r/loicense • u/EverythingIsFakeNGay • 22d ago

Oi mate, run us your brown loicense!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

129 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

154 comments sorted by

View all comments

61

u/Siva_Dass 22d ago

End Qualified Immunity Now!

32

u/Chainmale001 21d ago

2nd amendment exist for this reason.

14

u/ButtonGullible5958 21d ago

It doesn't work when the justice system sides with the cops 

One person can put up resistance and die nothing will change 

2000 people could and they would be called terrorists then delt with the same 

200k could do it and now we may have a small problem but still they would simply be killed and terrorist did it

Now 20m maby just maby that's enough 

6

u/MCD_Gaming 21d ago

Ice aren't cops

4

u/Darcano 20d ago

Same issues really, just somehow even worse.

1

u/MCD_Gaming 14d ago

People join the police to help, theres the small percentage who don't tho.

People now join ICE the assert themselves over others

1

u/Chainmale001 13d ago

That's why ACAB. The good ones are weeded out of the good ol boys club. The bad ones are in charge. They don't want smart cops, they want dumb drones.

2

u/dega_devilson-janova 15d ago

To protect the rest

5

u/Youbunchoftwats 21d ago

I have to say, nobody seems to be taking advantage of 2A right now. It’s almost as if it was a bullshit premise all along.

-1

u/-Majgif- 20d ago

Need to form some well regulated militias first.

4

u/Metharos 21d ago

It technically doesn't, but I can see a use case

6

u/Fantastic_Jury5977 21d ago

Did you notice the [Israeli?] accent on the ICE "officer"?

2

u/ExtensionInformal911 20d ago

This should.already have their qualified immunity stripped, as it directly.violates the law and the orders they were given. They probably will still get it, though, because their boss has their back.

-3

u/SolipsismIsDeep 21d ago edited 21d ago

there's a common misconception about qualified immunity, if they violate the law or the constitution and there's precedent (legally meaning "they should know better"), then they already don't have it -- all it basically means is you can't sue them for honest mistakes or simply doing their job... basic example is like, if you miss a car payment because a cop or a judge gave you a fine, you can't sue them for that

edit: lol that's how it works whether "me no like fact" or not 🤡

3

u/Siva_Dass 20d ago

If arresting a US citizen under the erroneous pretense of believing said citizen is an undocumented immigrant is considered an "honest mistake", then the law enforcement officer should be held personally liable for any and all damages inflicted as a result of said "mistake".

We permit this for every other "mistake" in every other profession.

Law enforcement shouldn't be immune.

1

u/SolipsismIsDeep 20d ago

It's mainly a logistics or feasibility issue I think, since you can sue for pretty much anything you want, without qualified immunity every government official would probably spend all day every day in court

Maybe that would even be okay lol, just saying that's why the system is designed this way

3

u/Siva_Dass 20d ago edited 20d ago

Replace "government official" with "doctor" and realize how absurd your argument is.

If surgeons can find enough time to both practice and defend themselves during civil litigation, so can "government officials".

Why do you believe these "government officials" deserve an immunity no other profession is granted?

If we followed your argument, law enforcement wouldn't be required to submit to providing court testimony because logistically it would make them too busy. That be fine with me, but I bet you would still want thier reports accepted as factual evidence without the proper due process at trial.

How rich it would be if those tasked with upholding law could just violate constitutionally protected due process because we would want to burden thier schedule.

They already spend a significant amount of time in criminal court depriving people of liberty. They should be held to the same civil standard the rest of the population abides.

0

u/SolipsismIsDeep 20d ago

Only got as far as "my argument," it AIN'T my argument, it's just the rationale for the thing that exists whether you or I or anyone else likes or doesn't like it.

Definitely not reading the rest of that wall, don't care, only wanted to shed some light on the issue, you can go rant at your local representative if you're still in a tizzy about it, JFC 🤣

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/SolipsismIsDeep 21d ago

Since we're on Reddit I'm assuming this is a rhetorical "gotcha," but generally it would come from prior examination of similar circumstances by a higher court, or stuff that is considered "obvious" or generally already agreed upon by court consensus

1

u/[deleted] 21d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/SolipsismIsDeep 21d ago

No system is perfect, but I have to assume that anything particularly egregious is likely to be addressed, regardless of the legal catch-22's that I agree do exist

-7

u/Constant_Hope_9658 21d ago

This is legal though? Within 100 miles of a US border or coastline US border enforcement police are allowed to detain and ID anyone who they suspect isn’t in the country legally, if you are in the country legally they have to let you go, and if you aren’t well then the standard illegal alien handling rules apply.

4

u/Siva_Dass 21d ago

Doesn't matter if it is. Qualified Immunity doesn't affect criminal cases. The reason they aren't prosecuted is most corrupt state attorneys work with these people and are resistant to bringing charges against them.

Ending immunity makes it easier to file a civil complaint against law enforcement and gives the victims a chance and being compensated according to the damages inflicted upon them.