A 9-year-old boy shot his older sister to death over a video game controller, sheriff

smb said:
You are fucking idiot. Governments have and continue to be accountable. Fucking stupid.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/records/1037-police-misconduct-payouts
Click to expand...

YOU are the fucking idiot. governments are RARELY, IF EVER, held accountable. IF they don't handle a settlement out of an insurance fund, the individual cops are almost ALWAYS granted qualified immunity, leaving just the city to deal with a lawsuit. In SOME states, those claims are limited to nothing NEAR what a persons violated right should be worth. IF a jury actually delivers a sizable judgement, it takes YEARS because governments are equipped with unlimited resources to appeal for years.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
you're not very familiar with qualified immunity, absolute immunity, and tort limits on claims against governments, are you? my point is you're a statist moron who doesn't have a clue about reality.
Click to expand...

Absolute immunity protects police officers from personal or criminal liability from numbnuts like you. If a judge issues an arrest warrant and a police officer arrests you. Even if it is found later that the judge acted without merit in issuing the warrant the judge can be held accountable but not the police officer. That is as it should be.
 
smb said:
You obviously don't know what is meant by the terms qualified immunity and absolute immunity as they do not protect government employees who acting outside the normal scope of their duties. Which includes illegal activity and abuse. Again fucking idiotic.
Click to expand...

wrong, fuckstick. a cop will only be held accountable individually if a CLEARLY ESTABLISHED RIGHT is violated. a prosecutor will almost NEVER be held accountable even if clear illegal activity is established.

get this very fucking clear, ALL of your governments are corrupt and ONLY out to protect themselves. anything else you assume is WRONG
 
smb said:
Absolute immunity protects police officers from personal or criminal liability from numbnuts like you. If a judge issues an arrest warrant and a police officer arrests you. Even if it is found later that the judge acted without merit in issuing the warrant the judge can be held accountable but not the police officer. That is as it should be.
Click to expand...

well now I know you're a moron from idiotville. COPS don't get ABSOLUTE immunity because there is always the 'shocks the conscience' qualifier. the judge will NEVER be held accountable for a warrant without merit, NEVER.

you know what? you're just another government worshipping idiot who needs to experience, first hand, the shit that government can do to you.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
YOU are the fucking idiot. governments are RARELY, IF EVER, held accountable. IF they don't handle a settlement out of an insurance fund, the individual cops are almost ALWAYS granted qualified immunity, leaving just the city to deal with a lawsuit. In SOME states, those claims are limited to nothing NEAR what a persons violated right should be worth. IF a jury actually delivers a sizable judgement, it takes YEARS because governments are equipped with unlimited resources to appeal for years.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. If a police officer violates the law they cannot claim qualified immunity. That is just nonsense. As I have shown governments pay out claims all the time to people rather than go through the expense and time of court.

As to you other point about juries not issuing verdicts or amounts that you like then what other system other than the jury system would propose. A system where you make all the decisions?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well now I know you're a moron from idiotville. COPS don't get ABSOLUTE immunity because there is always the 'shocks the conscience' qualifier. the judge will NEVER be held accountable for a warrant without merit, NEVER.

you know what? you're just another government worshipping idiot who needs to experience, first hand, the shit that government can do to you.
Click to expand...

paranoia strikes deep.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1069143?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

oops so much for the judges never held accountable bullshit.

As far as shocks the conscience exception it is a fucking exception because it is clear that the government official should have known that the act was illegal. You are just another paranoid fuck.
 
smb said:
Bullshit. If a police officer violates the law they cannot claim qualified immunity. That is just nonsense.
Click to expand...
The US Supreme Court has even told us that cops don't even need to know the laws to enforce them. mistakes of laws are ok, so how the hell do you get that they are accountable for violating the law? you're ignorant is why.

smb said:
As I have shown governments pay out claims all the time to people rather than go through the expense and time of court.
Click to expand...
settling out of court is NOT accountability.

smb said:
As to you other point about juries not issuing verdicts or amounts that you like then what other system other than the jury system would propose. A system where you make all the decisions?
Click to expand...
educated and intelligent people, not cop or government worshippers who think cops have a hard job and deserve greater latitude.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
The US Supreme Court has even told us that cops don't even need to know the laws to enforce them. mistakes of laws are ok, so how the hell do you get that they are accountable for violating the law? you're ignorant is why.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. More paranoid delusions. The ruling states that reasonable mistakes in the law are not grounds to cause a search illegal. You are a paranoid fuck.

SmarterthanYou said:
settling out of court is NOT accountability.
Click to expand...

Again nonsense. A settlement requires both parties to agree. If a person who was the victim of abuse agrees that the settlement makes him whole who the fuck are you to suggest that it doesn't. Not only are you paranoid fool and an idiot but arrogant to boot.


SmarterthanYou said:
educated and intelligent people, not cop or government worshippers who think cops have a hard job and deserve greater latitude.
Click to expand...

So who is supposed to determine who these educated and intelligent people are? People like you? People like CFM? Again if you have a problem with the jury system then what is the alternative?
 
smb said:
Hey dumb ass. No paper dictionary needed.

Non-sequitur - a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

To suggest applying the same laws and/or liability for people in an vehicle accident and people involved in firearms death is a conclusion that does not even come close to following any kind of logical thread ergo non-sequitur.

That being said you haven't thought your proposed non-sequitur through. A state can regulate the age at which a person is eligible to drive at any time. So if they apply the same regulations to licensing drivers as they do guns then they have the authority to set ANY age limit they see fit. So once again I ask are you willing to accept those same regulations. Thought not dumb ass.

Also CA requires six months of training to get a license to drive. Again ignorance is bliss heh?

https://www.dmv.org/ca-california/drivers-training.php

fucking dumb asses.
Click to expand...

You are very blissful. California is one state. It's actually where I grew up, and got my drivers license. I guess things have changed. Sooo, should schools offer gun ed to fifteen year old kids, or not?
California Learner's Permit Requirements
If you want to get your California provisional permit you must be at least 15 1/2 years old.
Click to expand...

And again, where are vehicles mentioned in the Constitution? Sorry, I forgot big words throw you off.

Holy shit, your reading comprehension skills are lacking as bad as your vocabulary, if not worse. Nowhere in your link does it say 6 months of training are required. Try again?

Complete 6 hours of driver's training.
Complete an additional 50 hours of behind-the-wheel driving practice.
Hold your learner's permit for at least 6 months.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hello SmarterthanYou,

SmarterthanYou said:
governments are RARELY, IF EVER, held accountable. IF they don't handle a settlement out of an insurance fund, the individual cops are almost ALWAYS granted qualified immunity, leaving just the city to deal with a lawsuit.
Click to expand...

A 'city' *IS* a 'government.'
 
PoliTalker said:
You just don't like the numbers because they do not support your position. It's based on solid data from the CDC. CDC - Causes of Death by Age for 2016 You can't refute my math; so now you're dictating how my posts should be comprised. That is the diversionary tactic of an unsupportable position.
Click to expand...

No, I can't refute your math. I'm pretty good at math myself. What I dispute is the integers you use that don't come from any study. You just guessed. You did it both ways to come up with your position. But you don't even know if there are more than both ways.
For example: You used 15-24 yo's and then excluded 15-17 yo' and re-figured. But what if the 22-24 yo's do 90% of the shootings? Or even 21-23 yo's? That's something you don't know.
So, yeah. I dispute numbers you pull out of your butt. And I'm not dictating anything but you not having factual numbers to begin with.
 
Hello BodyDouble,

BodyDouble said:
What I dispute is the integers you use that don't come from any study.
Click to expand...

They most certainly do. It requires more than one click. First go to

CDC - Causes of Death by Age for 2016.

Then, for each age group, click each time on 'Unintential,' 'Homicide,' and 'Suicide.' Total the results for 'Firearms' and 'Drowning.'

You did not reply to my coded message which only a live breathing human could possibly answer.

I now strongly suspect I am talking to a fake sfotware progran.

You failed the test. One more chance:

Wutz tew en tew

Ansaar thu above humon veri-phikashun qweschun ore whee arrrrr dunn

It is very simple if you just try to say the above. Eye will place U on eegnoor unless the proper responze is givan.

Eye don't talk 2 rooski baughts hoo kant reeeed fonetikaly
 
smb said:
Except my "claim" is backed by law.

Strict Liability https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Abnormally_dangerous_activity

In tort law, an activity that (1) is not of common usage, and (2) creates a foreseeable and highly significant risk of physical harm even when reasonable care is exercised by all actors. See Restatement (Third) of Torts § 20(b) (2009). A person who is found by a court to have carried on an abnormally dangerous activity will be subject to strict liability for physical harm resulting from that activity. See id. § 20(a) (2009).

As you can see all elements of strict liability are met to hold gun manufacturers accountable. Or would be had not the NRA paid Congress to make so they are not.
Click to expand...

is never going to fly......
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello BodyDouble,



They most certainly do. It requires more than one click. First go to

CDC - Causes of Death by Age for 2016.

Then, for each age group, click each time on 'Unintential,' 'Homicide,' and 'Suicide.' Total the results for 'Firearms' and 'Drowning.'

You did not reply to my coded message which only a live breathing human could possibly answer.

I now strongly suspect I am talking to a fake sfotware progran.

You failed the test. One more chance:

Wutz tew en tew

Ansaar thu above humon veri-phikashun qweschun ore whee arrrrr dunn

It is very simple if you just try to say the above. Eye will place U on eegnoor unless the proper responze is givan.

Eye don't talk 2 rooski baughts hoo kant reeeed fonetikaly
Click to expand...

Aah! The old, "I now strongly suspect I am talking to a fake sfotware progran." <<<(I C&P'd that even though you spelled software and program wrong.) Didn't you say something like Russian bot earlier? And the gibberish you posted before I didn't even bother to respond to as it looked like gibberish to me and I don't deal with gibberish. I deal in facts and you deal in maybe's and might be's. If you want to take your ball and go home and ignore me then be my guest. Come back when you have solid facts...if you can.
 
countryboy said:
You are very blissful. California is one state. It's actually where I grew up, and got my drivers license. I guess things have changed. Sooo, should schools offer gun ed to fifteen year old kids, or not?


And again, where are vehicles mentioned in the Constitution? Sorry, I forgot big words throw you off.

Holy shit, your reading comprehension skills are lacking as bad as your vocabulary, if not worse. Nowhere in your link does it say 6 months of training are required. Try again?
Click to expand...

You really are a moron aren't you. You must have the learners permit for 6 mos BEFORE you are eligible to take the fucking test. It is right there in black and white dimwit. If you are on a learners permit you can only drive during the day with driver over 21 that has had their license for more than a year.

Your point about the Constitution is fallacious also. The SCOTUS has ruled that you only have the right to one firearm in the home for home defense. Everything else is susceptible to state or local regulation. So there goes that idiotic point.

Next if you could read I told you a state has the authority to set ANY age limit on driver licenses. CA is 18 unless you take drivers ed through a CA school. They could set that age to 30 if they wanted to. So again your point about the age of gun ownership is equally moot if you abide by the same regulations as driver licensing. This isn't rocket science there moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top