A Supreme Court Rules 7-0, Puts More Restrictions on Cops
Epoch Times $1 Sale: https://ept.ms/BestSaleEver Claim your free Gold from American Hartford Gold: https://ept.ms/3biH9MN …
source
"Harmony in Every Heartbeat
November 7, 2024
Headlines
🧶Flash Sale👉https://ept.ms/3Df4yM6
The Supreme Kangaroo Court of the People’s Republic of California has reasserted its supreme idiocy once again.
Qualified immunity isn’t really the problem. The problem is that qualified immunity is automatically granted. Things can happen fast or sometimes it’s not so cut and dry what a policeman should do. I think a reasonable solution is to not automatically grant immunity but to have the policeman have to petition the court for it to apply, not to have the citizen to apply to the court to disregard it.
SO CRIMINALS CAN DO WHAT THEY PLEASE….FORCING LAWABIDING CITIZENS TO TAKE THE LAW IN THEIR HANDS..LAWABIDING CITIZENS WILL END UP GOING TO PRISON.
Actually I am not totally against this. It is BS to be detained or accosted by police if no crime hasn't been committed. Running away from the police is not a crime whereas resisting arrest is. I know this makes police work harder but detaining people just because they didn't like the way you looked is not a crime.
The real problem is that low level crimes have little to no consequences which then just leads to bigger things. That is the real problem in CA. This is relatively a small thing compared to the bigger issues.
What those cops did to that man was Unconstitutional.
The Constitution drew the line that the government can't cross, yet government officials, including their police policy enforcers, are always the ones pushing to do away with our Rights, which are also their limits!
You don't see the public as a whole trying to change or add an Amendment to the Constitution limiting thier own Rights. It's these filthy men who embed themselves into our government that are working to subvert our Constitution with thier Seditious acts when they violate our Rights.
The courts are another safe haven for corrupt and activist "judges" to twist the meanings of our Rights in ways that erode our Rights in favor of thier unionized city and town "police" policy enforcers, who incidentally creates litigation that benefits the courts with profits and gain.
Between the privately owned BAR Association, which ALL Lawyers, Attorneys and Judges "must" belong to, and the biggest advocates for "law enforcement" being allowed to violate your Rights, the Police Unions have hijacked our 3rd Branch of government!
Constitutionally, the "cops" were wrong here!
you have to have a reasonable articulable suspicion of a specific crime in order to detain somebody. I don’t like this guy anymore than anyone else, but your hunch because he suspicious is not detainable
What if someone was just raped or murdered nearby, is it okay then or will CA throw out those convictions based on this as well. Pro-crime California and New York need to stop interfering with the cops who do their jobs well.
Great results from supreme court cops need to have some kind of control and be responsible what they do and how far they go with their egor and not do whatever they wish to harm people instead of helping them they need to be held accountable and face the consequences the deserve if they brakebthenlawb
Once again we have people who don’t live in these high crime areas and the abuses they endure from the police claiming this is just good policing! Supposedly a terry stop can be done to anyone who the cops are suspicious of….and ain’t it amazing how blacks are always suspicious to cops, but never the “upper” class white drug dealer or addict.
20+ years ago if you were parked on the side of road with your flashers on or off a police officer might pull on the side of your vehicle and ask if you if you're OK, if you replied you were OK they would leave
Now because of instant access to information getting ID from citizens is like crack cocaine to police officers
The high court of California is correct the police officers could have sat back and observed the individual
. Every day hundreds a new videos is on YouTube are posted where a citizen has their rights violated or even killed in their own home because the recklessness of today's law enforcement
Reducing qualified immunity might attract more qualified law-enforcement
Same people praising stopping police from doing there job will be the very same losers who will slam the Police for not doing anything when shit goes wrong.
Actually one of the very few times I find myself siding with California.
Simply avoiding being close to a cop isn’t illegal, they aren’t entitled to the presence of law-abiding citizens.
However, in this case, I don’t think it’s relevant as the man in question had probable cause for investigation given his illegally parked car
We could get rid of crime by microchipping everybody, having cameras and microphones and facial recognition and voice recognition everywhere. That is a valid choice of a way to live. Like China. Very little crime. But right now, the US chooses to live a different, free way. And the police HAVE TO accept it. Otherwise they can move to China. Or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Russia or one of the other oppressive states where police work is easy and pleasurable because they can beat and torture the citizens.
BTW, there are lots of people that are afraid of the police. Some people feel guilty and nervous even when they have done nothing wrong. Some people have had bad interactions. Some people have come from countries where the police are brutal.
You must clarify in your titles that it’s the CALIFORNIA Supreme Court. This is very confusing and almost amounts to clickbait.
As called for in our Constitution…….Revolution is needed to take back our government.
Once again common sense is being banned! If a person is actively avoiding the police then they’ve likely committed a crime and if not then they’ll be released. This is BS!
We just fucked justice.
Im a conservative white suburbanite, and I think the CA Supreme Court made the right decision. It's really easy to judge this person because of the ultimate outcome, but police abuse of authority is VERY difficult to understand unless you've actually experienced and/or witnessed it, which I have several times.
They’re right that just hiding isn’t enough to stop someone…. But that’s not all the officers articulated as reasons for the stop. A totality of the circumstances showed a reasonable suspicion that a crime may be occurring, have occurred, or was about to occur. Dumb judges. Freaking 9th circuit sucks
Good. FTP
To believe what the LAPD says at face value is moronic. This is how they chip away at our rights, there has to be reasonable, articulable, suspicion that you are in the act or are about to commit a crime to stop you. That's the 4th amendment, it's common practice for the LAPD and the sheriff's department to plant drugs and guns on people and has been shown to happen on video multitudes of times so never trust a liar. No one appeals to the state supreme court that's guilty.
Are you complaining that they accidentally ruled in support of The Constitution?
We have no constitutional rights today. The courts have argued them away. The police want to be “proactive” in law enforcement. That means, stopping a crime “before” it happens, or before they are aware of it. The police’s job is to be “reactive,” not proactive. After they observe a crime, they should enforce the law. A lot of these terry laws, are unconstitutional and states (as observed in the lower courts in this ruling) simply ignore. You shouldn’t have to appeal to the Supreme Court before justice can be served. And unanimously.
I don't know that this is a vindication of the rights of the minorities but it's definitely a vindication of the rights of people who have anxiety or police anxiety
I agree! Suspicion is not a crime!
Roman, it's a macchiato!
I believe in law and order, but i also believe in civil liberties. My problem is that cops are not well trained and often too aggressive. As a conservative i dont want cops to have too much authority because it is often abused.
Good. About time a California court got something right.
I like the content you bring I think it’s important, but there’s gotta be a better way
The problem is with these subscriptions is that you can only have one I mean, how much money are we supposed to spend on each and everyone of these subscriptions that you guys have? It’s ridiculous. I don’t care that it’s the cost of what a newspaper used to be,when everything is that way it cost a small fortune and I have to make decisions on what to keep and what not to keep. I don’t have time for that shit.
Or maybe it’s time for someone to start another platform with the constitution in the first amendment in mind while protecting people at the same time protecting speech shouldn’t be too hard but as we know, this is an arm of the government and they’re not gonna really let you criticize the government on this platform It’s really a government shill , YouTube wouldn’t allow voice text on that last sentence I had to stop what I was doing and physically put it in and battle. The last sentence that’s how bad they are. Everything was fine until I got into criticizing government , and then the voice went haywire again on that last statement where I mentioned government Apparently you can’t voiced text government. Oh well it worked right there, but twice it’s dropped it. I have to go back and put it back in. Apparently apparently if you use voice text, you criticize our government they screw it to where you have to now fight the sentence and the texting which I don’t have the power of my hands , so fu YouTube , I had to redo that small last little sentence because they wouldn’t let me say FU YouTube
I would love to get off this platform and listen to you speak uncensored, taking full advantage of your constitution right to the first amendment, but I can’t really afford to have yet another service. Another thing I have to pay for, and it falls under the category of entertainment, which is not a priority, so if you can tell me of a platform that you’re on where I get to hear all that yet it’s free to you. Please let us know.
I have to comment that "nervous" define anyone being arrested and "evasive" could describe someone who claims Innocence.
And with civil asset forfeiture that literally makes the cops road pirates looking for anything they can call crime so they can confiscate your stuff and say it was in the commission of a crime then they go to your house and say all the proceeds illegal crime bought all of this and they start confiscating your couch your TVsblah blah blah you start down a slippery road and you’d be amazed where it ends