Trump vows to indemnify the police for ANYTHING they do.. Are you good with that?

just_sayin

jack said:

Hello:

I've said it before, and I'm saying it again..  If we don't guard our rights, we'll LOSE them.  I've posted many times about this very issue.  I've EMPHASIZED the Bill of Rights, wherein the CITIZENS of this great country of ours, are indemnified FROM the cops - not the other way around.   Trump thinks that's a bug.  But, our founders made it a feature.  I suggest you read the 1st Amendment..  It's only about 45 easily understandable words. 

If Trump gets elected and gives the police UNLIMITED power, we're done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/12/23/trump-police-indemnify-qualified-immunity/

excon

The indemnity claim by Trump is just part of the unethical media's talking points today.  Its a regular part of his stump speech.  Reason.com ran an article in December 2023 about it.  They noted it doesn't really change anything because as a University of California study from 2014 found "officers financially contributed to settlements and judgments in just .41% of the approximately 9225 civil rights damages actions resolved in plaintiffs' favor, and their contributions amounted to just .02% of the over $730 million spent by cities, counties, and states in these cases."

Now, pro-criminal leftists have tried to make police officer's jobs harder to do since 2014.  No doubt.  But the hysteria from the left today, is more because Biden doesn't want to talk about how

polls for 6 of 7 Battle Ground States have Trump Winning

Factfinder

@jack

Can't read your article but I trust trump said he wants to indemnify police officers. My question is does he mean more than the court statute of 1983 extending 'good faith' indemnity already? 

jack

just_sayin said:

The indemnity claim by Trump is just part of the unethical media's talking points today.  

Hello just:

Yeah..  The unethical media put these words IN Trumps mouth.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-promises-indemnify-protect-law-015820981.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

So, I gather you're fine with Trumps national police loyal only to him.  Du*de!  Shortly, they'll all be wearing brown shirts.

excon

jack

Factfinder said:

@jack

Can't read your article but I trust trump said he wants to indemnify police officers. My question is does he mean more than the court statute of 1983 extending 'good faith' indemnity already? 

Hello F:

Yeah, I hate sites that let you read some stuff, but charge you if you want more..

There is a significant difference between qualified immunity, which the cops have now, to immunity with no qualifications whatsoever, which is what Trump is proposing.

By the way, there's plenty being written about it..  If you wanted to read it, you could have.  

excon

just_sayin

jack said:

just_sayin said:

The indemnity claim by Trump is just part of the unethical media's talking points today.  

Hello just:

Yeah..  The unethical media put these words IN Trumps mouth.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-promises-indemnify-protect-law-015820981.html?fr=yhssrp_catchall

So, I gather you're fine with Trumps national police loyal only to him.  Du*de!  Shortly, they'll all be wearing brown shirts.

excon

Indemnity just means that the police officers don't personally pay any civil suit judgements.  It doesn't mean that civil court judgements won't be awarded. I think you might be ascribing to the statement meaning that it does not carry.  It does not mean that a law officer can't be charged with a crime if they committed one.  

Let's add this to the fake Trump Russian collusion hysteria pile.  

Factfinder

jack said:

Factfinder said:

@jack

Can't read your article but I trust trump said he wants to indemnify police officers. My question is does he mean more than the court statute of 1983 extending 'good faith' indemnity already? 

Hello F:

Yeah, I hate sites that let you read some stuff, but charge you if you want more..

There is a significant difference between qualified immunity, which the cops have now, to immunity with no qualifications whatsoever, which is what Trump is proposing.

By the way, there's plenty being written about it..  If you wanted to read it, you could have.  

excon

True I could have but thought you did already so you could just present your case. But alas a couple lines in a speech with no details isn't much to go on. Problem is nobody knows what he meant by a "new" thing as qualified indemnity is an established thing; so I get the raised eyebrows. 

I take it you presume he means with no qualifications?

Bogan

The USA ( and my own country, Australia) has a serious problem with police recruitment.     One important reason for that is, that in both countries, the people have elected governments who are hostile to the police, as a way of gaining electoral support from the growing numbers of crime prone minorities.     This hostility towards the police is reflected in the fake news media which has lost it's objectivity and is now nothing more than the PR wing of left wing parties.   Indemnifying the police from any attempt to personally sue an individual police officer for any actions he or she may take to protect the public from the Jack's of this world would go a long way in rectifying the recruitment problem.  

RickeyHoltsclaw

@jack ;  Trump does not advocate carte blanche "absolute immunity" for law enforcement but reasonable immunity for actions taken in "good faith" and within the bounds of the law and reasonable doubt. 

jack

RickeyHoltsclaw said:

@jack ;  Trump does not advocate carte blanche "absolute immunity" for law enforcement but reasonable immunity for actions taken in "good faith" and within the bounds of the law and reasonable doubt. 

Hello Rickey:

Nahh....  This is what he actually said:

"I am also going to indemnify our police officers. This is a big thing, and it's a brand new thing, and I think it's so important. I'm going to indemnify, through the federal government, all police officers and law enforcement officials throughout the United States from being destroyed by the radical left for taking strong actions against crime."

https://reason.com/2023/12/22/trumps-promise-to-indemnify-cops-against-any-and-all-liability-is-absurd-for-2-reasons/

excon

RickeyHoltsclaw

@jack ; Na...you're just a liberal fool seeking to justify your facade of losing your "rights" when you've already abandoned them by supporting the Progressive demons. Trump does not advocate corruption in law enforcement...but your party does.