Holding cops accountable to not overstep their constitutional mandate does not prevent them from doing their jobs.
Interesting. I'd counter that this seemed like a round about way for municipalities to crack down on civil rights movements
So every victim of crime or every homeowner whose house has burned down should be able to sue the city,got it
Seeing that over 95% of police brutality complaints turn out to be complete bullshiat -- no one is going to enter the police profession if they are going to have to defend themselves financially in court against every bullshiat complaint. Taking away qualified immunity from cops also means there is no incentive for the city to defend the actions of police officers -- leaving the entire financial burden with every false complaint on the cop.
I doubt 95% is bullshit.Its not just police brutality,but also violating rights.Every time a cop searches a car because they claim they smell weed or a dog with around a 50% accuracy rate alerts to drugs they are violating peoples constitutional rights,and that happens thousands of times a day.
When the city has the police and fire department step away from providing the promised services in a wholesale manner --- allowing a violent riot to run unabated then business and homeowners should be able to hold the city financially responsible for the dereliction of duty form the city. This is not about an individual crime or fire. Let's take the following example - I own a house on the edge of town. The county does not provide water & sewer or trash collection. The county only has a volunteer fire department and the county sheriff's office has a 30 minute average response time for calls with minimal staffing. The city comes to me and says if you agree to be incorporated into the city and pay much higher taxes then we will provide the following - city water and sewer, weekly garbage collection, paid professional fire service, and a fully staffed police force with a 5 minute average response time. I decide to take the deal and allow the city to annex my property. If the city does not live up to its commitments in a wholesale manner then I should be able to sue the city. I am not talking about a one time instance where the water is out for a day due to a water main break -- but if the city promised water and never delivered water then I should be able to sue. If the city promised trash pickup and suddenly stopped collecting trash for several months then I should be able to sue. If the city promised police protection and decided that cops would not service my location when my property & person is being threatened then I should be able to sue for incurred damages to my property & myself.. After all I am paying taxes for all of these services -- and I decided to join the city because they promised these services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests By the end of June, at least 14,000 people had been arrested.[3][30][31] It was later estimated that between May 26 and August 22, 93% of individual protests were "peaceful and nondestructive"[32] and The Washington Post estimated that by the end of June, 96.3% of 7,305 demonstrations involved no injuries and no property damage.[33]
Yes... the majority of BLM protests held in daytime were peaceful. Many of the daytime protests were led by respected community leaders and politicians. However the protests in the evenings and nights were primarily violent ANTIFA and BLM protestors. In North Carolina it reached point where the leaders of the daytime protests were stating the violent ANTIFA/BLM night time protestors did not in any way represent the BLM movement and they needed to stop. The local BLM leaders and local mayors also called out ANTIFA by name in North Carolina -- calling them violent terrorists. who undermined the BLM movement.