The 2020 George Floyd/BLM/Police Brutality Protests Discussion Thread

Be warned that profanity appears uncensored in the article proper, while the forum censors the snippet I've transcribed below.
"We can lock him up for disorderly conduct," Box tells the officers over a phone call captured by the body camera footage. "It might not go anywhere, but we can definitely lock him up for disorderly conduct."

"He stuck his middle finger out of the car and I'm like 'game on,'" Douglas says after the officers have exited the car, having pulled Guessford over.

"After a while, he'll do something stupid," Box added later. "We can lock him up, take his kid, put his dog in the impound…for now it is what it is."

Eventually, Guessford was cited for breaking a law regulating hand signals for bicycles and other non-motorized vehicles. However, body camera footage from after the incident shows that Box knew the citation wasn't lawful. In a phone call with another officer, Christopher Popp, Box explained that officers cited Guessford for improper hand signals.

"Yeah, you can't do that. That'll get dropped," Popp says. "I told him that's gonna get thrown out," Box replies, adding, "Eventually, he's going to do something really stupid and then we are going to be able to really lock him up."

"We need to look at something more that applies, like maybe, something stupid, like parked in the roadway, something like that that will fly," says Popp. "Unfortunately, I mean, we can't pull people over, we can't write them tickets for telling us to **** off or giving us the middle finger, stuff like that. You know, that is their right to do so."
"Unfortunately." Yeah, no, it's fortunate that you can't abuse the law you're tasked with enforcing to penalize people because they offended you. This is a little pie-in-the-sky, but maybe don't be a bitch and the compulsion to do so subsides?
Dallas cops laughed after disabled military vet was denied restroom, urinated on himself

Dallas’ police oversight office is investigating four officers caught on video laughing about a disabled military veteran who urinated on himself after he was denied access to a restroom at a Deep Ellum restaurant.

The Dallas veteran, Dynell Lane, told oversight members two uniformed off-duty Dallas police officers working security at Serious Pizza refused to review his medical paperwork around 2:15 a.m. June 10 after employees said he couldn’t use the restrooms.

Lane, who said he was disabled while deployed for the U.S. Army, called 911 but officers didn’t arrive in time. He said he had a urine and bowel leak issue and left the restaurant.

“The Dallas Police Department failed me,” Lane told oversight members at their monthly August meeting. “Two Dallas police officers discriminated against me and declined to assist me in bridging the gap between myself and the Serious Pizza manager.”

Milkshake Concepts, a restaurant company that owns Serious Pizza, said in a statement provided by a marketing agency that it was “aware of the unfortunate incident” between off-duty police and a patron. The statement did not address questions, including why Serious Pizza employees denied Lane access and what training the company has in place regarding customers with disabilities.

“To provide a safe environment for all of our guests and team members, we hire off-duty Dallas Police Department officers,” the statement said. “We are reviewing our safety procedures to avoid similar incidents while continuing to ensure the safety and comfort of our team members and guests, as that is our top priority.”

Dallas police’s internal affairs division — which handles administrative reviews — found the officers did not violate policy. Police spokeswoman Kristin Lowman said Tuesday “the department is looking into the complaint.” Asked if that meant the investigation was reopened, she said no. She did not elaborate.

After Lane left the restaurant, body-camera from one of two on-duty Dallas officers shows them enter Serious Pizza. They approach the two off-duty officers working security in their DPD uniforms. The on-duty officers ask about someone who reported “they pissed themselves.”

“So you guys made a guy pee himself?” one of the on-duty officers says, then brings a fist to her mouth as she laughs.

One of the off-duty officers smiles and says “yeah” and looks at the other off-duty officer, who appears to say “He called 911? He called 911?”

The officers say Lane called 911 about the officers, and one off-duty officer says, “He called 911 on us?”

The officers respond “yeah” and the off-duty officer yells “ahhh!” and slaps his knee as he laughs loudly. The other off-duty officer smiles.

“He got mad you guys wouldn’t let him use the restroom and then he calls back and said it’s OK he doesn’t need to pee anymore because he soiled —” one of the on-duty officers says before the other one appears to shut off their body camera.

The officers’ actions drew ire from oversight board members, who questioned internal affairs officials about the decision not to investigate and whether the officers should have reviewed Lane’s paperwork.

“That absolutely turned my stomach,” said board member Jonathan Maples, who represents council member Jesse Moreno’s district and said he served in the U.S. Marine Corps. “It’s absolutely appalling to treat one of our veterans that way.”

Board member Derric Pegram cited Dallas police code of conduct, which states an employee shouldn’t ridicule, mock, taunt or belittle any person — no matter on or off duty. “If he had not even shown the card, he is still a person,” he said. “He didn’t need to talk about his disability.”

Many states — including Texas — have a restroom access law known as “Ally’s Law,” which states people lawfully on the premises of an establishment should be allowed access to a restroom if they provide evidence they have a medical condition that requires immediate access to a toilet facility.

“If a retail establishment chooses to ignore a person who is trying to present such documents, they should be held accountable, for this is why [the Americans With Disabilities Act] is in place,” Lane told the oversight board.

Asked whether the law was violated when Lane wasn’t allowed to use the restroom, DPD Lt. Anthony Greer told oversight “we’ll have to dig deeper into that.” Irene Alanis, the major over internal affairs, said they’ll have to review the Americans With Disabilities Act and “how that is applied.”

“We don’t condone that conduct, but certainly it was outside the scope of Mr. Lane,” Greer said about the comments after Lane left. “He was not present, neither was anyone else present. It was between the officers there on scene.”

Asked if the oversight meeting was the first time internal affairs officials had seen the video, Alanis appeared to mutter something to Greer. Greer then told the board that officials were viewing the footage for the first time because “Lane’s specific complaint was for a specific time.”

They also said his medical card was from Washington; a board member countered that shouldn’t have mattered because “it should be accepted that he has a disability.”

Lane told oversight he had a federal and state identification card and legal medical documents. He said he was a Serious Pizza customer during regular business hours. A copy of one of his medical documents was attached to the oversight complaint.

He said he had surgeries on his lower extremities after he was wounded during deployment in Afghanistan and Kuwait as an army sergeant. A U.S. Army spokesperson confirmed he was in the Army reserves, his rank and his deployments.

Lane told oversight he was medically evacuated out of combat and no longer lives a normal life.

“My life has changed, drastically changed, and has been a constant fight having to explain myself about my disability just to get assistance,” Lane said. “This battle leaves me in a constant depression and suicidal at times because of the shame of asking strangers for help while in public.”

Lane wrote in his complaint that before he left Serious Pizza, he told one of the off-duty officers he used the restroom on himself and the officer responded “sorry” sarcastically “then continued his conversation with an unknown individual.”

Oversight officials said the off-duty officers working security did not have on their body cameras. It was unclear if they weren’t wearing them or had them turned off.

Officers James Smith and Juan Figueroa Luna were named in internal affairs documents as the off-duty officers. They could not be reached for comment. The two on-duty officers in the footage were not identified.

Last year, Chief Eddie García instituted a policy that mandates bodycam use at all approved off-duty jobs. Lane’s complaint alleged the off-duty officers were discourteous and unprofessional and violated body-camera policies.

Lane told oversight that even if officers work for private companies, that shouldn’t mean they only respond to the instructions of those businesses. Instead, he said, they should follow police policy to protect, serve, de-escalate and assist citizens and citizens with disabilities.

“I had higher expectations from the city,” said Lane, who placed a U.S. Army hat on top of the podium where he spoke. “Please hear me when I ask all to make change so no one with a disability will endure what I had to endure.”

The oversight board members at the meeting voted unanimously to launch an independent investigation, and raised concerns about the breadth of the internal affairs investigation. The Dallas Morning News recently revealed that DPD’s internal investigative practices fall short of eight guidelines recommended by the Department of Justice.

“This is a total breakdown and I would urge you as you do these investigations, take them seriously and tell us why there was no violation of policy,” board member David Kitner, who represents council member Gay Donnell Willis’ district, told police. “Don’t say it as a fact and leave it at that.”

Jose Rivas, the board’s vice chair who represents council member Adam Bazaldua’s district, paraphrased an often repeated quote: “Integrity is doing the right thing when no one’s there to see it or hear it.” He said internal affairs’ officials’ responses to oversight’s questions didn’t sit well with him.

“You guys dropped the ball on this one and you need to own it,” Rivas said. “DPD, if your officers are going to wear uniforms and do private work, you need to stand for that DPD uniform first.”

As with the slaying of Breonna Taylor, the individual defending the home against intruders is uninjured and under arrest.
It seems like the simple way for cops to avoid this is to just not come into a home unannounced. Honestly, I probably would be in the same boat as the shooter because if someone kicked down my front door, I'm not going to ask them politely to leave.
Fresno Bee
The family of a Tulare man killed by police released video this week they said shows he was not a threat to officers, who shot him in the back as he fled.

Joel Villegas was killed by Tulare police about 3:15 p.m. April 16 after a 911 caller reported seeing someone in the area of Bardsley Ave and Vetter Street with a knife, Tulare police said in a news release.

Villegas, 34, was remembered by family as a doting father and a person others wanted to be around because he made them smile. “What they did was wrong,” older brother Armando Villegas said. “It was unfair to his wife and kids and family. He mattered.”

His family released video from a Tulare officer’s body-worn camera that shows the officer yelling commands as Villegas runs away from him. At one point he trips, before getting up again and continuing to flee. The video shows Villegas never advanced on police before officers fired several rounds. Officers in the video can be heard saying Villegas was not breathing before an officer begins CPR.
Last edited:
After footage was released this week of a Seattle police officer saying 23-year-old Jaanhavi Kandula’s life “had limited value” on the night of her death, those who knew and loved her want the world to know that the opposite is true.

Kandula was struck and killed by a different officer while she was crossing the street on Jan. 23. Officer Daniel Auderer, also the vice president of the police union, responded to the scene of the accident and was recorded on his body camera appearing to laugh about and make light of the woman's death.

“Yeah, just write a check,” Auderer was recorded saying on a phone call. “She was 26 anyway,” he continued, getting Kandula’s age wrong. “She had limited value.”
There is a bit of missing context in that article
The below article has some the officer's response. It might be false, but it makes it better than most articles are making it out to be.
The scumbag almost choked laughing. And now he's trying to cover his ass.
If the stories are to be believed this man used the Audi as a ram trying to breakthrough a road block, so he wasn't exactly unarmed.
Yeah, the family backed down after viewing the body cam footage.

Don't forget the Audi was used in previous firearms offences, and the man in question had previous convictions for violent crimes including possesion of a firearm, and links to a group with conspiracy to commit murder.
Last edited:
But Chauvin is innocent and George Floyd died from a rare tumour which had nothing to do with him kneeling on his neck for nine and half minutes, says this doctor who was nowhere near the scene and never examined the body. 🤔
Last edited:
TIL paragangliomas are a thing (and they're very rare). That alone tells me Floyd probably didn't die from that (if he had one in the first place)...
In a motion filed in federal court Monday, Chauvin said he never would have pleaded guilty to the charge in 2021 if he had known about the theories of a Kansas pathologist with whom he began corresponding in February.

"I pleaded guilty because thought I killed him your honour, but I never would have pleaded guilty if I knew that it was possible that he maybe had some rare condition that made him more likely to die from the things I did to kill him."

This dude is a slimy slug. ****ing own the fact that you slowly killed a man in front of a crowd that was filming you, you moronic coward.
Be warned that strong profanity appears uncensored and even prominently in this piece.
Language warning for the article proper (a singular f-bomb referred to as having been spoken by the subject of the stop which was captured by body-worn camers). It's censored below.
Luke Weiland was driving his sons and their friend to baseball practice when he was pulled over by a police officer who inexplicably held Weiland and the three children at gunpoint, shouting bizarre orders at them before eventually letting them go with minor citations. Weiland has now sued the police arguing that the officers used excessive force and unreasonably detained him.

The ordeal started on January 29, 2023, when Weiland—an attorney in Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin—was driving his two sons, ages 14 and 12, and their 12-year-old friend to baseball practice in a nearby town. According to the suit, around 9:20 am, Weiland noticed a police cruiser behind him with his emergency lights on. Believing the cruiser to be trying to pass him, Weiland pulled along the shoulder of the road to allow the officer to pass. However, after a few minutes, Weiland realized the officer was trying to pull him over, so he turned onto the shoulder of a side road.

However, instead of a typical stop, Officer Rodney Krakow opened the door of his cruiser and began yelling for Weiland to put his keys on the roof of the car and for everyone inside the car to keep their hands on the ceiling of the vehicle.

"Officer Krakow was acting erratically, yelling, and shouting demands that made no sense," the complaint reads. "His behavior was concerning to everyone in the Weiland truck to the point that they thought something might be wrong with the officer to be behaving in this manner."

Soon after, a second officer, Douglas Van Berkel, arrived and both began pointing their guns at Weiland's car. Krakow demanded that Weiland get out of his vehicle and kneel on the ground. At this point, it was only five degrees outside. As Weiland complied, holding his driver's license and registration, Krakow grabbed the paperwork and threw it on the ground without looking at it.

Krakow handcuffed Weiland, while Van Berkel kept his gun pointed at Weiland. At this point, Krakow asked who the car's passengers were, and Weiland told him they were his two sons and their friend. Eventually, after a third officer arrived, the officers picked up Weiland's discarded ID and realized that Weiland was an attorney who was family friends with the local sheriff. According to the complaint, one of the officers even remarked that "he knew Weiland and his family and that they (the officers) would be alright."

Eventually, Weiland asked what was going on, and Krakow told him that the incident was being treated as a "high risk vehicle stop" because Weiland didn't immediately pull over.

"This whole ordeal right here with pulling your guns out on me is ****ing ridiculous," body camera footage shows Weiland telling Krakow.

Eventually, Weiland was released and given citations for speeding and resisting/fleeing a scene, though those citations were eventually dropped.

Weiland's suit, which was filed last week, claims that the officers violated Weiland's "rights to be free from unreasonable seizures when they detained the Plaintiffs at the scene for substantially longer than was necessary to accomplish the original purposes of the traffic stop" and that the officers used "excessive force by pointing their guns at" Weiland and the children.

Unfortunately, this is far from the first time police officers have held innocent people—including kids—at gunpoint during a routine traffic stop.

In 2020, police in Aurora, Colorado, forced an innocent family—including a 6-year-old girl—to lie facedown on the pavement at gunpoint after allegedly mistaking their car for a stolen motorcycle. In 2022, two elderly Texas residents filed a lawsuit alleging that a police officer violently arrested them and held them at gunpoint during a traffic stop. And just last year, Texas police apologized over a strikingly similar "high-risk traffic stop" that led police to hold an Arkansas family at gunpoint.
Cops not experiencing personal hardship for perpetrating harms isn't strong motivation to not perpetrate harms.
At a Thursday afternoon press conference to announce felony charges against a group of seven migrants for allegedly assaulting two NYPD officers in Times Square late last month, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said that he was "outraged and sickened" by the incident. Mayor Eric Adams, after asserting again that the city was experiencing a "crime wave" spurred on by asylum seekers, said that if the migrants involved in the incident are convicted, "the federal government should do their job in deporting them from our city."

Some of the men who are being charged allegedly grabbed, pulled, or kicked the two officers. Others didn't touch the cops, and are being charged as accessories—one for allegedly kicking an officer's radio, another for allegedly standing by idly and switching clothing with a member of the group. Law enforcement authorities are looking for at least four more people involved in the incident.

Over the last 10 days, media outlets ran video clips and stills of the men fighting with the officers, but it wasn't entirely clear how the altercation out in front of the migrant shelter at 220 West 42nd Street began until Thursday's press conference.

"The precursors are, is that a large group of these males…are standing in front of the shelter and they're blocking 42nd Street, forcing people to walk around them," NYPD Chief of Detectives Joseph Kenny told reporters on Thursday. "Officers respond, the lieutenant and the police officer in uniform. The crowd is given direction to please disperse, that they're blocking the sidewalk."

According to Kenny and the Manhattan DA's office, a man named Yohenry Brito did not comply.

However, body camera footage released by the DA's office on Thursday reveals multiple contradictions with this account.

"Everybody disperses except for Mr. Brito. He turned around and got confrontational with the police officers. He refused the lawful order," Kenny said. "They attempted to place him under arrest, and the melee begins with the officers trying to take Mr. Brito into custody, and the next thing you know they're being attacked by 13 other people. So, that's how it started."

But that's not what the video shows.

First, it shows that the sidewalk was not blocked when the officers approached the men. Pedestrians moved freely around the group.

"Ah, por favor, como esta, vamos! West 41! West 41!" the NYPD Lieutenant tells the men at the 1:06 mark on his body camera footage. "West 41 Street. Other side. Other side…Move. Move. Vamos."

The men move along. "Don't touch me," one appears to say. It sounds like someone is playing "LUKEANDO REMIX" by Hades 66 and the men all start to sing bars of the song together at the 1:41 mark.

The second major contradiction is that Brito, wearing a yellow jacket, is moving down the sidewalk pushing a baby stroller, seemingly complying with the officers' order to disperse, when he says, "Looks like Ugly Betty, eh?" (The NYPD officer who is not the lieutenant is wearing thick black glasses.)

After Brito's comment, the NYPD lieutenant grabs him and shoves him against the wall. You can see all of this happen at the 0:19 mark of the surveillance video below.

In the lieutenant's body camera footage, it sounds like Brito says, "Hey what's up?" after the lieutenant grabs him. "Why are you stopping me?" Brito asks him, after he's been pushed up against the wall. "That's a little carriage. A carriage for a baby."

After a beat, Brito appears to wriggle his way out of the lieutenant's grasp, and as the other officer runs over to assist in the arrest, the fight begins. You can see the men grapple with the officers in the surveillance video below. The whole struggle lasts under a minute.

We've asked the NYPD and the DA's office about the discrepancies in the account and the camera footage, and will update this post if they respond.

Brito is being charged with two counts of felony assault in the second degree, felony tampering with physical evidence, third degree hindering prosecution, a misdemeanor, and second degree obstructing governmental administration, another misdemeanor. His attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.

While the lieutenant's body camera cuts off after three minutes, the other officer's keeps running long enough to capture a stream of NYPD officers coming to their aid.

"What happened? We were trying to figure out what happened over the radio," a female officer asks the officer involved in the fight. He tells her they were trying to "clear out" a group of migrants when they were jumped.

"You guys OK?" she asks. "Yeah we're OK" the officer responds.

"Since the very beginning, we've asked people not to rush to judgment based on what they're hearing from the mayor and NYPD, because you see how they've been depicting our communities over the past two years," Murad Awawdeh, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, told Hell Gate. "In this moment though, I am shocked the truth was not shared and they allowed a segment of a clip that did not illustrate the entire of the incident be played 24/7 on every news network."
"In this moment though, I am shocked the truth was not shared and they allowed a segment of a clip that did not illustrate the entire of the incident be played 24/7 on every news network."

Really? I'm not. Cops see body cameras as facilitating an accounting of their bad acts (I mean that's precisely why they're required), so they've taken to using footage selectively so that it may serve as a weapon against efforts to account for their bad acts by crafting a narrative counter to fact, and that way, if and when the truth does come out, there's a cushion of lies to soften the landing and reduce the truth's impact.

"In this moment though, I am shocked the truth was not shared and they allowed a segment of a clip that did not illustrate the entire of the incident be played 24/7 on every news network."

Really? I'm not. Cops see body cameras as facilitating an accounting of their bad acts (I mean that's precisely why they're required), so they've taken to using footage selectively so that it may serve as a weapon against efforts to account for their bad acts by crafting a narrative counter to fact, and that way, if and when the truth does come out, there's a cushion of lies to soften the landing and reduce the truth's impact.
The media also needs to be responsible with what they share and the conclusions they make. For example, if they're provided a video that is clearly a snippet, they should simply not run the story, and instead publish that they were only provided a snippet which is inadquate to come to conclusions, and they can't tell people the truth until authorities provide the truth. Kind of like how when I was on a jury and the prosecution refused to provide transcripts of interviews despite citing them. The only logical choice there is to simply disregard that entire line of questioning because the proof doesn't exist. Media publishing false narratives is just more evidence of them chasing dollars rather than serving the truth.
This feels like trolling by the BPD. "We subverted accountability and now we're placing one who ought to have been held accountable in charge of facilitating accountability."

Officer involved in Freddie Gray's death will oversee Baltimore police integrity unit

One of the six police officers charged after the 2015 death of Freddie Gray has been tapped to oversee the Baltimore Police Department's Public Integrity Bureau, a unit that handles misconduct investigations.

Captain Alicia White's move from the department's Anti-Crime Section/Gun Violence Unit to the Public Integrity Bureau went into effect on Feb. 11, according to a department news release that announced several other promotions and command changes.

White is one of two commanders who will oversee complaints filed by the public against officers within the Baltimore Police Department, according to The Baltimore Banner, which first reported the news of her command change.

The former lieutenant was promoted to the rank of captain in August 2022, a spokesperson with the Baltimore Police Department told NPR.

"I am proud of each of these promotees and command members," Commissioner Richard Worley said in a statement. "... I am looking forward to our continued efforts in reforming the Department, improving police-community relations and working toward full compliance with the Consent Decree," he added.

White was one of six officers charged in connection with the 2015 death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old Black man who was arrested by Baltimore police officers over his legal possession of a knife.

Gray sustained severe injuries while in police custody on April 12, 2015. He died a week later, as the official autopsy report said he suffered a single "high-energy injury" to his neck and spine. Gray's death sparked citywide protests and riots across Baltimore, as residents protested against police brutality.

A year after Gray's death, prosecutors in Baltimore dropped the remaining charges against all six officers after three of them were acquitted at trial by a judge. (Another officer's trial ended with a hung jury.)

White had faced charges of manslaughter, assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct before federal prosecutors dropped them ahead of her trial, The Baltimore Banner reported.

All six officers involved in Gray's death eventually returned to the department once internal investigations were finished, The Baltimore Sun reported.

In 2016, following the dismissal of charges against the officers, White was the first officer to speak out, defending her actions on the day of Gray's arrest to The Baltimore Sun.

"I still believe that, when I went to work that day, I did everything that I was trained to do," White told The Sun. "Unfortunately, that day someone lost their life. But I feel like everything I was trained to do, I did."

White was the only female officer charged with Gray's death, alongside fellow officers Garrett Miller, Edward Nero, Brian Rice, Caesar Goodson, and William Porter.

In 2015, Baltimore officials and attorneys for Gray's family reached a $6.4 million settlement over the 25-year-old's death. Billy Murphy, Jr., the family's attorney, said in a statement following the mediation process that he believed the settlement reached was in the "best interest" of the family and the city of Baltimore.
Police officers and gun owners with permits to carry concealed weapons could soon get new immunity from most lawsuits if they shoot or kill someone based on separate proposals that advanced Tuesday in the Louisiana Legislature.

The proposals are part of Gov. Jeff Landry’s agenda for a special legislative session on crime.

Senate Bill 2, sponsored by Sen. Blake Miguez, R-New Iberia, cleared the Senate Judiciary B Committee in a 4-3 vote and will head to the full chamber for a vote. His proposal gives concealed carry license holders a level of qualified immunity currently reserved for law enforcement and other government agents.

Qualified immunity protects police officers and other public employees from civil liability, making it extremely difficult to sue them even when they injure or kill someone or violate certain laws or an individual’s rights.

Under Miguez’s proposal, immunity would apply to private citizens who hold concealed carry permits except in cases of gross negligence, intentional misconduct or the commission of a crime that results in a felony conviction.

Members of the Louisiana Legislative Black Caucus spoke against the bill, saying most studies on the issue show the proliferation of guns has led to more crime.

Sen. Royce Duplessis, D-New Orleans, asked in committee why concealed carry permit holders deserve a special type of immunity not given to other citizens. In response, Miguez said because they are “exercising a natural God-given right.”

A separate proposal, House Bill 2, sponsored by Rep. Tony Bacala, R-Priarieville, would codify and expand the qualified immunity protections for law enforcement in Louisiana.

The bill would render all certified peace officers and law enforcement agencies immune from lawsuits except in cases of criminal, fraudulent or intentional misconduct. It also would not apply to acts committed during off-duty hours. But officers would be immune from liability even if they severely injure or kill someone through a negligent or reckless act.

Rep. Chad Brown, D-Plaquemine, noted Bacala’s legislation would remove the exception of gross negligence, which is currently a common way to overcome a qualified immunity defense.

“You’re gonna have to prove someone intended the consequences of his act,” Brown said, implying that is an extremely difficult task.

He also pointed out that it would place civil law judges in the position of having to determine if a police officer committed a criminal offense. Civil law uses a lower burden of proof than criminal law.

Bacala said that’s not necessarily a big issue.

“A judge can still look at it and determine whether a crime was committed even if the officer isn’t charged with a crime,” he said.

Bacala also noted the bill wouldn’t impact claims filed in federal court, where most police brutality lawsuits are litigated.

His bill cleared the House Committee on Civil Law and Procedure without objection and will next head to the full chamber for a floor vote.
"[O]fficers would be immune from liability even if they severely injure or kill someone through a negligent or reckless act."

Come On Wtf GIF
How to legalise extrajudicial killings

I mean...
Well not really because QI applies only to civil liability, but too often this is the only avenue by which victims of rights violations perpetrated by state actors may seek remedy because the violators are protected by the system of which they are a part.
Would this mean that if a cop gets shot by a CC licence holder during a no knock warrant forced entry, say in a case of mistaken identity, the homeowner won't be held liable? Or would their immunity trump the homeowner's?
Last edited:

"[O]fficers would be immune from liability even if they severely injure or kill someone through a negligent or reckless act."

Come On Wtf GIF
Wtf. Laws are supposed to solve problems. What conceivable problem could this solve? That yahoos with guns aren't free to go around killing people enough?
Would this mean that if a cop gets shot by a CC licence holder during a no knock warrant forced entry, say in a case of mistaken identity, the homeowner won't be held liable? Or would their immunity trump the homeowner's?
This should be a tricky legal question, but practically I think we all know that the police win. It's not about the letter of the law, it's about the spirit and the spirit is the cops are untouchable.