Free Republic

You attribute so much to me that I have given you no reason for you to so believe. All I have done is explain why Noem has no case against prosecutors because of immunity for “failure to enforce the law.” You take this as my endorsement of the prosecutor’s decision and my failure to appreciate Deuteronomy. You know nothing about me, my thoughts about the administration of justice or how faith should interplay wth the system in place because I have not told you any of these things, least of all anything about Tren de Aragua. It appears to me you would rather believe the gnosis that your pride has cooked up with the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees. But good for you in making a nice demonstration of your bona fides in whatever woke right corner you’re staking a claim to.

Thanks for letting me look at all the topics through someone else’s eyes. It has given me a new light on the parasitic nature of the Pharasees and maybe which Christ reviled their methods so. Likewise about the influence the public had on Pilate and how a cult diminishes opportunity for mercy. TTFN

lt makes me sick, and I don’t want to hear any more hissing from behind your forked tongue.

So under your concept, every Prosecutor must prosecute to the maximum, without the ability to excercise judgment or mercy, especially where your, as a member of an enlightened public, sensibilities are satisfied. And you see no likeness at all to your reality and the reality of the Pharasees that put my savior on the cross?

Every field except government has standards for what constitutes negligence. But no, the government can’t have standards because then the lawsuits would run them out of business.

This is not the argument I described that supports failure to enforce a law immunity. Let's say an building inspector inspects an apartment for no a no heat and decides not to issue a citation for smoke detectors not working and the next day the building burns down. The inspector will not be liable because he is immune for failing to enforce the smoke detector law and because failure to inspect or negligent inspection is also immune. That is different from where a public official undertakes to enforce a law and does so in bad faith (chauvin)

What you’re saying is that government employees have licenses to kill, that nobody else has.

A truth even more in practice at the time of the crucifixion than now should not surprise you. Pontius Pilate would have absolute immunity for his judgment under almost any English Law system. Making Pilate answerable to the public under the law would make him more likely to sin in the way he did - by bowing to public pressure and the pharasees.

I wish we followed the Bible.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s

There is immunity for enforcing the law imperfectly? What if you don’t enforce it AT ALL? That’s called not doing your job.

Depending on the circumstances, incorrect action or no action al all my be immunized. So as I have described Noem has no case against the person's who let her theif go weeks before.

A lineman is not a government employee so he has no immunity - apples to oranges again.

You’re speaking a different language. I didn’t understand a word you said.

Google "Failure to enforce a law tort immunity"

You are comparing apples to oranges. Chauvin was an excessive force case, which can be good cases - i will not get into a discussion here about whether it was. The example you described - a government officials deciding not to keep “the bull that gores” in custody is immunized under “failure to enforce absolute law” immunity. The two are totally unlike.

If they’re not gonna do their jobs to keep us safe and execute justice, then just end their jobs and save the taxpayers some money to go buy their own guns and bullets for self-defense.

You're making a policy argument which may be resolved by elections and legislation. Courts should not be involved in policy, but only in the enforcement of the law as it is written.

As far as failure to enforce immunity, it is absolute because if it weren't, the paydays for trial lawyers second guessing governmental decisions would be so numerous and immense, government wouldn't be possible. To say that it should be liable for not doing more is actually an invitation toward Totalitarianism.

Surely there must be some penalty for gross negligence on the part of a government worker.

You are describing some species of very weak qualified immunity. Some failure to enforce immunity is absolute and form of failure to enforce is qualified, which if pierced may result in immunity. Civil liability never awards punishment, only damages.

Doesn’t seem like that meant anything for Derek Chauvin.

Chauvin was alleged to have used excessive force. His conduct did not amount to failure to enforce absolute law by any stretch.

Failure to enforce absolute immunity is determined by whether the critical causative conduct by government employees consists of non-action or failure to act with respect to the enforcement of the law. Such absolute and qualified immunity is designed to protect the taxpayers when government employees are faced with everyday challenges that are potentially dangerous in their daily work activities. These employees often are required to fight fires, save human lives and protect property, while exposed to litigious risk for incomplete victory in any action they take. As such, public entities and their employees are entitled to a strong presumption of immunity for every action or inaction.

That’s not really addressing what I am talking about. The responsibility for a bull that gores and gets loose makes the owner liable is a sound legal tort theory. However, a public entity, such as a sanctuary city is immune from tort claims (king can do no wrong) based on their tort claims act. Failure to enforce a law - that would keep the bull that gores in custody - is immunized. This is why cases like you describe are never filed. They suck because if you do file them they get dismissed. Add to that, if you get past immunity, here your trying to get a recovery from 6 schmoes off the voter roles in Manhattan or DC in favor of Noem. Ever hear of juror nullification. No lawyer would touch it because you’ll never get paid. If you have to take the case like you suggest, that is slavery.

Maybe any lawyer who refuses to take it should go out of business.

I don't know how you would enforce that. It would be some pretty interesting legislation that would have to pass - lawyers must enter into contracts they they don't want to because they'll lose every time.

They should be sued into bankruptcy until they learn that they have a responsibility too costly to shirk.

This case would be venued in Manhattan or Washington DC. I can't imagine any jury from those venues giving Noem anything. Also, failure to enforce the law is an almost perfect defense here. Not a good case because any lawyer that took it would go out of business.

The Title should be Dead Man Complained that Shark Bites.

... A little background information is helpful here. To maximize the benefits of this mineral in water systems, the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) recommends a fluoride concentration of 0.7 milligrams per liter (mg/L) in drinking water, which is considered optimal for preventing tooth decay while minimizing potential side effects. ...

Per Walter Peck

Once a the public is purposefully exposed to a substance, for examply for public safety, the incentive is to cease all testing for safety is extinguished, in order to manage risk, i.e. avoid liability for unforseen but foreseeable consequences. So tell me if I'm wrong - this study finding a .7 mg/mgl is about 50 years old.

This appears to have been argument on a motion to dismiss due to inadequate facial basis in the presentation to the grand jury:

Portella instead argued that the grand jury did not hear all of the facts before it approved charges that allege Higgins was intentionally reckless and left the scene.

So none of the facts presented had anything to do with proving the charges. A grand jury does not decide what facts are true but only whethr there is enough evidence to allow a full trial to take place. That will happen later here, if the defendant does not plead out.

I didn’t know 20,000 IRS employees were needed to accept Trump’s resignation
What if it was only 19,999?