Supreme Court to Redefine Self Defense?

How could the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision reshape self-defense in the context of law enforcement and qualified immunity? Should the "moment of threat" or the "totality of the circumstances" guide how we judge the use of force?
Armed Attorneys Emily Taylor and Richard Hayes discuss the evolving legal landscape around qualified immunity, excessive force, and the potential implications for self-defense cases in this episode, "Supreme Court to Redefine Self-Defense?"
🔗 Helpful Links:
Fourth Amendment Text
Armed Attorneys Merch Store
Support Our 2A Community:
KZbin Channel Member: / @armedattorneys
Patreon: patreon.com/ArmedAttorneys
Follow us on Twitter: @ArmedAttorneys
#QualifiedImmunity #ExcessiveForce #SupremeCourt #SelfDefense #2A #ArmedAttorneys
General Information Only
The material presented is for general informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only and should not be construed to be formal legal advice or the formation of a lawyer-client relationship. You should not rely on this information or its applicability to any specific circumstances without speaking with an attorney.
All Rights Reserved
This material was produced in the United States of America and is the sole property of Armed Attorneys, LLC. No part of this material may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or reviews.

[@AllAboutSurvival]

I hope this strengthens the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves without fear of unfair legal repercussions.

[@dn88s]

We both know better

[@titaniumgreen5367]

Keep in mind the "color" of the violater and the victim..

[@nelutu-d9g]

I wish

[@666devilknight]

I do too. It’s not right that your act of self defense can be ruled as such, and the criminal that attacked you, forcing you to defend yourself, or his family, can sue you into the dirt.

[@davidthompson9359]

@@titaniumgreen5367 There is no color in the eyes of the law!

[@BigJohnson-g3j]

Hmmm when a cop is ignorant of the law, he gets immunity. When a regular citizen is ignorant of the law, then it's no excuse.

[@auggies]

You have knowledge of this. ? Have you been cited by an officer while driving a vehicle? Have you been arrested? Are you a drug abuser? I say this officer enacted improperly.

[@Maineprepper-o1b]

​​@@auggiesokay cop sucker, you really think somebody not paying their toll is worth turning this into a shooting?

[@robertpronovost3839]

Fact

[@rabidturnip78]

Cops are legal bullies.

[@axiomfiremind8431]

This is why I will always convict the government and never convict the otherwise accused. The jury instructions be damned.

[@spartacusjonesmusic]

One standard for EVERYBODY. 14th Amendment: equal justice under the law.

[@KennethPhillips-p6n]

I agree 100%.

[@project.jericho]

The 14th Amendment is ass.

[@Bodhi1satva]

Except Trump, the proud boys and 1/6 cop killers right?

[@OneWildTurkey]

Hey, those amendments are just recommendations, aren't they? After all, that's how the govt & their agencies approach them. (/sarc)

[@alperdue2704]

@@spartacusjonesmusic Explain how you plan to hire police officers, firefighters or EMTS if you subject their personal resources to lawsuits even if they do things correctly. Qualified immunity doesn’t protect a public official who violates the law now. What it does do is to allow people to do the jobs their communities need done without constant worry that they can be sued for doing their jobs properly.

[@heres2ya]

14th Amendment: equal justice under the law!.. just because they have a badge doesn't give them any better of a right than anyone else.

[@justthetip5534]

Unless it's "oFicER sAfeT" All pigs are cowards

[@OneWildTurkey]

Correct. The rights don't change just because someone has been given authority. The rights remain the same.

[@tobordabot]

they arent gods they bleed like everyone else

[@WadeMaster789]

14th amendment was never properly ratified. And almost none of what people think is 'law'... actually is. Dig deeper than lying KZbin lawyers.

[@spartacusjonesmusic]

LEO have limited extraordinary authority -- with which should some extraordinary responsibility. They DON"T have any extraordinary RIGHTS.

[@chhullinger]

I was a deputy sheriff working the night shift. We were a small department, and I was out there by myself. Backup was a long time coming if needed. I learned that if you talked to people without surrounding them with multiple officers in a show of force, most situations can be resolved without escalation. That seems to be lost in today's officer training.

[@KrisTomich]

More officers are obsessed with HEAD ON A SWIVEL VERY DANGEROUS JOB, and I think a lot of them are on roids. Very few are willing to get punched in the face or go to the ground to gain compliance.

[@mojomanmurph1925]

It's quite the opposite in many areas.

[@lylehart3744]

Gospel truth right there. We seem to have a lot of younger law enforcement officers going around looking to start stuff and escalating minor incidents and it can be mostly attributed to bad modern training and systemic bad leadership and policies.

[@georgesheffield1580]

Too many "wanabees "get excited and loose the remainder of their mind

[@thefamilymans2545]

Almost ALL bad police interactions are because of pride.

[@nschlaak]

Ignorance of the law is only applied to civilians but never against officers. Abolish qualified immunity in every State.

[@Blgtn43]

Police are civilians. Police are not military.

[@michaelsulak1497]

My question is if I go into court and my interpretation of the law is different they say ignorance of the law is no excuse why would the court not use the same idealogy for police officers in immunity cases if they have to know they are breaking the law...where is ignorance of the law for them?

[@spartacusjonesmusic]

It is a LEO's inherent DUTY to know the law. For an LEO ignorance of the law is never a possible defense; it's an additional charge.

[@gerthddyn]

@@spartacusjonesmusic Except that is the entire basis of half of the qualified immunity standard that they just talked about. It SHOULD never be a defense, but it is half the test.

[@rkw436]

They are in the club and you ain't.

[@Thejewsdid9eleven]

​@@spartacusjonesmusicyou spelt pig wrong pig

[@AdventuringJD]

Truth. I’m a first responder (Not LEO) and I generally side with law enforcement because, lets face it, I get to see the side of cops most of the public never does. And the vast majority of them are damn good guys. But that other 2% screws it up for the other 98. Anyways, LEO’s MUST be familiar with the majority of local laws/statutes/etc. There is a defense that they cannot be expected to be familiar with ALL the laws because they are cops, not lawyers. But ignorance is not a defense, and they should be treated just like any other citizen. Well really, in the case of knowledge of laws and everything like that, a higher standard than Joe Blow

[@jalan02]

It's called "Graham Factors". The officer knew the man was leaving the scene. He deliberately placed HIMSELF in jeopardy. He would have been better off to let the man leave and call in his license plate. The bottom line is that the driver presented NO IMMEDIATE THREAT.

[@cirelancaster]

I saw the police footage, I think a reasonable person could be afraid of the car clipping them as it drove off. Maybe the cop could have jumped away in time, or maybe the car would have missed, but it wasn't like the cop was ten feet away and decided to run up and jump on the hood.

[@commonman711]

@jelan02 you buggin! You need to sharpen your flawed logic.

[@OneWildTurkey]

The officer contributed greatly to the construction of the threat.

[@commonman711]

@@OneWildTurkey ...by trying to stop a fleeing perp?! So, it was the officer's fault? Perp paid the HIGH cost of LOW living.

[@frosty3693]

I would expect it could depend on the threat the suspect escaping posed to the public. Was it an armed, dangerous and violent person or just someone trying to avoid a fine/ticket? But the officer/person would have to know that. Was the person fleeing a bank robbery for examle? And was the officer, or someone(s) else standing in front of the car and at risk for serious injury or death? Something like the debate on chasing fleeing speeders, safer to let them go or risk killing other people in the chase. But then do you have to factor in the risk to the public if you let them get away with it. Will their speeding eventually killing them or others in the future if not stopped?

[@lawfulacts1955]

9th Circuit standard - you cannot place yourself in harms way and then justify using force to overcome that threat. Totality of the circumstances includes what lead up to the threat and use of force.

[@whiteorchid5412]

LOL, Tell that to John Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse...

[@etschirm]

Lol, nether of them did that. Walking around a neighborhood does not negate your right to defend yourself from violent attackers. Neither one confronted their attackers, and they did nothing that would elicit violence from a reasonable person.​@@whiteorchid5412

[@jasonharrison25]

​@@whiteorchid5412Wrong jurisdiction

[@lawfulacts1955]

@ should have said that is the standard for police.

[@deborahhargrove3710]

The 9th circuit is made up of woke progressive Marxists.

[@Dedicatedfatherhusband]

I was a cop - don't jump in front of cars. Full stop.

[@SparTan-nr6lj]

Or reach in the vehicle trying to shut down the car.

[@ScrappyXFL]

🤣We know where they live

[@johnbland1422]

I'm not nor have never been in law enforcement, but I know to not jump in front of a vehicle. Shooting a person for unpaid toll usage and running from the police seems like excessive force.

[@robertwarner-ev7wp]

@@johnbland1422But the perp could have run another tollbooth! The humanity! End qualified immunity. You and I would be sitting in jail for this stupid maneuver.

[@Dedicatedfatherhusband]

@@robertwarner-ev7wp qualified immunity only covers actions which are legal and within policy. SCOTUS could easily rule this falls outside of qualified immunity. My old department would have.

[@jsedbe0624]

“They have to know they are breaking the law.” And yet, if a citizen breaks a law, and says “I didn’t know this was illegal,” we are told the old “Ignorance is no excuse…” If you want to meet the sovereign citizens in our country, look no further than the thin blue line.

[@scottbenton5880]

Top comment!

[@TweakRacer]

You win the internet!

[@fyrbyrd71]

Law/Policy Enforcement is presented, read, studied, agree to, and sign documents/policies/directives/oaths legislated in written law for the job description voluntarily applied to. No one that has grown up in this country is that ignorant of the laws of this country to be able to claim such ignorance in the discussed intended conduct of such occupation as an adult. They are knowing of the "laws" they operate under. They can and do lie as a privilege of their own policies. Every US man and woman that has reached the age of the majority is a sovereign citizen; see 54 Stat. 178, Resolution No. 67, May 3, 1940. The blue line club are not citizens.

[@cranmer1959]

@@fyrbyrd71 Remember that the police can lawfully lie to you. Best to obey lawful orders and sort it out in court.

[@fyrbyrd71]

@ Remember, you say? That was noticed above in reply. There is no "lawful order" to obey/comply with when one knows it is a lie. That is exactly what "cop" wants you to do, comply with every word they speak. If one does not know what is lawful, one falls for every trick and lie they put on one. Rebut every presumption.

[@ptx8716]

Ignorance of the law gets the cop off the hook but doesn't do jack s**t for us. LAW enforcement. That should come with a presumption that one would have to know the law to enforce it, right? Nice system we got there! Qualified immunity was one of the worst decisions to EVER come down.

[@BigJohnson-g3j]

It needs to be struck because that was the judcial branch creating legislation.

[@OpenCarry2024]

Yes they should have to have at least the equivalent of like a bachelor's degree worth of information of what a lawyer knows. They should need to know everything about our constitutional rights before they step foot on their first live duty

[@theEVILone0130]

​@@OpenCarry2024 That's not right, law enforcement is supposed to be held to a higher standard than the average person. If the average person is held to the ignorance of the law is no excuse standard. Then the police should continue to be held to the standard of not knowing a law doesn't count the obviously the law enforcement should have a better understanding of the law and know the law after all ignorance of the law should apply to the law enforcement since they are held to a higher standard, if the police can't know the law and get away with getting the laws wrong why shouldn't the people be held to a lesser standard.

[@ebergoose11]

So let me ask you this. The cop doesn't attempt to apprehend someone who's fleeing. Said person blows through a red light, causes an accident that results in the death of the occupants in the other vehicle. Who's to blame?

[@DoubleplusUngoodthinkful]

What are you talking about? There is an intent component to the vast majority of criminal laws. If the prosecution cannot prove all elements, including intent, there is no conviction. And I quit police work when qualified immunity was ended. Why? Because I can lose my home and life savings just from being sued, win or lose, for something I did correctly and in good faith on the job. Is putting my life on the line not enough for you people? Should I just say, oh well, I guess I can live in a studio apartment if I get sued? No thank you. The pittance I already made as a cop was not even close to being worth that kind of risk. I quit, went into IT, and now I make almost 4x as much money, and I won't get sued by some dirtbag for doing my job.

[@pauleddy5146]

This cop was wrong to try and stop the vehicle by putting himself in harms way. The perp was fleeing, not attacking. You have his personal information, plate number, car description why would you jump on the car? Just plain stupid and reckless.

[@robertwarner-ev7wp]

But the perp could have went on to commit more tollbooth violations!

[@justme-n-gracie]

rampant authoritarianism in law enforcement... and government

[@jtylermcclendon]

Even when being attacked, in most states a private citizen has a duty to attempt retreat before using deadly force. An LEO does not--but they do as ruled by courts have the choice to not discharge their duties to protect you. The core issue is that there are different standards for two groups of people. That's ok in some circumstances and to a certain degree, but the gap is too big between LEO and private citizens.

[@Maineprepper-o1b]

Right? I mean this was about an unpaid toll, a small fine. This POS cop turns it into a life and death situation with that bad cop. Trick of grabbing the vehicle and then doing a Pratt fall to make it look like you were nearly murdered. This is the equivalent of throwing a weapon down on the body of a person you just shot.

[@robertwarner-ev7wp]

@ Only 11 US states have a duty to attempt to retreat, not “most”.

[@edwardr1250]

Sovereign immunity was the catalyst for one of the sacred five rights included in the First Amendment, specifically, the right to petition government for redress of grievances. The use of sovereign immunity by King George was highlighted in the Declaration of Independence as the reason for the American Revolution: "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people." Supreme Court pronouncements regarding this forgotten right do not remotely explain how sovereign immunity, qualified or otherwise, continues in the face of this largely forgotten first among ten.

[@cheyennesouza7960]

They dont consider the Declaration of Independence law, so any of rights mentioned within it are not granted to us. Basically, we will ignore our mission statement.

[@edwardr1250]

@@cheyennesouza7960 The right to petition government for redress of grievances is explicitly stated in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It very much is law. I referenced the Declaration of Independence only to show that the origin of that right was the rejection of sovereign immunity as the basis for refusing to hear those petitions.

[@anombrerose6311]

Exactly So. And the Supreme Court has NO "EXTRA (OVER AND BEYOND) POWERS" that elevate the Court above the Super Majority Sovereign ratified CONSTITUTION. It Ain't There!!!!!

[@mhouse1712]

@edwardr1250 Hey, genius, “sovereign immunity”, as per US Jurisprudence(as other non-United States countries means nothing, at all, to me, nor the vast majority of US Citizens, so…yeah) …but I digress, “sovereign immunity” only applies to the US Government and/or the various states and only in very specific circumstances(i.e. if someone is suing the US Government and/or a US state government, and said government doesn’t wish to “allow” someone to sue said government(s)(even though I disagree with the legal assessment(s) that allege support of “sovereign immunity” existing, but what doesn’t matter to the discussion at hand) for financial consideration. It is not, in any way, applicable to individuals, as…you know…we don’t have sovereigns in the United States.

[@edwardr1250]

@@mhouse1712 Your response is a model of how to say that you don't know what you're talking about without saying that you don't know what you're talking about. Sovereign immunity very much does apply to individuals with respect to their conduct on behalf of the sovereign. Thus, it applies to police officers, city council members, mayors, governors, etcetera, ad nauseum. Indeed, the seminal case addressing qualified immunity is Bivens v. Six Unnamed Agents of the FBi. Thus, induals are granted either unqualified or qualified immunity from negligent and even intentional tortious conduct based on sovereign immunity. And sovereign immunity does not apply "only in very specific circumstances." Indeed, it is the opposite. Sovereign immunity applies always except where the government (sovereign) has consented to be sued in very specific circumstances. Absent consent by the sovereign, the sovereign cannot be sued. I doubt very much that you are a lawyer, but on the off chance that you are, you should seek a refund of your tuition.

[@1arm_658]

For me, a regular citizen, if I put myself in the dangerous situation, I have no self defense claim. Right?

[@2Truth4Liberty]

Yeah, it seems like that would count as "first aggressor" eliminating self-defense claim.

[@Thomas-uk5cp]

In a circumstance like this, defense of others would be more accurate than self defense. Still iffy for you though since it isnt your job to intervene with a crime in progress

[@2Truth4Liberty]

@ Who would be the "other" in a case where no one is around except the driver that was stopped and the officer? Can the officer claim the "other" is anyone else in the world that person may later come into contact with? That would be too broad for a self defense claim and IMO too broad for a reasonable law enforcement claim - just way too aggressive for the situation.

[@Thomas-uk5cp]

@2Truth4Liberty whats the reasoning behind stopping fleeing suspects known to be armed?

[@2Truth4Liberty]

@@Thomas-uk5cp "whats the reasoning behind stopping fleeing suspects known to be armed?" Good question. What is the reasoning? As I recall, the courts have found you cannot used deadly force in many instances of fleeing suspects.

[@rodvan-zeller6360]

There is a you tube video with an interview with a German cop and an English cop, when qualified immunity was described, they started laughing thinking they were being told a joke, they could not believe there was such a thing in the USA. They were even more in disbelief when and the reason why it was created.

[@santamanone]

Horse shit. German cops have ABSOLUTELY immunity.

[@tvc184]

That’s probably because they weren’t given the correct information.

[@rodvan-zeller6360]

@@tvc184 Always a possibility, it did match what I have read online, however.

[@tvc184]

@@rodvan-zeller6360 👍🏼 That is certainly possible but I see so much wrong information on it in various forums, I am curious.

[@santamanone]

@@rodvan-zeller6360 doesn’t match what I saw in Germany nor England.

[@stickman-1]

Qualified Immunity is out of control. Police need to be reined in. If you jump in/on a moving car, who is responsible for that? And over TOLLS? This was not a child killer. This is a suspect who didn't pay a fine and you have his name, address, car, tag, etc. Who in their right minds jumps in/on a car over that?

[@robertsilveus3071]

Nobody. in their right mind.

[@Stacy_Smith]

I'm neutral. Who in their right mind runs from the cops? The BOTH are criminals.

[@sdnlawrence5640]

I bet the camera and the computer had already generated and mailed a ticket!

[@frankedgar6694]

I was right with you until the point where that, according to your thinking, “innocent” man would have happily allowed that officer to fall to his death at 60 MPH. And since we have zero other knowledge of this case, you have zero idea what kind of person the driver was. He ran for a reason.

[@stickman-1]

@@frankedgar6694 I never said the driver was "innocent." My point is that a cop putting themselves in danger is not the fault of the bad guy and in this case the "bad guy" is someone who doesn't pay their tolls. And we DO have lots of information on this case. We know the offense was "failure to pay tolls." We know the cop jumped into the car voluntarily. We know the bad guy is known by their license plates and we know that tolls are a civil infraction, NOT CRIMINAL case and we know that the cops can go his house and process service for the tolls, suspend his license, impound the car, or whatever crime the local code would allow. Now we have a DEAD TOLL DEADBEAT. Okay If you think it's okay to kill people for not paying a toll... then I suggest you LEAVE this country because that is not what we are about here. There is a concept in law known as "the least restrict means." It applies all over our system. The govt must use the LEAST restrictive means to uphold the law. (In case you doubt that, see The Bill Of Rights. That entire document is a lease restrictive means document, as well as case law.) Jumping into a car and shooting the man is NOT the least restrictive means to collect a traffic fine.

[@itsapittie]

Back in the early 1980s, I was a police officer. At least at my department, we were told even 'way back then not to place ourselves in the direct path of a car, even if it wasn't moving. Nothing good can come of it. If the driver decides to move, one or both of you are going to get hurt. It astonishes me that 40 years later, officers are still doing this.

[@danielhurst8863]

The "at the moment" standard allows law enforcement to legally murder people, because it allows them to set up a series of actions that any normal person would understand will lead to a death. Example, man lawfully sleeping in his car. Has a handgun on the floor board. There is no alleged crime. People make contact by turning on their lights. Person doesn't wake up. Instead of turning on the siren, or honking the horn, the bright idea of drawing their firearms and smashing through the window was chosen, while not even stating they were police, then shooting the guy when he went to sit up, claiming his arm was down, so he could have been reaching for the gun. The entire encounter was set in motion by horrible choices by the police, but they got qualified immunity arguing that he could have been reaching for the gun in that exact moment, and that they set up a scenario that was 100% guaranteed that any action he took could be taken as reaching for the gun, could not be examined. So qualified immunity won.

[@Dedicatedfatherhusband]

@@danielhurst8863 where did this happen?

[@OpenCarry2024]

​@@Dedicatedfatherhusbandit's a perfect example to use as an analogy only. They do it constantly. They use officer safety as an excuse to get you out of your car and then search it. Or they claim they smell marijuana when you don't even smoke marijuana (happened to me)

[@christyallen7848]

Guy wakes up to see a broken window and a guy with a gun,can see officer getting a hole in his head,at the moment I'd see that as a life threatening event.

[@elpatron8696]

I remember the story, sad sh*t

[@rainmaker8813]

I've seen this exact same scenario with a man sleeping on a front porch, with a pistol in his lap. Instead of waking him up they just pounced on him and took the gun and a gun fight happened.

[@d.r.keeler2804]

One of the biggest issues many have with qualified immunity is that in no other segment of society is anyone allowed to be the one escalate the situation and not be held responsible for it. We've all seen hundreds of videos where the aggressor is clearly the cop(s). In fact it's an acknowledged strategy for the cops to push buttons until you react. Suddenly the citizen is deemed to have to be the adult in the situation. It assaults our sense of fairness.

[@lylehart3744]

The biggest issue I have with qualified immunity is that it essentially completely deletes the bill of rights when it gives government officials immunity for willfully violating rights.

[@Maineprepper-o1b]

Isn't anyone else concerned that this unpaid toll turned into a traffic stop? I live in a state that has these things called cameras set up so that if you don't pay the toll it gets a picture of your license plate. They have this really weird system where they actually know how to find the address of the person who owns the car with that license plate. I know right?

[@BornFreeFilms]

I didn't pay 4 or 5 tolls in Houston about 4 months ago and they just sent me the bill from camera photos of my license plate. Problem solved. Of course if I had gotten pulled over,, I would not have taken off until the officer was finished.

[@stevobear4647]

COME ON MAN!!! Killed over, not paying toll fees. CRAZY!!! How can you claim I was in fear for my life when the officer himself put his life in danger??? WHAT HAPPENED TO DE-ESCALATING???

[@garlandgarrett6332]

So while people are under the no excuse for not knowing the law, if the officers don’t know, they’re not liable oh that sounds perfectly fair to me

[@jerryshelton1481]

They're supposed to know the laws they're enforcing this is why the number of laws we have are ridiculous cause no one on earth can know all the laws on the books in any town city state or the nation laws need to be simplified and less

[@junicohen7918]

Basically yes

[@grim_tobe]

Courts have rule cops don't have to know the law.

[@garlandgarrett6332]

@ people need to petition to change laws, especially those in opposition to common sense

[@Marky-j3o]

They claim "officer safety " when THEY put themselves in danger . There own fault . Raido's are there best protection. Abolish qualified immunity.

[@Grynslvr2]

So, officers should never put themselves in danger? No qualified immunity, no effective police. They would just let everyone go.

[@76to96]

There is not the same as their. So there ya go.

[@christiancampbell466]

@@Grynslvr2That prediction is proven false by the states which have already outlawed qualified immunity.

[@tieember9596]

@@Grynslvr2 , literally no other police force on Earth has qualified immunirty Geuss America isthe only country that exists in your puny little brain

[@ericarachel55]

we are getting close to "when in the course of human events......." revisiting us from history

[@Ephesians-ts8ze]

Yep! But I think we got to that point at least a couple decades ago. Strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, and hard times create strong men. That used to be the repetitive cycle but it seems like that pattern has been broken and we’re screwed if we don’t tear down the digital prison that they’ve got us trapped in

[@michaelkaiser1864]

Yeah. We tried the 10th amendment in 1861. Look into federalists and antifederalists. Only reason we got it on paper was jefferson, luther martin and a few others. Hamilton and others were oligarchs looking to take the power from england fr themselves. They got it.

[@robertgantry2118]

Grabbing onto a moving car and then claiming you have to use deadly force to save yourself is like jumping in front of a moving train and then derailing the train to save yourself. It's preposterous.

[@darrensquier4079]

So becoming a fleeing criminal is okay?

[@robertgantry2118]

@@darrensquier4079 - The point is that putting YOURSELF in danger doesn't excuse un-aliving someone else.

[@robertgantry2118]

@@darrensquier4079 - It's preposterous!

[@j_zales1390]

​@@darrensquier4079 depends on what would be deemed a criminal , no victim no crime , not paying government extortion no crime so no criminal present

[@aa-yt7wo]

The the same sort of chutzpah as a man on trial for strangling his parents begging the court for mercy as he is now an orphan.

[@BigJohnson-g3j]

End qualified immunity.

[@59jm24]

Cops literally get away with murder

[@wizardofahhhs759]

Cop shouldn't have tried to play hero and jump on the dudes car, he had his plate number he could have tracked the suspect to his house or picked him up later.

[@junicohen7918]

A normal state would just send a bill

[@bunnyg2331]

The police have the dangerous job of chasing down and apprehending criminals, and the rest of us don't. That's the difference.

[@B_R_]

@@junicohen7918 Texas does send bills. It's hard to find a more normal state.

[@misurefiney1]

Qualified Immunity Removes A Jury from making the decision Innocent or Guilty. End Qualified Immunity

[@cheyennesouza7960]

Qualified immunity protects the officers from personal liability, but it typically transfers over to the department or agency as well.

[@alperdue2704]

No it doesn’t. Qualified immunity protects an officer from loss of personal property provided that the officer performs their duties as trained and doesn’t violate the law. If an officer is convicted of violating the law then qualified immunity doesn’t apply.

[@randysretired2020]

@@alperdue2704True. The people demanding an end to qualified immunity just want criminals to be able to bankrupt cops for performing their duties, discourage them from doing their jobs, so they can commit crimes at will and without risk of being arrested.

[@codyclaxton3160]

But what if they department or agency trained officers to violate the rights of citizens? That let's the individual off the hook, and makes it much harder to overcome the gov't policy.

[@PoplarForest]

There was a case in my state where a police officer was sued after a bystander shot a wife beater that was trying to kill the officer. To clarify, the wife beater was attempting to steal the officer's gun and kill the officer with it. As they struggled, a bystander shot the wife beater with the bystanders concealed carry pistol. The wife beater died and his family sued the police officer. That lawsuit was dismissed because of qualified immunity. Are you saying that the officer should have had to go to court and hire an attorney to defend against that lawsuit?

[@jsshuntr1257]

Unpaid tolls? How much did this guy owe? $25? $250? $25,000? Cop jumps car? 🤦‍♂

[@junicohen7918]

With qualified immunity pretty much anything goes.

[@BigJohnson-g3j]

The cop in this case was in the wrong and prime example of what is wrong with general policing.

[@JessicaGrecco-ll7gu]

Good evening to the dynamic duo Emily and Richard you guys are the most amazing duo ever keep up the amazing work you do for us all

[@bornfree3124]

The officer put himself in danger by jumping on the car, he is not the judge and jurry, he should have let the driver go and used his plate to catch him at home or on the roads.

[@ericew]

This wasn't a fleeing felon, the guy was stopped for tolls, it's a monetary/civil issue. Where is the line between law enforcement and tax collector?

[@johnmcmickle5685]

How about just paying the fine instead of escalating by fleeing that can be a felony is some jurisdictions.

[@ominousentity1115]

@@johnmcmickle5685 because the cop escalated the situation

[@cheyennesouza7960]

Plus, the officer has a radio.

[@cheyennesouza7960]

​@@johnmcmickle5685in Texas it is a felony to flee in an automobile.

[@josephtucciarone6878]

Thank you for educating me on how the government see both sides of 2A measures.

[@L3Dhelpguide]

A ticket or infraction, even if fleeing does not warrant deadly force.

[@2Truth4Liberty]

What if the "fleeing" involves potentially deadly force like running over an officer with a car?

[@DefinitelyNotAFed4473]

@@2Truth4Libertythe officer threw himself onto the car when the guy attempted to flee. He put his own life in danger when the guy was not an immediate threat (fleeing from someone not holding onto your car that isn’t right in front of you so you won’t run them over isn’t an immediate threat) and then attempted to use that to justify deadly force for his bad decision. Nope, sorry boss

[@FocusedHands]

@@DefinitelyNotAFed4473 This makes sense!

[@cirelancaster]

​@@DefinitelyNotAFed4473I watched the footage, it looks like the cop would have been clipped by the car if he didn't jump on the door base.

[@2Truth4Liberty]

@@DefinitelyNotAFed4473 "He put his own life in danger when the guy was not an immediate threa" You completely missed addressing my hypothetical QUESTION. And I am not talking about your particular rendition of facts. I was exploring the limits of the positions.

[@chronicon5616]

Pardon Matt Hoover

[@Agorizer]

#FreeCRS

[@dickjivas5996]

naw, let him sue after appeal, he's almost out anyways

[@craighansen7594]

Take the free CRS to Trump. We need to flood Trump with requests to not only pardon him but reverse the conviction.

[@chronicon5616]

@@craighansen7594 I want to get this done. His family has suffered enough from this utterly malicious prosecution. The question is how to get it on the Trump radar? I guess I'll call my rep and senators.

[@dickjivas5996]

@@craighansen7594 only a court can reverse the conviction through the appeal process.

[@jeffhays1968]

Scotus screwed us today.

[@EngineMedic7]

partially screwed us by refusing cert... at least it didn't outright deny it. But its now delayed.

[@jeffhays1968]

@@EngineMedic7 Like I said, they screwed us. They don't exist in a vacuum, and Roberts even sent out a letter saying he was pissed the lower courts pay no attention to them. This is our wake up call to do the same, ignore them. They knew how important this issue is to us and turned their back on us. We won't forget that.

[@ptx8716]

​@@EngineMedic7 justice delayed is justice denied

[@yeayeasautoadventures]

@@ptx8716 everytime

[@svbarryduckworth628]

Not on our side and the Trump picks are no better than Biden's "not a biologist" or Obama's.

[@Hatbox948]

I have zero faith in SCOTUS.

[@OpenCarry2024]

We need some more judges And less unconstitutional activists

[@agunther08]

Not sure why, it’s finest court money can buy.

[@cranmer1959]

@@agunther08 We still have hope with Clarence Thomas and Alito.

[@flyingtime5501]

I don't have much either but at least we have more constitutionalists now! But they all hold onto the idea of power to much when the people are suppose to have the most power!

[@radicalindividual7774]

@@cranmer1959 AHAHAHAAHAHAH, they LITERALLY LAST WEEK voted your free speech isn't your free speech, as long as the Foreign Enemies paying them don't like another different foreign application.

[@m.e.harris8941]

Did the officer create the situation that put his “life in jeopardy “ ??? Under no circumstances would I stand in front of a suspect’s car or “hang onto a suspect’s car !!! Yes, the officer is guilty of manslaughter and liable !!! . .

[@charlescoisman2176]

I would like to hear more about the case you mentioned toward the end about bad shoot where it almost made you leave law, interested to hear the facts and what happened to the cop.

[@rodvan-zeller6360]

At 3:55 what happened to ignorance is no excuse?

[@rickh9396]

That expression refers to ignorance of the law, not ignorance of relevant facts. If a suspect points a replica, non-functioning gun at an officer, the officer is ignorant of the fact that it isn't a deadly weapon, but he's jusified to shoot based on the reasonable assumptions that it's a real gun and he might be killed if he doesn't. Same standard applies to a concealed carrier.

[@rodvan-zeller6360]

@@rickh9396 Got it thanks for the explanation.

[@tvc184]

@@rodvan-zeller6360 It is also goes by clearly established case law. Criminal law is written into books. An officer can’t get excused from wrongdoing simply by saying that he doesn’t know the law. Case law however is handed down from various courts with opinions. When I first started as a police officer in Texas some states had a fleeing felon law. If a person was fleeing from a felony, then an officer chasing the person could use deadly force to apprehend him if the officer reasonably believed that the person fleeing would escape. Tennessee had such a law. One night someone broke into a home, which was definitely a felony and came out of the house with some property, I believe a woman’s purse. As the suspect tried to get over a fence to get away from the officer, the officer used deadly force. That case, Tennessee v. Garner, came out almost exactly a year after I started as a police officer. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to use deadly force on a person, even if he was a fleeing felony suspect, if the crime committed was a nonviolent crime. That immediately set a new standard for law-enforcement. As a matter fact, we had to sign a new policy almost immediately saying that we understood that it was an unlawful use of deadly force. The officer who used the force was protected though since at the moment he used the force, there was no clearly established case law prohibiting it. That is the qualified immunity. At that incident there was no case law prohibiting that level of force. NOW that the case law has been established, an officer cannot successfully argue he simply didn’t know the law. A new clearly established case law is in effect and ignorance of the law won’t help. That is essentially what this case is about. Do courts in deciding qualified immunity look at the last second before deadly force or do they go back for a couple of minutes and see what caused the situation? Either way, it will almost certainly clearly establish a new case law. Should courts look at a momentary decision or go back in time?

[@jerryorange5140]

I’m torn between supporting law enforcement officers and standing up for my rights. Full disclosure when I was 16 a friend jumped on the hood of my car and said, “let’s go for a ride.” By the time I hit third gear he was scared for me to stop. When I did, he hit the pavement and slid down the road like a frozen steak. He was laid up for a while. His parents didn’t sue or press charges. They said if you play stupid games you win stupid prizes. He no longer rides on the hood of cars and I don’t let people ride on the hood of my car. I don’t think the officer was in the right. It was a stupid thing to do over traffic fines. I believe the officer should suffer the consequences.

[@BigJohnson-g3j]

If you're torn between those two, you don't deserve any rights.

[@jerryorange5140]

@ you’re welcome to your opinion. It’s a free country. I spent a lot of time in the Army and as a contractor overseas supporting our service members to keep it a free country. Part of that freedom allows people like you to insult people like me with impunity on an electronic forum. That’s an unfortunate side effect of freedom. But I still support your right to your opinion.

[@SirFixAlot8037]

Cops are NOT your friends. They are a legalized unchecked gang that run with immunity.

[@dentontxflatearthguy2903]

@@jerryorange5140 Huh, going to another country as a contractor overseas just made you a well-funded terrorist acting on behalf of the international banking cartel, DEFINATELY NOT A FREEDOM FIGHTER OF ANY KIND.

[@cccalifornia7206]

Thanks for your great Channel!!😉👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@EchelonBlueAlt]

on one side: "you cannot place yourself in harm's way and then act to end the threat." on the other: "a person running from a traffic stop constitutes a valid threat to the public - particularly if the subject who is fleeing has a previous felony record. this by itself requires the act to stop the pursuit before it starts." it will be interesting to see what the court decides.

[@PetrolJunkie]

The officer had the opportunity to remove himself from harm. He knew the person was trying to leave; he did not have to jump on the car. In a civil case, that would play a huge role in deciding whether a person had to defend themselves or not. More often than not, they wouldn't get to argue self-defense. If the officer was standing in a space where he had nowhere to run and nothing to protect him, and the suspect drove towards him, then the argument would stand that he had no choice but to shoot. That was a dirty shoot.

[@cirelancaster]

I watched the footage, the cop was close enough to the car that it might have clipped him as it drove off. Might not have, but it wasn't cut and dry either way.

[@cranmer1959]

@PetrolJunkie The police have a right to detain you during a traffic stop. If you flee, YOU are committing a felony. WHY run? Criminals need to be held accountable. End of discussion.

[@christiancampbell466]

@@cranmer1959Maybe, maybe not. There’s also misdemeanour fleeing.

[@cranmer1959]

@@christiancampbell466 Once you exceed the speed limt by over 17 miles an hour? It becomes a greater crime. Over 25 mph over the speed limit is worse. And if you put assaulting a police officer with your vehicle into the equation? It's a felony.

[@timmyflew]

@@cranmer1959yeah these people are something else. If you run, fight, or otherwise don't comply, everything is on you. This country is getting out of hand and everyone defends the people breaking the law.

[@justinbuckingham5854]

There was no life or death situation there until the officer himself created it into one. He should be charged with murder.

[@junicohen7918]

Yes

[@PuppyMonsters]

By putting his vehicle in gear and attempting to flee the police, a reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the driver is a very real threat to public safety. This person could have injured untold numbers of people while driving recklessly trying to get away.

[@justinbuckingham5854]

@@PuppyMonsters All that showed was an unwillingness to cooperate with the police in his very foolish attempt to non-violently escape legal repercussions, not that he was actually a violent threat to anyone. The officer foolishly chose to escalate the existing non-violent situation into a life and death situation. There was zero physical danger to that officer until he himself chose to put himself in a compromising position, which he then decided the solution was to murder the other person. Nonviolently running away alone could never be considered reasonable grounds to suspect that they are going to hurt others.

[@christiancampbell466]

@@PuppyMonstersHe could also have driven to his secret rocket pad, flown off to Zorgon, and raised an alien army to decimate the human population. Anybody could do any number of things in the future. It’s not cops’ job to prevent every conceivable course of actions anyone could imagine.

[@stephanieinspired1151]

EXCELLENT discussion. And it appears as a 20/20 hindsight that the “offense” of not paying a toll does NOT warrant being dead just because the OFFICER put him/herself IN FRONT of the car. Really. What kind of overzealousness is promoted in the precinct? The other case -another this time “kid” gets shot in back of neck for riding his bicycle away… what was the kid suspected of ; murder, assault, something heinous ? The punishment far exceeds the “crime”… IMO. Again, 20/20….

[@mhughes1160]

Let us redefine. Stupidity ; jumping in front of a moving car . LoL 😂

[@cirelancaster]

Who jumped in front of a moving car?

[@PP-ob8zr]

Hello Emily 😊....Thank you both for the video.

[@timothykelley8873]

Howdy from Deer Park TX y'all 🤠

[@Scaredycat55]

Thank you for your great program and all your hard work.

[@wesleyallan7436]

Death vs misdemeanor, wrong- wrong- wrong !

[@DtotheC2009]

Love to hear you guys cover qualified immunity as it pertains to private armed school security guards (not sworn SROs) Especially in Texas, given the recent Texas House Bill 3 (HB 3) requires that every K-12 school in the state have an armed officer on campus during regular school hours.

[@lynnslaterjr]

Nice analysis. No moment is in isolation.

[@calvinthomas1642]

I'm sure armed civilians would be judged by totality of circumstances in any case. Police should be held to the same standards for use of deadly force. The moment of threat business means that officers can make a series of terrible, escalatory actions and still be "justified." (I hit 10:20 in the video as I finished typing this. Glad the professionals agree with me.)

[@ChristianConstitutionalist3192]

The Officer jumped in front of the vehicle; he or she obviously didn't fear for his or her life, or the life of someone else. Completely Unjustified.

[@ToddMaloney-m3t]

Wow. I was hired as an expert on this case. I never thought they would get this far with the case. Anxious to see the ruling.

[@paulparker9376]

Qualified immunity: ignorance of the law is no excuse UNLESS you're a LEO (who should actually have a better grasp of the law than a non LEO!) 🤦🤦🤦

[@RightWingNutter]

Totality of the circumstances... That cop wasn't standing in front of the car. He had his cruiser right there, running with the lights going. He could have given chase and called for backup. I don't think he'd fare well under totality of the circumstances.

[@ninja29mv]

looks like they're about to punt 2 major cases awb, and magazines shame

[@junicohen7918]

Ain't getting a pro-citizen ruling here either

[@joehayward2631]

When investigating a Use of Force there is so much that the public is not aware of. It comes from the Supreme Court.

[@CyberDocUSA]

Cop thought he was TJ Hooker.

[@JROQUEfounderofcoolhandvets]

Plumber vs state is all I need. 😊

[@brucemorrissr]

We the people over 4 million of us believe in this and we will fight for our constitutional right and our common law right we have one to restore this republic as it supposed to be

[@forestharrison1805]

The blame is clearly the state's fault because they don't have people in the booth collecting the money for using the toll road they want to rely on cameras and send people an outages bill through the mail

[@stevenfeil7079]

Do they consider that the cop put HIMSELF in harms way when it was not required?

[@mvblitzyo]

JAM packed informational video as always great talk .

[@rodvan-zeller6360]

Very interesting, totality vs immediate moment, being geographic sensitive.

[@vaughnslavin9784]

Thank you!

[@lancedevooght5027]

For the algorithm From Michigan.

[@jaywinters2483]

She’s a fantastic teacher.

[@83licata]

I don’t think in this scenario that the cop had to jump on the car. It’s a misdemeanor not to pay a toll! He could have let the driver go and then issue a warrant for leaving the scene of a crime!

[@Jose-hq8gn]

Not hearing a lot of cases..they are not doing so with 2A cases lately..how many cases they handle a year?

[@thomasbrogan8036]

# 8 ! (Suck it Up, Buttercup)

[@Cornpop8]

10th circuit here, the moment of threat is obviously very relevant to the totality of circumstances but you better be damn sure you have a lawful articulation of how you got there and why. The constitution is absolute.

[@MicahThomason]

The standard should be changed from "reasonable officer" to "reasonable person".

[@CCmagee3]

No matter what case she discusses, she always has two great points.

[@StevenG222]

Its simple...Don't break the law, if you do, don't escalate it by trying to break more to avoid responsibility!

[@BigJohnson-g3j]

Tell that to the cops.

[@dentontxflatearthguy2903]

"Dont break the law" there are literally hundreds of thousands of laws in the US. Cops are the most likely people to "break the law" what in the world are you talking about?

[@larrylamb5462]

7 years in the Army as an MP. NO qualified Immunity for cops, period. Over 200 subject arrest, many felonies, never pulled my firearm on anyone. Did pull and use my night stick many times.

[@alperdue2704]

Try working as a city cop. Different world.

[@larrylamb5462]

@@alperdue2704 I know crooks today kave it a lot better,always lived by the credo "All cops are quilty until proven innocent". Enforced State. federal local and military law. Also worked at the 3rd largest military base in the country, with a daily transient poplulation of 240,000 people. Right off the I-5 corridor, where most of the north-south criminal movement happens on the west coast. Lot of civilian criminals would come on post, thinking we weren't connected to civilian law enforcement. This was also during the time of the Green River killer, Claude Lafayette Dallas, and militant gangs were actively being recruited by Qadafi for terrorist acts in the US. And, you think politics is bad in civilian law enforcement. Schwarzkopf came out every day to watch flag call at HQ, which we had to do, also. We had 9-11 people to do a shift for a resident population of over 53,000, with the daily uptick for the day time crowd. Did everything you would normally get, with traffic tickets, assaults, ag assaults, rapes, robbery, attempted robbery, burglary, muder and attempted murder.Responded to the AMTRAK crash that happened on Puget sound from a mudlside that derailed the train and killed two people. Choir practice for us was mandatory.

[@larrylamb5462]

@@alperdue2704 and the US District Court Judge we had was a forner defense attorney

[@consentofthegoverned5145]

Thank you for joining the right side after defending the "bad guys" for so long.

[@edwardr1250]

Whether. the officer made the correct choice in jumping on the car, to me, is wholly irrelevant. The perpetrator does not have a right to use deadly force to escape because the officer made a mistake and exposed himself unnecessarily. That would mean that a police officer who enters a dwelling in pursuit of a suspect, knowing the suspect is armed, when after the fact it appears he could have waited for support, is fair game for the perpetrator to [fill in the blank of manner, method and weapon] because the officer could have avoided the confrontation by not entering. That is the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard. The possible extension of such a theory highlights the absurdity of a "could have been avoided" standard. If the victim has merely handed over his wallet instead of shooting, the death of the robber "could have been avoided." Utter and complete nonsense.

[@goodcitizen64]

We shall see! Thanks 👍

[@billbender2850]

Great job.

[@johnnyy9545]

I’m curious how one justifies the use of physical force regarding a paperwork issue.

[@emanonymous]

have there ever been any void judgments in use of force cases?

[@deepc185]

I was really hoping SCOTUS was ruling on preventing civil lawsuits in self defense cases.

[@the0leman]

Question I did not hear is : Did the officer put themselves into the situation by 'jumping' into the auto violating the 4th that put him at risk? Should they have used flawed judgment in the death of the fleeing person. Actually both are wrong especially the police by physically putting themselves in danger to begin with.

[@ray.d.oeaux1230]

The circumstances surrounding the incident are highly relevant in deciding whether the officer was justified when he pulled the trigger. If the officer provoked or escalated the circumstances that led to the shooting then everything should be on the table. For details, see the incident in Fort Worth where the cop intruded (without announcing the presence of the police) into an enclosed backyard in the middle of the night and prowled around with a flashlight and then shot the homeowner through her bedroom window because she peeked outside with a pistol in hand to see what was going on in her backyard.

[@tracynorman3563]

Do you know of any good civil attorneys in the s w missouri area we have several cases that need to be heard ?

[@Preventviolencewithaccuracy]

I think the totality of the situation, as civilians are judged, is best. However, I'n curious. Will this have any affect on evidence that is deemed "inadmissable" due to some technicality? I've always thought that any known evidence should be heard by the judge/jury regardless of how it was obtained. Opinions?

[@texasRoofDoctor]

Is there a statute of limitations for 4th Ammendment violations?

[@Rondamyankee]

Thanks

[@paulmoloney5352]

I agree there should not be a double standard applied between civilian use of force vs cop. The totality of circumstances should be the standard practice for all. For instance cops point their guns all the time as a threat of force if a civilian does this it’s a crime! Cops obviously and routinely escalate use of force. Great show today!

[@wvtaco4379]

Maxim of Law A party's own act should prejudice himself, not his adversary. Dig. 50, 17, 155.

[@nickz9107]

We need to be careful with totality of the circumstances metrics because it creates conditions where the legal system gets to latch on to what was 'important' in your self defense case to determine with or not you are guilty. A poor series of events leads you to a self defense situation, but you are guilty because when it started you did something innocuous.

[@jeffreyhowll1392]

Hi Al

[@akamogg8747]

I don't know what these two lawyers are talking about, but that's part of being a lawyer. If the audience (judge, jury, opposing counsel, etc.) cannot understand your point in context of the matter before the court ... they are all left to fill in the blanks and PRESUME your point. Not that this tactic necessarily succeeds in court but so many lawyers throw up whatever they can concoct to see what floats and what crashes to the ground.

[@charlesbutterfield3464]

Contra Costa County, California recently paid 8.4 million dollars for a false arrest with no injuries and less than 24 hours of detainment. These are punitive damages in addition to actual damages which were small. Large punitive damages must become the rule if this sort of Police misconduct is to be stopped.

[@georged9234]

Although not 2A, could you address this weeks ice raids in Newark, NJ and local democratic issues around warrants?

[@65gtotrips]

One should never have to ‘harden their heart’, that’s unconscionable.