4 ms·

Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reason

Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights. The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement

grecy 7y ago
> Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth. > The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!
- lawlessquestion 7y ago
  Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?
  - grecy 7y ago
    And better yet would be your right to assemble actually being worth a damn, and you never being arrested for doing something that is supposedly legal. You're so caught up in the whole charade of "Money = Life" you don't even realize there should never have been an arrest or a legal battle in the first place, if the American people really do have a right to assemble. Now if they don't, your discussion is valid I suppose.
    - lawlessquestion 7y ago
      Use your right to bear arms to defend your right to assemble.
      - mistermann 7y ago
        This seems less optimal than simply not denying people their rights in the first place. Are you opposed to that idea for some reason?
        lawlessquestion 7y ago
        Not at all. However we live in a world where law enforcement for a variety of factors continue to attempt to suppress our rights to assemble.
      - grecy 7y ago
        It is extremely sad and scary that any intelligent person would actually suggest using violence and guns against the US government to defend rights citizens supposedly already have. You're talking about starting a civil war that will likely result in the brutal and horrible deaths of tens of millions of civilians, the collapse of the US economy and likely that would drag some others down too. For a country that is supposedly one of the greatest on the planet, things don't seem to be going so well.
- ajmurmann 7y ago
  You forgot the part where it's not only not their money, but in fact our money. How public officials get "punished" is one of my biggest issues. We are right now holding them to a lower standard whereas we should hold them to a much higher standard. If a public official, especially in law enforcement, commits a crime it's a much bigger problem because it undermined the entire system beyond just the crime itself. This should result in draconic punishments for even small crimes.
  - lawlessquestion 7y ago
    That's the point. We pay, it should anger us, so we hold the authorities to accountability
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't post nationalistic flamebait to HN. It leads to flamewars. We don't want those here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
acollins1331 7y ago
Yeah well the fact that the police officer doesn't have to pay for their version of malpractice is stupid as hell.
wcunning 7y ago
Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.

grecy 7y ago

> Then it would be up to a competent attorney to sue the arresting officer under 42 usc 1983 civil actions for deprivations of rights. The law provided for reasonable attorney fees to be paid by a defendant who violated your civil rights So you somehow feel better about your rights being deprived because "sue everyone". In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal. But they stopped it anyway. So it achieved nothing, and the 'right to assemble' is a myth. > The nice thing is that even though your suing the officer who violated your civil rights they are usually covered by an insurance policy so it's technically not an asset poor officer paying the judgement Ah, the true American dream. Sue someone for a ton of money, and you don't even have to feel bad about it because it's not even their money!

lawlessquestion 7y ago
Better that then the successful plaintiff being left holding the bag when their civil rights are horrifically violated. Excessive force cases can and do result in death and disability not including whatever mental trauma. Better the people that the state that employs law enforcement bear the cost associated with their actions, then victims of civil rights violations are unable to collect against a bankrupt defendant.
- mistermann 7y ago
  Any comment on the "In the mean time the authorities have effectively shut down the protest, that was perfectly legal" aspect?
- grecy 7y ago
  And better yet would be your right to assemble actually being worth a damn, and you never being arrested for doing something that is supposedly legal. You're so caught up in the whole charade of "Money = Life" you don't even realize there should never have been an arrest or a legal battle in the first place, if the American people really do have a right to assemble. Now if they don't, your discussion is valid I suppose.
  - lawlessquestion 7y ago
    Use your right to bear arms to defend your right to assemble.
    - mistermann 7y ago
      This seems less optimal than simply not denying people their rights in the first place. Are you opposed to that idea for some reason?
      - lawlessquestion 7y ago
        Not at all. However we live in a world where law enforcement for a variety of factors continue to attempt to suppress our rights to assemble.
    - grecy 7y ago
      It is extremely sad and scary that any intelligent person would actually suggest using violence and guns against the US government to defend rights citizens supposedly already have. You're talking about starting a civil war that will likely result in the brutal and horrible deaths of tens of millions of civilians, the collapse of the US economy and likely that would drag some others down too. For a country that is supposedly one of the greatest on the planet, things don't seem to be going so well.
ajmurmann 7y ago
You forgot the part where it's not only not their money, but in fact our money. How public officials get "punished" is one of my biggest issues. We are right now holding them to a lower standard whereas we should hold them to a much higher standard. If a public official, especially in law enforcement, commits a crime it's a much bigger problem because it undermined the entire system beyond just the crime itself. This should result in draconic punishments for even small crimes.
- lawlessquestion 7y ago
  That's the point. We pay, it should anger us, so we hold the authorities to accountability
dang 7y ago
Please don't post nationalistic flamebait to HN. It leads to flamewars. We don't want those here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

acollins1331 7y ago

Yeah well the fact that the police officer doesn't have to pay for their version of malpractice is stupid as hell.

wcunning 7y ago

Except that under the doctrine of qualified immunity that case would be thrown out for an infinite number of tiny reasons. Check out the Institute for Justice for a good run down based on cases they've fought.