The Swamp

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:53 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:03 am Biden going with “give the police more money” in lieu of “defund the police.”

Did he suggest raises, like Sanders did?

I’m sure the activists calling for defunding would also disagree with Sanders. Not all left politics are about Sanders v. the Democratic Party.

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 11:12 am

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:53 am

Joe K wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 10:03 am Biden going with “give the police more money” in lieu of “defund the police.”

Did he suggest raises, like Sanders did?

I’m sure the activists calling for defunding would also disagree with Sanders. Not all left politics are about Sanders v. the Democratic Party.

You're right, but on the other hand, you posted about Biden and didn't mention that Sanders has suggested something similar (as part of a long list of reforms which are generally awesome).

For better or worse, Biden is currently the standard bearer for the Democratic Party on policy. So what he says is much more indicative of where the party is likely to land if it retakes the WH and Senate in November.

Not for nothing, but it should be noted that Gen. Milley formally (on camera) apologized for being in attendance at that ridiculous photo op.

He kinda has to because of political optics since the military has to remain non-political.

I just want to know how the conversation went that led to him joining the pack to head for the photo op.

Is DaveInSeattle near the new autonomous zone?

degenerasian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:03 pm Is DaveInSeattle near the new autonomous zone?

Nah...that's up on Capitol Hill. I'm still in occupied territory.

Johnnie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:16 pm He kinda has to because of political optics since the military has to remain non-political.

I just want to know how the conversation went that led to him joining the pack to head for the photo op.

From the reporting, he thought they were going out to thank the NG for their help. And he was dressed in fatigues bc he was about to head to the FBI opcenter.

Given how insane this WH is, it's EXTREMELY plausible that no one other than a couple of folks knew wtf was going on. I haven't worked in the WH, but I know a ton of ppl that have, and this level of fuckery is truly telling. NFW this happens like this under a "normal" presidency. You don't drag generals around like that.

It's part of why they are giving him the middle finger. You just don't do this type of shit. Fucking Moron has been getting away with murder, and now it's coming home to roost.

And the reason the intel community has been mostly silent is... That's just what they fucking do. They just aren't going to get real public with stuff.

There was a poll in some military publication that Trump's approval rating with the military is underwater, which is just gobsmacking. If you're a Republican, it should be almost impossible to have a negative approval rating with the military (in the aggregate).

This one is from late last year but I can't imagine it's any higher now.

brian wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:14 pm There was a poll in some military publication that Trump's approval rating with the military is underwater, which is just gobsmacking. If you're a Republican, it should be almost impossible to have a negative approval rating with the military (in the aggregate).

This one is from late last year but I can't imagine it's any higher now.

Obviously Johnnie can speak to this better but I think an October surprise of invading North Korea or some shit is still on the table.

Shoot he called himself a wartime president for the virus and we see how that worked out. He is beyond his depth Donnie.

Gilded 186 times. ETA: Up to 214

Every day, things get worse at the Pentagon

The Defense Department – and the entire U.S. government – has no strategy. They are improvising every day in response to Trump’s latest mood swing.

While people are understandably very excited about a Supreme Court decision today, it wasn't all hearts and flowers from that group.

DSafetyGuy wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:31 pm While people are understandably very excited about a Supreme Court decision today, it wasn't all hearts and flowers from that group.

This is probably a controversial view here, but Qualified Immunity is absolutely necessary. I do think it needs to be easier to pierce QI when there is clear abuse.

Personal example I've shared before, my father was a Bureau Chief of Parole, and he frequently had to determine whether to allow convicted child molesters to move in with children when released from prison. Quite often, they'd attempt to move in with their girlfriends that had young children, while they were deemed high risk to re-offend. My father was sued frequently in his professional capacity, but if QI didn't exist, he would have been sued personally 100s of times for making decisions in his role as an LEO. Nobody would take the job! The legal bills alone would have far outstripped the salary. Even if the State paid the legal bills, there would be conflicts of interest when the Plaintiffs sue the State and employee separately, so they might not be able to pay for legal counsel or settlements in certain circumstances. It's absolutely insane to get rid of QI as a whole.

I remember John Oliver doing a huge segment on this topic, and he was woefully short-sighted. You can't address the fringe issues that arise by abolishing the otherwise necessary protection. There are always shocking results that occur and the media will sensationalize them, but what you don't hear about is the literally millions of times government employees were rightfully protected by QI for making perfectly justifiable decisions within the scope of their government employment.

Yeah, I don't have an issue with QI... I have much MUCH more of a problem with officers' records being shielded. Including their prior military history. That's some bullshit that needs to be fixed.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:01 pmPersonal example I've shared before, my father was a Bureau Chief of Parole, and he frequently had to determine whether to allow convicted child molesters to move in with children when released from prison. Quite often, they'd attempt to move in with their girlfriends that had young children, while they were deemed high risk to re-offend. My father was sued frequently in his professional capacity, but if QI didn't exist, he would have been sued personally 100s of times for making decisions in his role as an LEO. Nobody would take the job! The legal bills alone would have far outstripped the salary. Even if the State paid the legal bills, there would be conflicts of interest when the Plaintiffs sue the State and employee separately, so they might not be able to pay for legal counsel or settlements in certain circumstances. It's absolutely insane to get rid of QI as a whole.

I remember John Oliver doing a huge segment on this topic, and he was woefully short-sighted. You can't address the fringe issues that arise by abolishing the otherwise necessary protection. There are always shocking results that occur and the media will sensationalize them, but what you don't hear about is the literally millions of times government employees were rightfully protected by QI for making perfectly justifiable decisions within the scope of their government employment.

I'm curious how a decision regarding a child molester gets turned into a 1983 claim. It sounds like you don't need qualified immunity for that, because it's bullshit anyway. (Or it's covered by the discretionary function immunity under state government immunity law.)

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:01 pmPersonal example I've shared before, my father was a Bureau Chief of Parole, and he frequently had to determine whether to allow convicted child molesters to move in with children when released from prison. Quite often, they'd attempt to move in with their girlfriends that had young children, while they were deemed high risk to re-offend. My father was sued frequently in his professional capacity, but if QI didn't exist, he would have been sued personally 100s of times for making decisions in his role as an LEO. Nobody would take the job! The legal bills alone would have far outstripped the salary. Even if the State paid the legal bills, there would be conflicts of interest when the Plaintiffs sue the State and employee separately, so they might not be able to pay for legal counsel or settlements in certain circumstances. It's absolutely insane to get rid of QI as a whole.

I remember John Oliver doing a huge segment on this topic, and he was woefully short-sighted. You can't address the fringe issues that arise by abolishing the otherwise necessary protection. There are always shocking results that occur and the media will sensationalize them, but what you don't hear about is the literally millions of times government employees were rightfully protected by QI for making perfectly justifiable decisions within the scope of their government employment.

I'm curious how a decision regarding a child molester gets turned into a 1983 claim. It sounds like you don't need qualified immunity for that, because it's bullshit anyway. (Or it's covered by the discretionary function immunity under state government immunity law.)

I don't remember the specifics as my father explained it to me while I was in high school. I remember one suit in particular where a guy claimed a Constitutional Rights violation (not sure what, specifically, but in HS that sounded impressive). The Plaintiff's case was handled pro bono by Sullivan & Cromwell (usually considered a top 5 big firm), and the Plaintiff was back in prison for molesting the kid my father wouldn't let him live before the case was dismissed.

Nonlinear FC wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:03 pm Yeah, I don't have an issue with QI... I have much MUCH more of a problem with officers' records being shielded. Including their prior military history. That's some bullshit that needs to be fixed.

I'm all in for open records and accountability.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:30 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:05 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:01 pmPersonal example I've shared before, my father was a Bureau Chief of Parole, and he frequently had to determine whether to allow convicted child molesters to move in with children when released from prison. Quite often, they'd attempt to move in with their girlfriends that had young children, while they were deemed high risk to re-offend. My father was sued frequently in his professional capacity, but if QI didn't exist, he would have been sued personally 100s of times for making decisions in his role as an LEO. Nobody would take the job! The legal bills alone would have far outstripped the salary. Even if the State paid the legal bills, there would be conflicts of interest when the Plaintiffs sue the State and employee separately, so they might not be able to pay for legal counsel or settlements in certain circumstances. It's absolutely insane to get rid of QI as a whole.

I remember John Oliver doing a huge segment on this topic, and he was woefully short-sighted. You can't address the fringe issues that arise by abolishing the otherwise necessary protection. There are always shocking results that occur and the media will sensationalize them, but what you don't hear about is the literally millions of times government employees were rightfully protected by QI for making perfectly justifiable decisions within the scope of their government employment.

I'm curious how a decision regarding a child molester gets turned into a 1983 claim. It sounds like you don't need qualified immunity for that, because it's bullshit anyway. (Or it's covered by the discretionary function immunity under state government immunity law.)

I don't remember the specifics as my father explained it to me while I was in high school. I remember one suit in particular where a guy claimed a Constitutional Rights violation (not sure what, specifically, but in HS that sounded impressive). The Plaintiff's case was handled pro bono by Sullivan & Cromwell (usually considered a top 5 big firm), and the Plaintiff was back in prison for molesting the kid my father wouldn't let him live before the case was dismissed.

I think I misunderstood before. Yeah, I can see how the offenders themselves would sue under 1983. But I think there has to be a better way to deal with that situation than qualified immunity. Discretionary function immunity is one avenue. Another is to require the state to cover attorney fees, even if you need a separate attorney (which would be the case under QI anyway).

I don’t think QI is necessary to dispose of frivolous or nuisance lawsuits against government officials. In such cases, federal judges are likely willing to grant a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion without needing to rely on QI.

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:15 pm I don’t think QI is necessary to dispose of frivolous or nuisance lawsuits against government officials. In such cases, federal judges are likely willing to grant a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion without needing to rely on QI.

It's not a question of frivolous, but a question of having to defend any suits personally for acts you take within your scope of government employment. If someone makes a frivolous lawsuit against you, you still need to hire a lawyer to make the argument that it's frivolous. You can't just expect the judge is going to make that call. correctly.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:15 pm I don’t think QI is necessary to dispose of frivolous or nuisance lawsuits against government officials. In such cases, federal judges are likely willing to grant a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion without needing to rely on QI.

It's not a question of frivolous, but a question of having to defend any suits personally for acts you take within your scope of government employment. If someone makes a frivolous lawsuit against you, you still need to hire a lawyer to make the argument that it's frivolous. You can't just expect the judge is going to make that call. correctly.

But isn’t the issue of QI distinct from the question of whether the government indemnifies its employees when they are sued for constitutional violations?

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:34 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:15 pm I don’t think QI is necessary to dispose of frivolous or nuisance lawsuits against government officials. In such cases, federal judges are likely willing to grant a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion without needing to rely on QI.

It's not a question of frivolous, but a question of having to defend any suits personally for acts you take within your scope of government employment. If someone makes a frivolous lawsuit against you, you still need to hire a lawyer to make the argument that it's frivolous. You can't just expect the judge is going to make that call. correctly.

But isn’t the issue of QI distinct from the question of whether the government indemnifies its employees when they are sued for constitutional violations?

God dammit, you and Steve have me questioning my understanding of the issue now. I'm going to have to take a deeper dive tonight, I might be confusing indemnification with QI.

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:38 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:34 pm

The Sybian wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:32 pm

Joe K wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:15 pm I don’t think QI is necessary to dispose of frivolous or nuisance lawsuits against government officials. In such cases, federal judges are likely willing to grant a motion to dismiss or summary judgment motion without needing to rely on QI.

It's not a question of frivolous, but a question of having to defend any suits personally for acts you take within your scope of government employment. If someone makes a frivolous lawsuit against you, you still need to hire a lawyer to make the argument that it's frivolous. You can't just expect the judge is going to make that call. correctly.

But isn’t the issue of QI distinct from the question of whether the government indemnifies its employees when they are sued for constitutional violations?

God dammit, you and Steve have me questioning my understanding of the issue now. I'm going to have to take a deeper dive tonight, I might be confusing indemnification with QI.

I'm pretty sure the defendant's lawyer is the one who presents the QI defense to the judge. And I think it's addressed like any other defense, i.e., on a 12(b)(6) motion or a motion for summary judgment. One difference, though, is that a trial judge's ruling refusing to grant summary judgment on the basis of QI is appealable, unlike most rulings where a judge refuses to grant a defendant summary judgment.

Honest clarification question: does QI only apply to government employees or can it be applied to private sector employees as well?

GoodKarma wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:12 pm Honest clarification question: does QI only apply to government employees or can it be applied to private sector employees as well?

Apparently not, at least when it comes to employees of private prisons. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/19 ... %20prisons.

FWIW, QI applies to claims brought under 42 USC 1983, which is a claim for deprivation of civil rights "under color of state law."

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Section 1983 itself generally doesn't apply to private sector employees, except in limited circumstances. https://mylegalwriting.com/2014/11/14/h ... e-citizen/

But employees of private prisons are apparently subject to claims under 1983. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/20 ... he%20state.

Section 1983 claims can also be brought against certain private employees that do contract work in government-run prisons (e.g., prison medical staff).

One of our old friends posted a powerful statement on FB today about his life as a black man. If you are on fb, you likely saw it. If not, I think this link will get you there.
Link

sancarlos wrote: ↑Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:41 pm One of our old friends posted a powerful statement on FB today about his life as a black man. If you are on fb, you likely saw it. If not, I think this link will get you there.
Link

I don’t have FB, so I can only read the first few paragraphs. Can someone cut and paste it?

I am a black man. This is my story about the police. #BlackLivesMatter

*************

I am the product of a white Jewish father from Bensonhurst, Brooklyn and a mother from St. Elizabeth, Jamaica. I have always considered myself black, that is how I am treated. We grew up in a predominantly white community. In elementary school, my classmates would say I was not really black because I was lighter, I would think what are they saying of my mother. I played ice hockey as a kid and was called a “nigger” in games in Suffolk County, Long Island and upstate New York more than I care to remember. One of the times I struck back, I broke a kid’s collarbone, he had called me a “nigger” at least three times, I had enough, and he got what he deserved.

After the game, they had to call in the police to escort me out of the rink because a mob of parents were waiting outside of our locker room to get at me. I was 13 years old.

My brother and I used to go for jogs in our neighborhood. He was captain of the basketball team, and all world athlete and one of the kindest human beings you will ever meet, he is a social worker, everyone used to think he was a fashion model. We lived in our community since we were little boys. While jogging, late at night in the summer, with nothing on but shorts, socks, and sneakers, we would invariably get stopped by the local police. Some did it respectfully, others were major assholes. I’m thinking – “how F’ing stupid are you? We are out here jogging, no pockets, no bags, no nothing, I’m huffing and puffing trying to keep up, WTF do you think? We are going to rob some house and carry everything in our hands as we make a getaway on suburban streets with no car?” This is where poor training come into play – coupled with racism, ignorance, and stupidity.

I went to Harvard University for undergraduate. There is not a single black male Harvard undergraduate during those years, who liked to hang out late and have the fun college kids are supposed to, that will not have stories about being harassed by campus police. There was one particular cop who is pure human garbage and targeted black students regularly. I wish I had been more active then and spearheaded action against him. Awful human being, I remember his face.

I dated an Egyptian woman for three years in school, we continued for a while after, we are still dear friends. After college, she lived in NYC’s Upper East Side. One night we left Central Park and I was walking her home. We were strolling hand in hand, laughing, joking, kids in love without a care in the world and. . . out of nowhere, boom!, an unmarked police car peel outs, three large men in plainclothes bolt out the doors, set upon us, rip us apart, throw me up against the wall, restrain her physically and start giving me the heavy physical business.

She is in complete hysterics, yelling, shrieking, tears streaming down her face, shrieking some more, fighting to break their restraint, doing anything in her power to make them stop. After about 90 seconds of being physically abused, and between yelling, and impossibly trying to stay calm so as to not get killed, a more senior guy showed up. As soon as the senior guy got out of his car, they relented a bit. He walked over to us and asked my story in a professional manner, as if I were a human being.

I told him we had known each other for years, dated in college, I was simply walking her home and he asked to see my college ID; which I fortunately had, even though I’d graduated. He looked it over, apologized sort of, and the other fools let go of me and they all just went on their way.

I have never felt a more disorienting whirlwind of emotions in my life, it is impossible to convey in words, fear for my safety, fear for her safety, dead red anger, emotional to tears for being treated like an animal, the struggle and raw emotion of trying to calm someone down who you love that was so distraught, bawling her eyes out, in sheer shock and terror, while I too was in a place I had never been, and these guys just say: My bad (barely) and move on to the next.

It left emotional scars that will never go away, and for them its apparently just business as usual; terrorizing people for no good reason, scarring them for life, just another Tuesday night on the job. I later learned I very generally fit the description of a guy who had been doing attacks on the Upper East Side, and I wondered: Why couldn’t they just have gotten out of the car, asked her if she was ok, asked her how she knew me and me how I knew her? They were three of them, each bigger than me, they all had guns, was the bum rush, chaos, refusing to pay heed to her 90 seconds of shrieking and crying, refusing to listen to anything I said, roughhousing me the entire time with no apparent plan, was that necessary? I get incredibly emotional just typing this and its over 20 years later.

So, for any of you who don’t get it, or don’t want to get, and truly think, or say, that it’s just a simple issue of doing what you are told, obeying the police and that there is no race element; to be frank, and to put it nicely, it’s disingenuous, it’s wrong and it’s complete BS.

The mistreatment of blacks by police is a serious problem, it is a deadly problem, and it is not ok. We need, all of us, to do better. We must stay strong, we must continue to fight, we must see that there is justice and equality for all. #BlackLivesMatter

Thanks.

Whoa...

Yep. Sad and normal unfortunately.

I remember the James Blake footage.



If a non-uniformed officer jumps you, how do you know not to resist? Your body just resists as a reflex and that probably gets a lot of black people killed.

While Hood's story was deeply painful to read, I kind of assume most black men have a similar story. I had my eyes opened while shopping in a video game store in a mall while in middle school or early HS. Me, a white friend and a black friend. It was very obvious the clerk was "discretely" following our black friend around the store. My white friend and I both noticed and shot each other looks, while my black friend remained oblivious. We peeled off from him to see what would happen, and sure enough, the clerk stuck to following the black friend. We were furious, but never said anything to him. He was in weird space, as his mother was white and his father was an immigrant from Africa and he grew up in a very white town. He looked black, but had no connection to the American black experience. His father came from an extremely wealthy family with several high ranking government officials. He was just oblivious to issues of race. Like they day a ball got stuck in a tree in his yard, and we were throwing objects to get the ball down. He grabs a rake and started screaming "spear chucker" as he threw the rake into the tree. The rest of us were trying to shut him up, as we all knew what the term meant, but he didn't.

Ironically, my father was pulled out of a car at gunpoint by a cop while he was on a manhunt for suspects wanted for murder in Brooklyn. They were looking for a middle aged white guy, a Hispanic guy and a black guy. My father happened to have a black and Hispanic parole officer in his car with him, they were all pulled out at gun point and cuffed. My father was the equivalent of a police chief at the time, so the officers were horrified when they realized what they did. Probably a good experience for an LEO to be on the other end and know what its like, but I'm not going to say that to him. Not sure how he felt at the moment, but he told the officers they did the right thing, as he and his crew fit the description.

That's great, Hood, but how is that gonna nail Pierce Bainbridge?

A_B wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 9:00 am That's great, Hood, but how is that gonna nail Pierce Bainbridge?

It's only a matter of time before Pierce represents dirty cops.


(Your post got a legit LOL out of me)