the vast majority of daytime protests have been peaceful. Obviously you won't hear as much about them on the news but they are happening.
A. The precedent does not have to be on all fours with the case at issue. If you want to read the case itself, you can find it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-899/128836/20200116111130857_West_Appendix.pdf The majority explains QI as it is interpreted in the 9th Circuit. There has to be either 1. some analagous case in the 9th Circuit or the Supreme Court 2. A consensus among the circuits 3) Something so obviously unconstitutional that there is no need for precedent. I only did a quick skim of the majority, but basically the facts are that the plaintiff gave the cops permission to see if her ex, a dangerous felon, was inside. Rather than go inside, they used tear gas grenades and did damage to the home. The district court rejected the argument that qualified immunity should be granted. The appellate court reversed, apparently feeling that there was no binding precedent supporting the various arguments that plaintiff was making. B. Again, plaintiff can and probably did also sue under state law theories. Those theories would, if proven, entitle her to any damages she suffered. The main difference is she would not get attorneys' fees, or rather, her attorneys would have to rely on a percentage of the verdict/settlementhere are g rather than bill at a rate that they never ever would have gotten directly from the client. I am guessing that there are no cases that have not been filed because of qualified immunity made them "hopeless." Because a lawyer would always hope a) that it didn't apply to any federal claims or b) that tjey cuuld bring the same or similar claims under state law. The fact that Miranda rights are not required in all cases and are increasingly being curtailed does not change the fact that they were created by judges. There is no place in the Constitution that says the state has to pay for your defense if you are indigent. That is the right I was referring to, and it is a judicial invention. Similarly, the exclusionary rule is a judicial invention. It doesn't matter that one can see where it draw its origins from the Constitution. There are good judicial inventions and there are bad ones (though I suspect there would be various differing points of view as to which are which.)
He's waiting for Marso and Forbin to get back from liberating the Mexican baby camps so they all can go.
well yeah... we all know he's the type of collaborator who would've ratted out Anne Frank for being an illegal.
My university has about 8000 students and we don't contract the police, despite that being a solid percentage of the town population. They cover us like they do everyone else. Admittedly, we don't have guns around, but the need for cops in schools is something a society should reflect on, not see as a fact of life.
Shit, if Kevin put his hands on my daughters like that and I found out who he was, his house would get burned down.
A few fat guys likely called Terry. They are only there to check unauthorised access, really. I was a student here back in the 90s, before I returned as staff in 2009. I was in one of the computer rooms of an evening when I needed the toilet. Rather than walk to the Student Union building, I noticed the library was open so availed myself of their facilities. As I was zipping up, the lights went out. I emerged into the lobby to find I was locked in. A call to the operator (the site contact numbers were conveniently in the part of the library I was locked out of....) got me the Fire Brigade, who were set to break down the doors to get me out... but decided to contact site security first. Said master detective chose to quiz me on why I was in the building, ignoring the fact that a burglar who can get IN, but not OUT, is pretty unlikely. I wouldn't trust our site security to notice Thanos showing up with his whole fucking army, until someone reported it.
Trump's photo-op required Barr's thugs to assault an Australian news crew. Looking forward to drop bears being deployed in the next confrontation.
somebody has Ben and Jerry staying in their freezer? Damn that's some "it puts the lotion in the basket" shit right there!
I completely disagree. It seems as if this whole country can not keep it's mouth shut about anything. Especially younger people who've grown up with social media. Look at the people who rob and put their loot and their faces on Twitter and Facebook. Look at the people who bang the hot teacher and still talk about it. (Yes the teacher is wrong but who among us never had a teacher that made us think of Van Halen's Hot For Teacher? ) Keeping a secret in America? HA!
DAMN!!!!!!!! That's way above average. That is a failure of the department to look more closely at that officer. That should have never gotten that far before someone intervened.
