Police Abuse

The Supreme Court Deals a Major Blow to Qualified Immunity Reform

In two opinions issued Monday, the Court gave qualified immunity to several police officers accused of violating the Constitution.


The Supreme Court on Monday issued two opinions awarding qualified immunity to police officers accused of brutality, overturning lower court decisions that came to the opposite conclusion. The Court has thus prohibited the alleged victims from seeking accountability in civil court.

The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government actors from civil suits if the ways in which they are said to have misbehaved, and the exact circumstances surrounding the events in question, have not yet been spelled out as unconstitutional in a prior court ruling.

It can be a low bar. Previous recipients of qualified immunity include two cops who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, more than 24 cops who damaged an innocent man's house during a drug raid on the wrong residence, cops who shot children, and cops who used force against subdued suspects and those who had surrendered—not because their conduct was necessarily permissible but because no court precedent had yet said the precise components of each case violated the Constitution.

Monday's decision adds a few more to that list, including a cop in Union City, California, accused of injuring a man after pressing his left knee into the suspect's back, as well as two officers in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, who shot and killed a man wielding a hammer.

Whether or not those officers deserve to pay damages to their accusers is not a question I have the answer to. But it's a question that should be answered by a jury of their peers, who are constitutionally tasked with taking on that duty—and not a few judges sitting on high. Should the Supreme Court have agreed with the lower courts' decisions and decided to withhold qualified immunity, neither plaintiff would have necessarily been awarded damages: They would simply have been legally permitted to argue their case before a jury, which they will now not have the privilege of doing.

In the first case, Officer Daniel Rivas-Villegas responded to a 911 call from a 12-year-old, who was afraid that Ramon Cortesluna, her mother's ex-boyfriend, would hurt her and her family. When Rivas-Villegas apprehended Cortesluna on the ground, he allegedly injured him by digging his knee into his back for eight seconds. According to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, it was already clearly established law that an officer violates the Fourth Amendment when he acts in such a way with "suspects who were lying face-down on the ground and were not resisting either physically or verbally, on whose back the defendant officer leaned with a knee, causing allegedly significant injury."

The Supreme Court disagreed, writing that there was no preexisting court precedent quite similar enough to exactly what happened between Rivas-Villegas and Cortesluna such that the officer would have been on notice that his conduct was unconstitutional.

In the second case, Officers Josh Girdner, Chase Reed, and Brandon Vick responded to an emergency call when Dominic Rollice's ex-wife said he was drunk and would not leave the house. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers cornered Rollice in the garage, at which point he grabbed a hammer and appeared like he might throw it at one of the officers. Girdner and Vick then shot and killed Rollice.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded that, although the shooting may have itself been reasonable, a jury could find that the cops created the situation when they cornered Rollice in the garage, and that such a move violated previously established law. The Supreme Court again disagreed, declining to determine if Rollice's constitutional rights were violated but writing that the precedents were too disparate from the exact situation at hand.

Most troubling in today's decision was the Court's reiteration that it "is especially important in the Fourth Amendment context" to find identical court precedents when examining qualified immunity cases. That standard is what has made it so difficult for victims of government abuse to have a remote chance at holding the culprits accountable, including, for instance, the mother of the 10-year-old boy who was lying on the ground when Coffee County Sheriff's Deputy Michael Vickers shot him. The cop was instead trying to kill a nonthreatening dog, who was a mere foot and a half away from the boy.

While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit admonished Vickers, it did not allow the boy's mother to sue for the money she lost to her son's medical treatment, as she was unable to find a court ruling that mimicked that nightmarish day to a T. The odds are bleak.

Supporters of qualified immunity often say that without the doctrine, state officials would be inundated with vacuous lawsuits. Such a theory contradicts reality. Without qualified immunity, plaintiffs would still be required to prove that the government affirmatively violated their rights before going to trial. Qualified immunity is only the second piece, which then necessitates that a victim locate a matching court ruling. And the Supreme Court's decision today is another reminder of why that process is a frustrating one: The justices specifically demurred at the opportunity to decide if the alleged victims here had their constitutional rights violated. We're told that they need to find that perfect precedent, and then the courts often decline to establish those precedents when given the chance.

Today's decision also represents somewhat of a departure for the Court. Though it has avoided the opportunity to conduct a wholesale reevaluation of qualified immunity—a legal principle it legislated into existence decades ago—it had seemingly taken steps over the last year to send the message that the lower courts were being too specific with their qualified immunity jurisprudence. That first step came in Taylor v. Riojas, a case that saw the justices claw back qualified immunity from a group of prison guards that threw a naked inmate in cells filled with sewage and feces, and the second was in McCoy v. Alamu, where the Court overturned a qualified immunity grant to a prison guard who pepper-sprayed an inmate without provocation. Clarence Thomas, the Court's most conservative justice, and Sonia Sotomayor, one of the more liberal justices, have both recently taken aim at qualified immunity.

But victims of government abuse will have to wait longer still. "What these two decisions illustrate is that the Supreme Court—despite its decisions last term in Taylor v. Riojas and McCoy v. Alamu—does not seem interested in making any fundamental alterations to the doctrine of qualified immunity," says Jay Schweikert, a research fellow with the Cato Institute's Project on Criminal Justice. "To the contrary, both these decisions clearly reinforce the idea that overcoming qualified immunity generally requires a prior case with nearly identical facts."

NEXT: Immigration Activists Sever Conversations With White House Over Return of Trump-Era Border Policy

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

105 responses to “The Supreme Court Deals a Major Blow to Qualified Immunity Reform

  1. While left wing Vermont has the highest covid vaccination rate in the nation, covid cases are now spiking in Bernie Sanders' home state, which now has the highest rate of new covid cases (of any state), and far more covid cases than Vermont has experienced since the pandemic began 21 months ago.

    Although I support voluntary vaccinations for covid, this is just too funny to let pass.

    1. Are you Trumpkins still injecting bleach and eating horse dewormer? It is just too funny to not remind you!

      1. And still shining UV light into our lungs, when we can.

        1. I've heard eating a UV lightbulb works just as well.

          1. Uv led, energy waster

            1. I am making a good salary online from home .I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for the last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student .DEc I’m using an online business opprtgortunity. I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

              For more detail … READ MORE

              1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FOh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

                Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW

    2. New York and California look pretty bad as well.

    3. Correction, the rate of new covid cases in VT (which is increasing) is still lower than several other states (whose rates are all declining).

      1. The VT new case rate is mainly among kids and teens. Kids aren't vaccinated there either. The majority of new cases among adults are - drumroll - the unvax. Whodathunk it.

        The useful unique data from VT is that they do contact tracing well. Which means the data they have gathered re what % are asymptomatic is good. It looks like 20-35% asymptomatic for kids - dropping (to about 15%) with age. Though I'm sure their 'symptomatic' also includes the truly mild 'flu-type' symptoms that many people might not bother with.

        1. re the serious cases - 80% of hospitalization and 83% of ICU are the unvax. Though neither of them are a big enough sample to be significant over a short timeframe

          1. Pick them cherries, JFree. And stuff the PANIC flag up your ass, stick-first~!

          2. Nobody gives a shit about your fucking cold.

    4. Holy shit it's almost like the winter wave is coming no matter what!

      1. So this will be the excuse? Nice.

    5. I got $97450 up to now this year working on the online and I’m a full time student. I’AM profited. It’s really bvg simple to know and I’m in order that cheerful that I got some answers regarding it. Here what I do.... Visit Here

    6. The article doesn't get into how the court was divided. Who wrote the majority and who wrote the dissent? I'm guessing it was all Republican appointees that ruled in favor of the cops.

      1. The article fails to note that the guy who got knelt on was CUTTING THROUGH THE HOUSE WITH A FUCKING CHAINSAW while his terrified daughter called from the bedroom, and was taken into custody alive.

        And if you act like you're going to throw a hammer at someone, it's fair for them to shoot you.

        Reason has given up its title and should be renamed "slurping left wing cock."

    7. Meh, hardly a surprise when you consider that Vermont has the 4th highest median age in the US. Older folks, such as myself, are more likely to catch covid and die regardless of vaccination status so no real surprises.

    8. Am I reading a page about Qualified Immunity Reform and the comments like yours about covid??
      And your fucking jew name is name calling STILL, and attempting to come off as intellectuals with humor that is not humor at all. Pathetic and don't fucking know it.
      Horse de-wormer is what you know about I guess and reason is helping you with more horse shit and others have even more horse shit.
      I would like to see more virus and even more virus then judgement day- your ass is grass you Christ killer.
      Rape names like yours just ain't funny.

      1. Cravinbob, did they just release you today? Aren’t you supposed to stay off the internet as part of your sentencing you tightly coiled pile of dog excrement?

    9. “Although I support voluntary vaccinations for covid, this is just too funny to let pass.”

      Funny. Funny. Sick people in hospitals on life support are funny.

      Thank you for your support.

      1. Yes, that is exactly what he is laughing about.

        You're a fucking Einstein.

  2. I will get the vaccine.
    I will wear the mask.
    I will not question the election.
    I will lick the boot.

    1. It sticks the needle beneath the skin, or else it gets lockdown again!

      1. Excellent us of a Silence of the Lambs reference! Point for Overt!

      2. Put your fucking rights in the basket

  3. The Supreme court invented unqualified immunity, didn't they? Everybody's protective of their own baby.

    1. Somewhat OT, but tying into a theme on Reason's Comments:

      What is it with police and dogs?

      'It was really traumatizing' | Witnesses accuse Gastonia police of roughly arresting homeless veteran, tasing his service dog
      Gastonia officers accused Joshua Rohrer of illegally begging for money and resisting arrest.

      While I don't make it a habit to give money to street people, regardless of Veteran status, (I only give gifts in kind which I know they'll use and won't sell for booze or drugs,) did this man do anything to justify killing his dog??? Is this why he served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, to lose his own property and dear companion???

      WTF, Ossifer Friendly???

      1. Update: The Dog was found dead after he escaped from a friend of the homeless Veteran. The poor doggie never would have been separated from his owner and in harm's way in the first place if the arrest for panhandling never happened::

        ‘We are a team:’ Homeless Gastonia veteran’s service dog found dead after being separated during his arrest

        Just damn!

  4. This idea that cops can only be sued if there was an identical previous case that the cops could have known about is absurd, simply because cops aren't expected to know the law. So how can they be expected to know precedent?

    1. It's the George Costanza defense. 'I Id've known that was frowned upon..."

  5. Since Gavin Newsom survived a recall by CA voters after being caught violating his own mask mandate, perhaps Biden thought doing the same might help him as well. Watch hypocrite Joe Biden walk through a DC restaurant without a mask.

    1. He’s not a hypocrite. It is the privilege of tyrants to ignore their own rules.

    2. "Since Gavin Newsom survived a recall"

      Sure he did.

      1. He did. Once it became clear that, if he was recalled, a Republican would end up Governor, it was all over. Republicans simply can't win state-wide elections in California anymore, even running against a Democrat everybody dislikes. California is a one party state now.

  6. Catch-22: Plaintiffs need to find a previous case with the specific facts, but the courts are allowed to decline to rule on the constitutionality when they get the cases.

    1. You need exact precedent to get it to court, but the courts refuse to create new precedent.

      1. Exactly. Catch 22 in favor of bad cop behavior.

    2. LOL! Perfect imitation of a lefty. Cite the title of a book they didn't read to make an analogy that doesn't fit the circumstances.

      This trolling is particularly poignant because ironic, which most lefties murder the meaning of, is the correct description in this case.

      Molly gets it.

      1. The reference is quite accurate, and even more so given the absurdity of the situation.

        1. Keep it coming, kid. Great stuff.

      2. Uh, Chuck? If you know what Molly's been reading, I think you should know that being a Peeping Tom is illegal. Unless you are a cop, then there's no precedent. Qualified immunity.

  7. Government Support-Team Supports Government.

  8. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit concluded that, although the shooting may have itself been reasonable, a jury could find that the cops created the situation when they cornered Rollice in the garage,

    I'm having a hard time with this one.

    1. I think they're saying that they need to protect cops from juries. You know, average people who would be sickened by police behavior.
      Which seems to be what QI is all about. It prevents cases from going to court.

    2. It violated previously established law. When they have a guy cornered in a house, they are supposed to blow out all the windows, throw in tear gas and send in the dogs.

      1. Don't forget about ripping the walls off the house in the off chance he is...hiding in the walls?

    3. Attempting to arrest people is a violation of their constitutional rights. We should all trust in our better selves and if you did something worthy of going to jail for we should just trust you to turn yourself in. That seems to be the entirety of modern criminal justice reform from the Reason/BLM perspective.

  9. These do not sound like very sympathetic cases to challenge qualified immunity on. Is there much basis that the officers in each case acted improperly?

    And yeah, if cop can be personally sued any time someone they interact with for domestic calls who gets injured will likely result in nuisance suits. Apparently, neither of these incidents had a credible accusation of criminal wrongdoing by the police, what exactly were the allegations that rights were violated?

    In many cases qualified immunity would be unjustified. Neither of these cases seem like a good candidate.

    1. And yeah, if cop can be personally sued any time someone they interact with for domestic calls who gets injured will likely result in nuisance suits.

      What's wrong with that? People file nuisance suits, they lose, and now they've just spent a bunch of money for nothing.

      QI means they never get their day in court.

      1. Unless a cop does something indefensibly outside of department procedures, the suit should be on department, in my opnion.

        I also do not think it would be good for defending people's rights for police to become overly skittish dealing with things like domestic abuse situations. Having to deal with a personal lawsuit might make the police to hesitant to intercede. This is a situation where the process can be the punishment

        1. Personally I'm with jeff on the idea that cops should carry insurance. Something equivalent to the malpractice insurance doctors must have. Let the lawsuits fly, and let the insurance pay when the cop is found to be in the wrong. If the guy's a flagrant violator of rights, well he'll soon have to find another line of work because he won't be able to afford his insurance premiums.

          1. I am fine with the insurance, but until such time as we eliminate police unions you need to understand that this doesn't fix anything with the police themselves. The insurance will be underwritten by taxpayers, meaning that we will still be on the hook and those bad cops will continue to see no impact from their assholery.

          2. “Personally I’m with jeff on the idea that cops should carry insurance.”

            Good luck with that. What insurance company is going to insure police and risk the wrath of the left’s Defund The Police movement and every American institution coming after them? Let’s be realistic, until the law starts changing at the local and state level, no one’s going to come to the rescue to protect you from abuse at the hands of law enforcement.

            1. Towards that goal, one could start by not picking up a hammer when armed cops are trying to arrest you.

        2. Unless a cop does something indefensibly outside of department procedures, the suit should be on department, in my opnion.

          I say quite the opposite. If he does something within department procedures, then the department is liable. If he's outside department procedures, then the individual officer is liable.

          1. Isn't...that exactly what the line you quoted says?

          2. Fuck that nonsense the bill gets paid by taxpayers and nobody else. If a cop cannot handle the pressure then he is in the wrong gang. Quit!

        3. The court is supposed to be for the people but I guess that was a lie also. Para-military un-Constitutional roadside executioners who spend most of their on-duty time escalating traffic stops into drug arrests or taking away drug money (because they said it was for drugs and they should know) meanwhile crime rate is rising, real crime not extra cash crime.

    2. Yeah these 2 cases don't see like particularly strong candidates for the court to reverse itself. The troubling part is that they seem to be doubling down on the doctrine.

  10. This conflates a number of different issues.

    Qualified immunity should be granted to police who act in good faith, according to established procedure. If that procedure occasionally yields a bad outcome, then it's on "society" to pay restitution and change the procedure.

    The description of these two cases doesn't give enough information for me to have an opinion.

    Where I completely disagree with current qualified immunity doctrine is the cases where a cop can pretend he didn't know stealing was wrong. The "matching court ruling" business is nonsense.

    I don't agree that juries should be allowed to take out their frustrations on individual cops when a policy has a bad outcome.

    1. I'm with you. There's just not enough information from this article to form a judgment on the issue.

      I mean, one case has a suspect being subdued for 8 seconds and supposedly that's way out of bounds.

      The other is claiming that cornering a suspect in a garage is also way out of bounds.

      So much information is lacking. And sadly, when that's the case, and especially when it is from a biased source, it indicates that the facts don't support the desired outcome.

      1. It's quite easy to go to SCOTUS website and read the per curiam opinions. I think your last point nailed it. The fact patterns don't fit the narrative that QI is being applied in an absurdly overbroad way, so Billy B didn't go to great lengths to give us detail or even links to detail (I realize that isn't just a narrative, and fully agree that QI has been upheld in truly perverse, bizarre, and unjust contexts; these cases aren't like that). I mean, Sotomayor was probably thrilled these were per curiam so she didn't have to slap her name on a half-assed dissent.

        I agree that the "identical precedent" BS is total crap and terrible jurisprudence, but there appears to have been no injustice in either of these cases. Both suspects were armed, resisting, etc. The knee to back guy was reaching for the knife in his pocket contemporaneous with the knee to the back. The shot dead guy is on body cam ignoring demands to put down the hammer that, instead of putting down, he drew back in a threatening manner toward one of the cops.

        The only (arguable) injustice was that these two weren't given their day in Court (which could have only resulted in a rogue, politicized jury making a terrible decision or in the same outcome that happened) and the cops/gov weren't compelled to fund the litigation to have the matter determined on the merits rather than on dispositive motion. I don't see an injustice here, even though I agree that QI jurisprudence is a big mess that has lead to many injustices.

        1. Who can expect BLM to differentiate a turd from a diamond if the 9th Circus can't even do so. Maybe that's the biggest takeaway here.

      2. squirrel... good name for you Ratso.

      3. When I prevent a burglar from fleeing my house using deadly force, then we can talk about "cornering". When cops are arresting someone, it's called "arresting". I think Binion is trying to push both of these square pegs through because "Reason hates qualified immunity!".

    2. QI has a place.
      But better that it come from the legislature, where folks there need to be more directly answerable to the public for getting the balance right.
      There is no reason the QI should be a shield extended solely by the courts. The courts need to get themselves out of the messy business of creating and managing QI, and let the legislature decide the point of risk aversion.

    3. Hey Bubba! Ever hear of the Rule of Law? Nobody is above the law right? Well wrong you are. I don't care what job you have you cannot be above others who are ruled at gunpoint and can land in prison for getting high but cops can do what they want and it is legal.
      People better get off their asses- this game is almost over and sorry you all will be then. Next Wednesday is your day to use the tractor and electric is turned off at 8PM.

  11. Because in other cases, the officers only knelt on the subdued suspect for 7 seconds, or maybe ten seconds, but never before eight seconds.

  12. Well, yeah, they need time to put each new "unconstitutional" finding in the training manuals, and update the training programs. You can't expect officers who are already busy saving us from dangerous criminals to realize on their own that stealing 225K isn't right, or that roughing a few bad guys has its limits, can you?

    1. That one was just stupid.

      I can see a case to be made for qualified immunity where there is no allegation that the officers broke established police procedures, but outright theft is not one of them.

    2. Stealing is wrong, but it's proscribed because of state laws, not the Fourth Amendment. The problem was the accused tried to import their allegation of theft into their defense against the (warrant) seizure of a smaller amount.

      So yes, they lost, and Reason got another slanted article out of it. But the worst part is that the Ninth Circus was able to make vague and opportunistic statements about how theft "may implicate" the Fourth Amendment. So it expanded its ability to stick its nose into your business in the future.

  13. It's not reform if it's based on a clear misapplication of precedent. Note the praise for the dissent in the one case, and the complaint in the other that the Circuit repeatedly misuses case law. That's not reform, it's politics. The overturned judges were pandering to BLM and other cop-haters in their rulings, and were justifiably rebuked.

  14. "The doctrine of qualified immunity shields government actors from civil suits...."

    This is why the Supreme Court--government actors--uphold qualified immunity.

  15. It’s not the job of SCOTUS to reform anything.

    Legislatures need to reform qualified immunity.

    1. The SCOTUS created QI, not the legislature...

      1. All the more reason to legislatively slap it down.

      2. SCOTUS created QI because they perceived a gap in the law and filled it for the time being. It's the job of legislators to fix this; it's not the job of SCOTUS to do so.

  16. Why no role call of the two votes?

    1. As reported in USA Today, there were no dissents

  17. Identical situations?

    That’s not justice. That’s an excuse.

  18. So no one with a robe could remember the part in there Constitution about the God-given rights of life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or property. People in uniform forget it, so why should they?

  19. 1 What was the vote? Who voted how?

    2 What is the significance of the "Unsigned opinion"?

    It would be helpful to know these things. I tried to find the answers to my first question, but without success.

    1. The vote on both cases was unanimous, no dissents.

  20. “ overturning lower court decisions that came to the opposite conclusion”
    You meant “overturning appellate court decisions that came to the opposite conclusions of the federal trial/district courts”,correct?
    Or would those facts inconveniently confuse the narrative you want to sell?

  21. This article is just pearl clutching. I'm wondering if anyone who seems appalled by these decisions, including the author, actually read them, the link is right in the article. Based on the descriptions I would have granted immunity to the officers involved as well. The context is important, and in both case the officers involved were faced with uncooperative and potentially violent individuals.

    In the Cortesluna, the text says "While Rivas-Villegas and another officer were in the process of removing the knife and handcuffing Cortesluna, Rivas-Villegas briefly placed his knee on the left side of Cortesluna’s back.", in other words holding him in place until the cuffs were on. In the Dominic Rollice case, he was actually ready to throw a hammer at an officer before they shot him, and it's all on body camera footage, with sound.

    USA Today reports that "There were no dissents from any justice in either case.". It seems to me that they were pretty weak cases for all of them to decide against them

  22. It's too far in the past for me to recall the citation but, I clerked for a firm that represented the Florida Sheriff's Self Association in the 80's. I recall a jailhouse complaint in Federal District Court, Martin County Jail. The issues raised were: basketball courts not regulations size, cracked concrete, special phones that required money/ coins/ reverse charges in the common area. Lost on motion to dismiss on the pleadings and summary judgment. I can personally attest to " dribble and drool" pleadings on fill in the blank complaint forms passed out on the cliché library cart pushed through the halls of cells. A person filing complaint and other pleadings from a mental institution in Louisiana regarding 60 days in the Sarasota County Jail that filled a 4 drawer vertical filing cabinet.

  23. The SC is sending the wrong message once again!! In Heck v Humphrey (1994) they essentially told lower courts if you don’t want to be sued don’t overturn the conviction. Wrong is wrong and police, politicians and judges should be held accountable for wrongdoing!!

    1. One word "context "

  24. Substance matters. Both rhetorically and physically.

    I get that Reason has an axe to grind over QI, and rightly so. But just like you wouldn't use styrofoam to hone a real axe, you likewise should not use an ill informed Binion and these particular cases to attempt to advance your agenda.

    It's not merely futile, it's counter productive.

  25. America is a country of false slogans. The revolution was just a transfer of power. The American government became the oppressors and still is.

    1. False slogans like "hands up don't shoot"?

  26. I am making a good salary online from home .I’ve made 97,999 dollar’s so for the last 5 months working online and I’m a full time student .DEc I’m using an online business opportunity. I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    For more detail … http://thefreedomjobnetwork.unaux.com/

  27. Supreme court is the most powerful court in the country.

  28. Not sure I agree with this decision! So clearly I must now resort to frothing at the mouth demanding the court be packed with 4 people who all agree with me. I even can maybe gaslight the entire nation that court packing is in their interest and will save democracy. Maybe even that Republicans are the true court packers even though they never packed the court.

    Isn't this how it is done? Did i miss a step? Was I not enough of a whiny b*tch?

  29. They should have signed their decision

  30. I do not think the writer has drawn certain correct conclusions.

    A jury can decide the facts of the case based upon the charges that led to arrest.

    Anyone can be arrested if the charges suit a grand jury, yes?

  31. police is protected our city..

  32. Considering the financial compensation they get, the members of the court should be able to buy a better class of booze, given that the stuff they seemingly imbibe leads to really dumb rulings.

  33. "Whether or not those officers deserve to pay damages to their accusers is not a question I have the answer to."

    Instead, you essentially lie about the cases.

    Ramon Cortesluna was wielding a chainsaw, trying to cut his way into the room where his girlfriend, and her 15 and 12 year old daughters were hiding from him

    When the police arrived, they told him to come out and throw down his weapons. He threw down a bar he was carry, but left a knife in his left pocket.

    So the cop put his knee on his back right above the knife, until another cop could pull it out of his pocket. Then he immediately got off the thug

    "In the second case, Officers Josh Girdner, Chase Reed, and Brandon Vick responded to an emergency call when Dominic Rollice's ex-wife said he was drunk and would not leave the house. Upon arriving at the scene, the officers cornered Rollice in the garage, at which point he grabbed a hammer and appeared like he might throw it at one of the officers. Girdner and Vick then shot and killed Rollice."

    No, they did not "corner him in the garage. They talked to him outside the garage, offering him a ride home, since he was too drunk to drive.

    He went into the garage of his ex-wife, who had told him to leave. So they followed him in there. Then he picked up a weapon to attack the cops, and they shot him.

    You want to know why QI exists? it's because lying scumbags like you keep on trying to go after cops for perfectly legitimate behavior

  34. police is protected our city..

  35. police is protected our city..and caring for us.....

  36. police is protected our city..and caring for us…..

Comments are closed.