length. when you forcibly shove someone, you get real close to them, bend your arms and extend outward. you don't approach them with arm extended

Normally I'm on the same page with you, dice, for many of the issues I see you comment on, so understand that this isn't coming from someone looking for confrontation.

I have to disagree strongly with you on this though. My parents are roughly this age and I have witnessed first hand just how much more likely they are to fall now from seemingly harmless things like standing up too quickly or something small causing them to lose just a bit of their balance. A couple of years ago my mother, who was in her 70s, fell on some uneven footing when walking to a Cubs game. No one pushed her. She just lost her balance on the brick path and she fell face first and didn't have the reaction time to protect her head. Broke a bone in her shoulder and fractured her eye socket. Ambulance ride to a trauma center. All sorts of tests to see just how extensive the damage was. It was pretty horrific.

Willfully shoving a man that age is abhorrent. He wasn't a threat. Those officers let their aggression get the best of them and they did something that maybe would have had no consequence if the guy was a couple of decades younger, but at that age it is incredibly easy for them to fall and not be capable of minimizing the damage. You just don't do that.

well, as i said, they shouldn't have done that, but obviously they didn't expect him to fall over or they wouldn't have laid a finger on him. the guy doesn't look 75, either, for whatever that's worth

[Jo Jo English]

well, as i said, they shouldn't have done that, but obviously they didn't expect him to fall over or they wouldn't have laid a finger on him. the guy doesn't look 75, either, for whatever that's worth

I would hope/expect that those officers didn't intend for this to be the end result of their actions, but given the way we have seen dozens (hundreds?) of examples of police inflicting physical damage on unarmed and peaceful protesters (and press), I just don't know that I can agree. There are just so many examples that make you question the leadership in these departments. Maybe you have just a bit more faith than I do.

I know we both agree that police need better training when it comes to using force on their fellow civilians so we can avoid situations like this (and the horrific examples that end up with folks dead) whenever it can be avoided. Thankfully most of us are on the same page about that.

[dice]

remarkably, public support for BLM amongst WHITE registered voters has risen from 38% to 44% since the george floyd murder, pushing overall support over 50% for the first time in the organization's short history

support amongst republicans has also gone up...all the way to 12%

many expected these protests to further divide the nation. that they would result in "white backlash" on a significant scale. that's not happening

[DuckIII]

Oh my. Please, for the love of all thats good, stop playing lawyer. You suck at it, even for a layperson.

I’ve prosecuted qualified immunity cases multiple times against law enforcement, all the way through trial final federal appeal. It’s a higher bar than applied to any type of civil action in existence. Everyone can even agree agree that a private citizens constitutional rights were violated and they still win.

That said, there are sound public policy reasons for its existence. I don’t agree with them and have believed for about 20 years it needs to be modified somewhat. But it’s not an arbitrary legal doctrine.

You didn't actually counter anything I said. There's a high bar to pass for a lot of different situations.

But you're right. Qualified immunity explains why police officers are murderers, and we should defund the police.

Show a little respect, you're talking to an educated person. Don't talk down to people.

You aren’t educated about this. Nor am I educated about physics. So I don’t write posts explaining worm holes.

Your posts on this subject are, put politely, ignorant. I don’t want anyone to be fooled into thinking you know anything about this legal issue, because you don’t.

[Fantastik_Goat]

Oh my. Please, for the love of all thats good, stop playing lawyer. You suck at it, even for a layperson.

I’ve prosecuted qualified immunity cases multiple times against law enforcement, all the way through trial final federal appeal. It’s a higher bar than applied to any type of civil action in existence. Everyone can even agree agree that a private citizens constitutional rights were violated and they still win.

That said, there are sound public policy reasons for its existence. I don’t agree with them and have believed for about 20 years it needs to be modified somewhat. But it’s not an arbitrary legal doctrine.

You didn't actually counter anything I said. There's a high bar to pass for a lot of different situations.

But you're right. Qualified immunity explains why police officers are murderers, and we should defund the police.

Show a little respect, you're talking to an educated person. Don't talk down to people.

You aren’t educated about this. Nor am I educated about physics. So I don’t write posts explaining worm holes.

Your posts on this subject are, put politely, ignorant. I don’t want anyone to be fooled into thinking you know anything about this legal issue, because you don’t.

But if we can’t come here for sound legal advice, where can we go?

[Dresden]

remarkably, public support for BLM amongst WHITE registered voters has risen from 38% to 44% since the george floyd murder, pushing overall support over 50% for the first time in the organization's short history

support amongst republicans has also gone up...all the way to 12%

many expected these protests to further divide the nation. that they would result in "white backlash" on a significant scale. that's not happening

Somebody I know is scared to death that all of these protests are going to turn many white, suburban voters away from the democratic party, and into Trump's "law and order" camp come this fall. I think he's wrong- if anything, it's going to motivate more people to vote against Trump and his strong armed policies.

It will interesting to see what happens at the republican convention though, as far as battles between protestors and police- it could get pretty rough.

[Dominator83]

remarkably, public support for BLM amongst WHITE registered voters has risen from 38% to 44% since the george floyd murder, pushing overall support over 50% for the first time in the organization's short history

support amongst republicans has also gone up...all the way to 12%

many expected these protests to further divide the nation. that they would result in "white backlash" on a significant scale. that's not happening

Somebody I know is scared to death that all of these protests are going to turn many white, suburban voters away from the democratic party, and into Trump's "law and order" camp come this fall. I think he's wrong- if anything, it's going to motivate more people to vote against Trump and his strong armed policies.

It will interesting to see what happens at the republican convention though, as far as battles between protestors and police- it could get pretty rough.

Trump is a very different case. It was obvious that during the 2016 campaign, that even the other Republicans thought he was a disgrace and didn't like him. He should be considered an independent

[Dominator83]

I’m not talking about ‘legal defense’, and I think you know that. Obviously, everyone has a right to an attorney.

I’m talking about the contract provisions that make firing violent cops extraordinarily difficult, the unions that launch public campaigns to defend cops filmed committing assault or murder, and qualified immunity which protects cops from being sued when they violate your constitutional rights.

Tell me what other profession has all that going on, and I’ll agree that we should be protesting them too.

So your problem should be with politicians, not cops. Cops don't create the law. Unions are always going to defend their own. Why is there a problem with police having unions compared to other jobs? If you want to start a discussion about unions, let's have it.

I'm not a lawyer so I won't pretend to understand the complexity around it. If you pointed to specific incidents where the immunity law protected cops, it might be more effective than just throwing the word out there.

But based on my reading of it, nothing protects you if you violate federal law or constitutional rights, so I think you have some misplaced anger about what that doctrine actually entails.

Your reading of qualified immunity is wrong. But feel free to link a source.

And regarding unions, sure, let’s have that conversation.

Show me another union that consistently operates like police unions, publicly defending literal murder and defaming the victims in the process.

I happen to work for a union, by the way. But maybe I’ll learn something.

Well, in general they do tend to stick up for bad employees. That's what unions do. Though yes if they fought for Chauvin then that's going way too far. Zero excuse to fight for him.

Just a disclaimer: I wasn't and do not denounce unions. Though I don't always agree with them, I agree that we need them. They protect our jobs and workers rights. How places like Wal-mart have been able to hold down their employees from unionizing is beyond me. They need a union and should've been done decades ago.

Sorry for getting OT a little there.

[DuckIII]

remarkably, public support for BLM amongst WHITE registered voters has risen from 38% to 44% since the george floyd murder, pushing overall support over 50% for the first time in the organization's short history

support amongst republicans has also gone up...all the way to 12%

many expected these protests to further divide the nation. that they would result in "white backlash" on a significant scale. that's not happening

Somebody I know is scared to death that all of these protests are going to turn many white, suburban voters away from the democratic party, and into Trump's "law and order" camp come this fall. I think he's wrong- if anything, it's going to motivate more people to vote against Trump and his strong armed policies.

It will interesting to see what happens at the republican convention though, as far as battles between protestors and police- it could get pretty rough.

Trump is a very different case. It was obvious that during the 2016 campaign, that even the other Republicans thought he was a disgrace and didn't like him. He should be considered an independent

The way other candidates viewed him in 2016 is irrelevant. Even how they personally feel about him today doesn’t matter. They all lick his boots now and are terrified of losing his base. Like it or not, he is the personification of the current GOP.