Appeals court bizarrely rules federal agents can legally threaten to shoot people over personal disputes

DonnyFerguson.com ^ | Sept. 15, 2021 | not listed

[Leaning Right]

What does it take to hold federal police accountable for using excessive force? That question is once again being raised with cases being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. And it’s coming to the Justices in the form of a petition from Kevin Byrd, a Texas mechanic who was almost shot to death by a federal officer in a dispute over a purely personal matter.

Kevin is not fighting alone. The Institute for Justice (IJ) represents him in his U.S. Supreme Court appeal.

[qaz123]

Give me an example of an LEO violating a constitutional right and the courts not knowing what to do.

[qaz123]

That’s pretty much what this decision seems to have done, for sure.

[publiusF27]

Give me an example of an LEO violating a constitutional right and the courts not knowing what to do.

OK, the 11th Circuit recently concluded that a reasonable jury could conclude that this shooting was unreasonable and therefore unconstitutional. Qualified impunity applies because there was no previous case along the same lines, despite the fact that it's reasonable to conclude constitutional rights were violated.

In another case, officers stole $225,000 during a search. The 9th Circuit had this to say:

Though "the City Officers ought to have recognized that the alleged theft was morally wrong," the unanimous 9th Circuit panel said, the officers "did not have clear notice that it violated the Fourth Amendment."

Ya think? They sure as hell ought to have recognized that stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars is wrong,but alas, that kind of "clear notice" only comes from a prior case with nearly identical facts, so as long as govt employees are creative and find new ways to violate rights, they're good to go under QI.

[qaz123]

Thanks....

That is insane information. The entire system is so corrupted that it needs to be scrapped completely.

The military can handle stuff from the outside. No need to worry about what’s happening on the inside. It’ll get violent and sh*tty, but the dust will settle and hopefully sane thinking folks will be around to rebuild it.

[qaz123]

On a side note, the Fresno case was He Said - She Said.

The perps allege the crime. No proof of the crime.

Not saying it didn’t happen, but with no proof there is nothing to go on.

However, the case in Alabama is nuts.

[BohDaThone]

The case is about a particular kind of FEDERAL court suit called a Bivens action. It is a way to sue Federal officers "acting under color of law" similar to a Section 1983 suit against state officials (the usual excessive force case).

It is judicially created and so subject to various constraints. I am not saying right or wrong here, but this case says nothing about whether you can sue the federal official in STATE court for shooting you as a private tort, just as I can usually sure you in STATE Court for shooting me.

There are sometimes advantages to a plaintiff being in Federal Court (less likelihood of small town prejudice, maybe can get attorney fees sometimes), but this case does not have any impact on what state law says you can do to sue a person, federal official or not.

[publiusF27]

In the case of José Oliva, Mr. Oliva is claiming his fourth amendment rights were violated. Not a state court kind of claim.

More on how Bivens applies (or doesn't) these days. The standard answer from courts has become, "what happened to you was different from what happened to Bivens, so federal cops are immune."