[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / animus / desu / femdom / fit / komica / mu / pdfs / tech ]

/qresearch/ - Q Research

Research and discussion about Q's crumbs
Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
Archive
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Voice recorder Show voice recorder

(the Stop button will be clickable 5 seconds after you press Record)
Options

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.


Welcome Page | Index | Archive | Voat Subverse | Poal Sub | Q Posts | Notables | Q Proofs
Q's Board: /projectdcomms/ | Bakers Board: /Comms/ | Legacy Boards: /CBTS/ /TheStorm/ /GreatAwakening/ | Politics News & Debate: /pnd/

File: 3502351497ec08c⋯.jpg (105.81 KB, 1566x881, 1566:881, external_content_duckduckg….jpg)

5d629f  No.9191233

Supreme Court Will Soon Decide Whether To Reconsider Qualified Immunity

By the morning of Monday, May 18th, we will finally know whether the Justices are prepared to confront one of the most pernicious and legally baseless doctrines in the history of the Court.

Currently we are tied down by belief of the official in question:

Even where a constitutional violation has occurred, an officer will be immune from suit if he or she "could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero, 931 F.2d at 627.

Legal Definition of Qualified Immunity

The defense of qualified immunity protects government officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct doesn't violate constitutional rights.

Defining Qualified Immunity

The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)).

____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

5d629f  No.9191286

File: 35d009d605609a7⋯.png (4.41 MB, 2500x1659, 2500:1659, knowingly.png)

My Theory on this is that if you inform someone they are breaking the law, which they are (but won't be prosecuted) then they lose qualified immunity. This of course has yet to be proven in a court, but hopefully soon it won't have to.

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

84ece2  No.9191343

File: 03488a84c84f098⋯.mp4 (2.89 MB, 872x480, 109:60, 444C8891F491A6C603B5942AD3….mp4)

File: 4f1145e77567569⋯.mp4 (3.2 MB, 854x480, 427:240, 5B4792C469DF6DDAA2D91E241C….mp4)

KOL NIDRE

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.

84ece2  No.9191363

>>9191343

clowns

literal JEWS making law for Christians as usual

and the enforcers

fuck you

Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Random][Post a Reply]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / random / animus / desu / femdom / fit / komica / mu / pdfs / tech ]