Ruger Forum banner

21 - 27 of 27 Posts

·
Pony Soldier
Joined
·
8,489 Posts
Deacon, please let Joe know he has my support and admiration.

Greg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
217 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
The writer, Joe, certainly described a bleak future for law enforcement officers, at least in CT. I live in PA, and I did not know anything about the CT law that apparently is contrary to the interests of police. Accordingly, I looked for an explanation of the law. I found a good description of the provisions.

The first thing I learned is that as of today it is a Bill not a Law. It has been passed by the legislative bodies, but it is not yet signed by the Governor. I suspect the signature is just a matter of timing. You can read the article here.

Candidly, I do not think most of the provisions of the bill are unreasonable. The only provision I find unacceptable is the elimination of “qualified immunity.” That does leave LEOs personally exposed to damages for their alleged wrongful actions. It does not seem to provide for any indemnification of the officer by government. That is dead wrong. In an age when thousands of lawyers are more than happy to take on any rainbow case that could have a pot of gold at the end.

There is one thing that the article does not point out. That is the likelihood of a Constitutional challenge to the law. SCOTUS recently refused to hear a case which sought to overturn “qualified immunity,” which is an legal precedent created by prior SCOTUS decision. Today’s SCOTUS refused to even look at reconsidering that president.

The bill provides that the law (if enacted) will come into force on July 2021. That gives the LEO community and its unions time to take action to have the portion of the law changed or struck down. Quitting the Force now makes little sense to me. Focusing opposition to the “qualified immunity” provision over the next year makes absolute sense to me.

As for the other provisions of the Bill, opposing them would detract from an effort to eliminate the “quailed provision. Focusing on items that most voters are likely to see as reasonable is futile. Politics is the art of the possible, and it is possible to win a contest to eliminate the attack on “qualified immunity,” or to add provisions to the law that would provide indemnification against the expense of defending a lawsuit.

We all know that the vast majority of LEOs are good people who doe their jobs responsibly. We also know that there are bad apples in any barrel, not just the LE barrel. You cannot weed out the bad apples by exposing all the good apples to harm. We need the good apples. We need our good LEOs. To protect them a means of weeding out the bad ones is the best answer. The other provisions of the Bill seem to reach in that direction.

As for Joe’s missive, I see it an very understandable rant brought in by being dumped on after decade of good service. However that rant will not change anything. Yes, it will make some people angry, but that will also not result in change. The only way to change such things is to get public opinion on one’s side or mount a legal challenge.

I hope Joe changes his mind and directs his strong feelings into energy in an effort to amend the law.

In case the previous link did not take the article I referenced is at:
Connecticut lawmakers passed a comprehensive police accountability bill. Here’s 9 ways it will change policing in the state.
First of all Joe is me nephew through marriage for those who have mistakenly assumed I ( Deacon Bob) was an LEO but your sentiments are appreciated by Joe. Secondly I don't appreciate you calling his letter a "rant". Some "word speak" to try an undermine what he has to say. It is well thought out as one who "serves" his community and job every day at the possible cost of injury or death.
Living in CT. all my life I've seen this type of "mission creep" to be just the beginning of a larger move to restrict constitutional guarantees & rights to further a progressive ideology. Case in point, the restrictions on AR rifles and magazines which has done nothing to stop the shootings and killings I read about everyday in our major cities and which when challenged in the courts were upheld by the same mentality the exists in our liberal state higher courts.
It's almost impossible to change the vote when the system has been so compromised by decades of "funding tax dollars" into your voting block.
Deacon Bob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
@Deacon07 Please accept my apology for using the word ”rant.” I did not mean to demean him, his intent, or his expressed concerns. I picked the wrong word. More appropriate wording by me would have been intensely felt and delivered opinion. I will be more careful in the future.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,950 Posts
Thank You for your many years of dedicated service! I fully understand your choice and support the decision. The real people who should be sued and held accountable are the liberal politicians and their crazy ideas.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,619 Posts
This country was founded on protests and violence and it’s reemerged throughout this country’s history. The terms “lLive free or die” and “Give me liberty or give me death” still ring true today. This how people try to invoke change. I agree with the OP’s statement that it’s our politicians fault we’re here. I think this country has been going down the wrong road with nobody in the drivers seat for quite some time. That said, in this election I’m voting out every person up for re-election, regardless of party, from the White House to the City alderman. I see to many career do-nothing politicians who are only concerned about the next election. Everyone’s divided with very little compromise.........if ya can’t play in the sand box together you need to go. JMO
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,450 Posts
Allenr,
Thank you for the link to the article as I had not read any of the provisions of this pending legislation. I would disagree that most of these provisions are acceptable. My biggest problem is the open ended nature of having civilian and often politically motivated oversight. If the standards are not explicitly spelled out, you create a bevy of fear that an officer will be judges unfairly. THE OFFICER'S FEAR IS WHAT I FEAR! If an officer hesitates because he does not know how he will be judged by someone that has never been in the situation he (or she; implied from here on out), I may pay the price of his indecision.

The biggest complaint I have heard from "normal" people who support these protests is that the police are policing themselves and they want some private oversight. The problem with that is that unless you have been in the situation a cop is facing, how can you determine whether he acted appropriately? Some things, like George Floyd's death are so obvious that almost anyone would judge the event fairly. Many times, though, the mitigating factors that don't show up on a camera will not be understood by a civilian on a committee. I just think private oversight creates more problems than it solves.

I agree that there are times when bad cops get away with bad things, just like some times bad doctors get away with bad things. If we all agree that for the most part, most cops are good, then they should be able to police themselves the way that doctors do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
@ Nomadic Paladin,

I understand your points. Consider that in most situations judgements of others are mostly made by people who have never been in the situation that the person subject to adjudication has experienced. When I came home from Nam I was called a baby killer and spat upon by some. But most people understood that I had simply done my duty, and that I had never killed a baby. The politicians did not care what I had done. Some painted me as a patriot while others painted me as a dupe of the hawks who loved war. Both were exploiting me. I was not a killer or a patriot. I just did my duty the same as any good police officer does ever day on the job.

There are no “normal” people. Normal implies that their is an average of ideologies (beliefs). If there were we would not have the fragmented society we have today, and government would actually work like it did decades ago.

It is not a perfect world. Those whom are empathetic or sympathetic of one person’s dilemma are most often not so to the person on the other side in the dilemma. That fact is exploited by politicians who have nothing to offer as solutions and therefore focus on differences,rather than solutions. They get elected by picking on some not by offering the means of resolution.

The 542 regulations are reasonable, and that is why they are not acceptable to many whose beliefs are so ideological and/or out of self interest that they forget or never understood that it is not a perfect world.
 
21 - 27 of 27 Posts
Top