Atlanta Police walkout

[evillawyer]

I misunderstood the point in discussion. My bad.

I'm not sure how to fix the issue with qualified immunity, except to limit it severely with non-law enforcement oversight that says what was excessive/abuse, what puts them outside of their immunity to repercussions.

I don't want them frivolously sued/arrested. I w2ant their immunity limited. I think the oversight should be external, objective and real.

He's not giving you an objective account of what qualified immunity is

Qualified immunity - Wikipedia

 

[RikidyBones]

Police need to make more $, and be better trained. I'm against defunding police. It's stupid. I'm against over-charging police. I'm all for funds to pay their legal fees. I'm not sure I'm against the ATL walk-off, with how the Da is acting.

There are still MAJOR problems in the system. Police have STILL stiff-armed meaningful change, oversight and accountability.

If they choose to walk out as opposed to those changes, I say go for it. We'll figure out a way to fill the void with a better system.

I can agree with that on the surface. Depends on the change that's being stiff armed, of course but if a truly fair system is enacted and they walk off, then yes the void will be filled because the idea is to make it worth it to smart people.

 

[RikidyBones]

Can someone tell me the actual last egregious and illegal incident by a member of the APD?

Gave me a ticket for doing what a school bus just did. That was egregious. Got it dropped in court.

 

[Rickyvol77]

By whom? Even the perception by civilians of the blue line is dangerous. I think those reviews need to be external, objective, and real.

who does your job performance review? It should be people within your profession who understand what you do and know the laws and police procedures (in this case)

 

[allvol123]

Gave me a ticket for doing what a school bus just did. That was egregious. Got it dropped in court.

I'm looking for the type that so enrages a public that it causes a DA to behave like a buffoon.

I'm guessing the instances are few and far between. So we're having a conversations at local levels due to what looks like an imagined national problem.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

Its a catch 22 with the no knock. On one hand I totally get not announcing your arrival and keeping the element of surprise to get the drop on "the bad guys". On the other hand you have what happened here. The kicker with this story is that the cops believed packages were being delivered to that apartment, with drugs in them, by the post office. The post office inspector told them before the raid that no packages had been delivered to that address. Seems to be a HUGE communication breakdown in the chain of command somewhere there and it cost someone their life.

I read up on this. The postal inspector verified they never spoke with him about this and he didnt confirm anything for them. Not one neighbor was woken until they heard gunfire. So the banging and announcing for 45 seconds is questionable. The police report was extremely suspect and areas for narrative had 2 words PIU investigation. No narrative at all. I suspect they lied to get the 5 different warrents as they all said the same thing and lacked evidence to back up their claim.

 

[LouderVol]

Can someone tell me the actual last egregious and illegal incident by a member of the APD?

Depending on how you look at it there have been 6 cops fired in the last couple weeks. The 2 in the Wendy's shooting (probably not justified firing, at least this early and by an outsider), there were 2 that beat up a pair of college kids that were in their car. (Probably justified but I dont think the full process was followed there either), and the other two were excessive force when dealing with protestors but I havent seen the specifics on those.

Edited to say 6 cops fired not "y"

Also when I say justified I mean the firings, not the incidents.

 

[allvol123]

Depending on how you look at it there have been y cops fired in the last couple weeks. The 2 in the Wendy's shooting (probably not justified firing, at least this early and by an outsider), there were 2 that beat up a pair of college kids that were in their car. (Probably justified but I dont think the full process was followed there either), and the other two were excessive force when dealing with protestors but I havent seen the specifics on those.

So this is a problem. Many in the public are now confusing legitimate incidents (wendy's) with police abuse. It clearly wasnt and the conversation is now completely tainted.

 

[Orange_Crush]

who does your job performance review? It should be people within your profession who understand what you do and know the laws and police procedures (in this case)

I have immediate oversight as well as oversight outside of our company by orgs that know what we do. When it comes to whether I get arrested for an egregious enough offense on the job, it's law enf... oh.

The fact that you equate this back to a write-up says quite a bit.

 

[BreatheUT]

One officer arrested sends a chill down officer spines and they walk out. One man smothered to death over nine minutes shouldn't send a chill down every civilian's spine? One mom shot while sleeping during a no-knock warrant didn't seem to send any chills down law enforcement spines? I don't see law enforcement rallying to get that law off the books.

Yah. Walk out. We'll fill the vacuum somehow.

Have you missed the last two weeks where officers basically couldn't make arrests for looting, burning down buildings, physical assaults on people and couldn't enforce a curfew. Where the media and elected officials were leading the charge of systematic racism in law enforcement? There ability to police has been marginalized tremendously. I think more would be gone if they could make the quick transition to another career. I find it odd that you are complaining if they don't want to work in law enforcement or is having 2nd thoughts.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I read up on this. The postal inspector verified they never spoke with him about this and he didnt confirm anything for them. Not one neighbor was woken until they heard gunfire. So the banging and announcing for 45 seconds is questionable. The police report was extremely suspect and areas for narrative had 2 words PIU investigation. No narrative at all. I suspect they lied to get the 5 different warrents as they all said the same thing and lacked evidence to back up their claim.

That's why there has to be external oversight--non-law-enforcement. The danger with being law enforcement is the development of a mindset that is comfortable living in (and creating) gray areas due to the development of the idea that "getting the perp and conviction" is what's important. Making it more dangerous is the blue line, which I understand, by the way. You are putting your life on the line every night. You HAVE to feel that every other officer has your back beyond blood family. The danger is that becoming the blue line where you have each other's back covering for each other in the other areas...like, "did we follow the law? Did he/she observe due process? Was he/she excessive?"

There just HAS to be outside oversight.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Have you missed the last two weeks where officers basically couldn't make arrests for looting, burning down buildings, physical assaults on people and couldn't enforce a curfew. Where the media and elected officials were leading the charge of systematic racism in law enforcement? There ability to police has been marginalized tremendously. I think more would be gone if they could make the quick transition to another career. I find it odd that you are complaining if they don't want to work in law enforcement or is having 2nd thoughts.

I was making a point to the point made. The "chill down the spine of officers due to one instance". I was asking why not the same chill for "one instance" of no-knock homicide? They'll walk off due to the Wendy's incident, but still make no-knock raids?

Please try to contextualize my response.

 

[NurseGoodVol]

That's why there has to be external oversight--non-law-enforcement. The danger with being law enforcement is the development of a mindset that is comfortable living in (and creating) gray areas due to the development of the idea that "getting the perp and conviction" is what's important. Making it more dangerous is the blue line, which I understand, by the way. You are putting your life on the line every night. You HAVE to feel that every other officer has your back beyond blood family. The danger is that becoming the blue line where you have each other's back covering for each other in the other areas...like, "did we follow the law? Did he/she observe due process? Was he/she excessive?"

There just HAS to be outside oversight.

I agree. Then you run into the quagmire of who? You have to know the law to sit in judgement of lawful actions. What outside monitor could be inserted into investigations and oversight that would qualify? Most average citizens don't even know their rights much less able to judge abiding by law. I have no answer to this.

 

[RikidyBones]

I'm looking for the type that so enrages a public that it causes a DA to behave like a buffoon.

I'm guessing the instances are few and far between. So we're having a conversations at local levels due to what looks like an imagined national problem.

I gave you one. Public should be just as outraged as I.

The ticket was legit. But judge still dropped it lmao

 

[Weezer]

Seems to me the good officers would support reform, and would want the bad apples out of their profession. So what am I missing? What is wrong with accountability? What is wrong with wanting to stop needless death? Someone please explain the how and why this is the wrong way to think? Being for police reform does not make one against the police. It just means, like any profession, they should be held to a standard. And part of that standard should be going that extra mile to avoid lethal force when possible.

 

[lawgator1]

Qualified Immunity means that officers cant be held for frivilous lawsuits in court (especially civil) unless they truly violate someone's rights, or use excessive force, etc. If you strip away that immunity, lawyers wanting money can sue officers for everything at any time. Literally every action by an officer (writing reports, working a traffic accident, helping on medical calls, arresting or citing ANYONE, cuffing and detaining anyone, investigating a major crime, etc) could be taken to court by a lawyer and criminal. While most of these would be dropped, it would overwhelm both the court systems, reduce the number of officers working by tying them up constantly, and officers would simply refuse to do anything.

I misunderstood the point in discussion. My bad.

I'm not sure how to fix the issue with qualified immunity, except to limit it severely with non-law enforcement oversight that says what was excessive/abuse, what puts them outside of their immunity to repercussions.

I don't want them frivolously sued/arrested. I w2ant their immunity limited. I think the oversight should be external, objective and real.

He's not giving you an objective account of what qualified immunity is

Qualified immunity - Wikipedia

This is 80 % of my practice for the past 25 years. In a nutshell, QI means that to be sued personally, in his individual capacity, an officer must be shown to have violated the Constitution and that the right he violated was "clearly established" at the time. The theory is that we need officers to make decisions rapidly and there is usually not time to reflect and think everything through. They should not be personally held liable unless it is clear and obvious that what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Typically, that can be done in two ways: find a prior case decided on materially similar circumstances from either the US Supreme Court, the federal court of appeals in your jurisdiction, or your state supreme court, which decided that the same action was unconstitutional; or, show that it is so obviously wrong that no reasonable officer could believe it to be lawful.

The theory is that under either standard you are giving breathing room to the officer to use judgment and not fear getting sued if he turns out later to be wrong. He should be given fair notice of what the parameters are.

So take the Atlanta case. Now, that is within my federal experience because it is within the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is comprised of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The question is, where you are in process of arrest and the suspect punches you, fights with you, grabs your taser and runs, but then fires it at you as he runs, is it clearly unconstitutional to use deadly force?

The answer is a resounding NO. This is not simply shooting a non-violent immediate risk felon in the back as he runs, which is unconstitutional. This is shooting one who is running away but in that process is firing the taser at you. There will be no case on point on the issue, and so the issue will devolve to whether any reasonable officer could believe that to be lawful, and the answer to that quesiton is clearly yes.

Bear in mind this has nothing to do with the criminal case. I think that is weak for a ton of reasons, but that's not my usual area. I'd be stunned if in the inevitable civil suit the officer did not get qualified immunity.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I agree. Then you run into the quagmire of who? You have to know the law to sit in judgement of lawful actions. What outside monitor could be inserted into investigations and oversight that would qualify? Most average citizens don't even know their rights much less able to judge abiding by law. I have no answer to this.

There are lots of lawyers out there. I don't see that all of them either have to go into criminal system or civil law. I'm sure there is room for criminal attorneys that sit on a civil branch of mediation that make weighted recommendations to the criminal/civil branches of the justice system.

The system already accepts testimony of expert witnesses. I'm sure there's room in the process for expert witnesses when it comes to the actions of police officers.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Seems to me the good officers would support reform, and would want the bad apples out of their profession. So what am I missing? What is wrong with accountability? What is wrong with wanting to stop needless death? Someone please explain the how and why this is the wrong way to think? Being for police reform does not make one against the police. It just means, like any profession, they should be held to a standard. And part of that standard should be going that extra mile to avoid lethal force when possible.

You go into battle in the military, and it develops an intense bond due to that "my ass is on the line, it's us against everyone else."

The police feel as they go into battle together every night. It's probably impossible for them to not have a "us against everyone else" bond. I'd be willing to bet that anyone that doesn't have that attitude is weeded out fairly quickly.

 

[RikidyBones]

This is 80 % of my practice for the past 25 years. In a nutshell, QI means that to be sued personally, in his individual capacity, an officer must be shown to have violated the Constitution and that the right he violated was "clearly established" at the time. The theory is that we need officers to make decisions rapidly and there is usually not time to reflect and think everything through. They should not be personally held liable unless it is clear and obvious that what they are doing is unconstitutional.

Typically, that can be done in two ways: find a prior case decided on materially similar circumstances from either the US Supreme Court, the federal court of appeals in your jurisdiction, or your state supreme court, which decided that the same action was unconstitutional; or, show that it is so obviously wrong that no reasonable officer could believe it to be lawful.

The theory is that under either standard you are giving breathing room to the officer to use judgment and not fear getting sued if he turns out later to be wrong. He should be given fair notice of what the parameters are.

So take the Atlanta case. Now, that is within my federal experience because it is within the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is comprised of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. The question is, where you are in process of arrest and the suspect punches you, fights with you, grabs your taser and runs, but then fires it at you as he runs, is it clearly unconstitutional to use deadly force?

The answer is a resounding NO. This is not simply shooting a non-violent immediate risk felon in the back as he runs, which is unconstitutional. This is shooting one who is running away but in that process is firing the taser at you. There will be no case on point on the issue, and so the issue will devolve to whether any reasonable officer could believe that to be lawful, and the answer to that quesiton is clearly yes.

Bear in mind this has nothing to do with the criminal case. I think that is weak for a ton of reasons, but that's not my usual area. I'd be stunned if in the inevitable civil suit the officer did not get qualified immunity.

Could the family win a suit against the PD? i have a feeling they would settle but assume they didnt settle.

 

[Weezer]

You go into battle in the military, and it develops an intense bond due to that "my ass is on the line, it's us against everyone else."

The police feel as they go into battle together every night. It's probably impossible for them to not have a "us against everyone else" bond. I'd be willing to bet that anyone that doesn't have that attitude is weeded out fairly quickly.

Officers are sworn to uphold the law. That should include within their own ranks. Any officer willing to turn a blind eye to the misdeeds of fellow officers is complicit, and should not be on the job.

 

[clarksvol00]

I agree. Then you run into the quagmire of who? You have to know the law to sit in judgement of lawful actions. What outside monitor could be inserted into investigations and oversight that would qualify? Most average citizens don't even know their rights much less able to judge abiding by law. I have no answer to this.

Maybe set up an independent panel of administrative law judges whose decision could be appealed in state court?

 

[hog88]

Maybe set up an independent panel of administrative law judges whose decision could be appealed in state court?

How can you ensure members of the system are independent?

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Seems to me the good officers would support reform, and would want the bad apples out of their profession. So what am I missing? What is wrong with accountability? What is wrong with wanting to stop needless death? Someone please explain the how and why this is the wrong way to think? Being for police reform does not make one against the police. It just means, like any profession, they should be held to a standard. And part of that standard should be going that extra mile to avoid lethal force when possible.

It's really win/win/win in a situation like this. Get rid of the ones not willing to uphold their oath, give a chance to the ones that do, improve quality for the whole community.

 

[Electric Orange]

 

[clarksvol00]

How can you ensure members of the system are independent?

Well, they're independent because they dont work in a criminal justice department? If you mean biased, there's no way to completely make sure anybody is completely bias free, including if you leave oversight in the hands of a police department or state bureau of investigation.