Police State - Trying to make new laws to make them immune from lawsuits.

[SilthDraeth]

Guy Arrested for mouthing off and touching Cheny

Long story.
Cliffs:
Guy tells Cheny that what they are doing in the war is disgusting. Guy claims he then patted Cheney's shoulder, open handed touch.

Secret Service Claims the guy pushed Cheney, caused his shoulder to dip, and arrested him for assaulting/harassing Cheney.

Guy sues saying he was arrested as retaliation for his remarks.

Court is now hearing arguments whether to create a law to make cops and Secret Service immune from lawsuits from people claiming the where arrested because of what they said. ie Retaliatory arrests that they claim violate their free speech.

My thoughts?

I can see where touching the VP would get you in trouble. But in general, the police do need to be held accountable for civil rights violations. Cops already break tons of laws every day due to what they are ordered to do. I don't believe most cops are trying to break the law, but I know of several cases where they do, and they and the police stations, etc are not held accountable, which turns into an expectation for them to continue the way they have been, and to make certain acts common practice.

So, I hope this new law isn't passed, because it gives people a weapon, even though the courts often side with the cops, and lawyers anyways. Personal experience tells me, that if you know the laws and assert your rights in court, you piss off the judge and the lawyers, especially if you are more current than they are. They will side against you out of retaliation for you calling them on their shit. But as long as their isn't a law barring you from the fight, you can fight it all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, still at least seems to really review laws and make key decisions based more on the laws present than on personal feelings being hurt, and the need to retaliate.

 

[Texashiker]

Have you heard of the No Free Speech zone outside the US supreme court? If you on public property, and hold up a sign, or do anything else in front of the Supreme Court, you can be arrested.

It makes sense to me that the supreme court would approve of certain immunity for government officials.

It seems to me that the supreme court is hit an miss with its freedom of speech rules.

 

[jagec]

“The issue before the court today is whether Secret Service agents who are prepared to take a bullet for the vice president must also be prepared to take a retaliatory arrest lawsuit, even when they have probable cause to make an arrest,”

...
He said if agents knew they were potentially liable for money damages in First Amendment lawsuits, it might make them hesitate at a critical moment.

So, they won't hesitate to take a bullet--to which they have no immunity--but they'll hesitate if they think they might get sued?

Yeah, RIGHT.

Plus, if the agents get sued for fending off someone whom they thought was a threat, and they can convince the court that the threat was credible, then the lawsuit will be dismissed anyway. No further laws are necessary.

Funny, I thought that the current Supreme Court was pretty decent on the First Amendment stuff...I mean, if corporations can bribe...err "donate" unlimited funds to politicians as "free speech", then why can't individuals yell at the same politicians?

 

[FoBoT]

there are more details describing the oral arguments here
http://www.scotusblog.com/?p=141217

While Breyer, and later Justice Sonia Sotomayor, openly expressed worry about extending immunity too far, to police arrests in general, both of them dropped strong hints that they thought a different rule of immunity might be entirely appropriate for the Secret Service.