Replies

n all your rehashed blather about Pierce you fail to recognize that qualified immunity had not a damn thing to do with the case where the municipality was the only named defendant, and Pierce failed to state a claim.

The case was dismissed on summary judgment for failure to state a claim. The court read the submissions, decided there was no legal case requiring a trial, and threw the plaintiff's case out.

Your insane rant loses again.

The Court wrote:

We sympathize with Drummond’s relatives, but we agree with the district court’s cogent analysis that the Township did not deprive Drummond of a constitutional right. In this case, construing the facts in the light most favorable to Pierce, Springfield Township did not violate Drummond’s rights under the Due Process Clause. Because Pierce fails to state a claim under § 1983, we agree with the district court’s reasoning and AFFIRM its judgment

Merritt, J., concurring wrote:

I think it is better to conceptualize the case as one in which the police had custody and a duty to act without “deliberate indifference” to Drummond’s medical needs. The standard of “deliberate indifference” is explained in Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). In light of the caution the situation required and the obvious medical attention needed, the police acted without “deliberate indifference” in calling for an ambulance which came immediately. Given the specific facts of this case, I cannot see how the police could be at fault in their conduct in briefly maintaining the status quo while the ambulance was on its way.

It should be noted that your obtuse attempt to introduce an element of qualified immunity, you are once again reminded that qualified immuity only applies to CIVIL cases.

I can't decide whether to water you or spray you with RoundUp.

You dragged in the Drummond case, as though it disproved my contention, for failure to state a claim.

But your own citation showed, that the reason it failed, was because the executrice of the estate, sued under the wrong Amemendment.

Your own case, in fact, the very site you gave, said verbatim:

He was not incarcerated, institutionalized, or subjected to “other similar restraint.” Id. Nor was he handcuffed, arrested, restrained, or even touched by the police. Drummond was incapacitated by a self-inflicted gunshot wound, and he collapsed to the ground before the officers reached him. Under these circumstances, Drummond was not in custody for DeShaney purposes

It is because he was "not in custody for DeShaney purposes" that there was no Constitutional claim.

But Floyd George was ALL FOUR. And he did not "collapse to the ground" before the officers reached him: they were holding him down.

Your dishonesty and bad faith continue.

Toodles!