Atlanta PD and Officer (Sgt?) Kevin Knapp

Discussion in 'Police in the news' started by Ed Medlin, Jul 17, 2017.

  1. Ed Medlin

    Ed Medlin New Member

    When I read the opinion in the linked court case, I searched CopBlock to see if the same officer's name had been featured in any other posts, and to find whether this recent case had been posted. I found that he was named in a 2015 post involving an arrest (and multiple charges) of someone video police officers. If you read this case (in which, for once, both the district and circuit courts ruled the officer was not protected by "qualified immunity," you see that, after receiving the complaint of the man wrongfully arrested, APD was not especially troubled by the contradictions between Knapp's report and virtually all of the available evidence.

    http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1856395.html
     
  2. brian

    brian New Member

    this case file can also be used trough out the country when cops say they have immunity ,which now we see they don't when the have ill will to do harm or any other illegal acts.. this is awesome
     
  3. Ed Medlin

    Ed Medlin New Member

    Brian, I wish you were correct about that, but, in most cases, they will still have immunity. The fact that the judge denied immunity in this case wasn't a legal breakthrough, as immunity has never applied to acts that are intentional, and which violate federal civil and/or constitutional rights, IF the violations are "well settled" in the law. But, all those things must apply, and the cases in which there is evidence of all of them are few and far between. Actual malice can also deprive an officer of immunity, but, even then, an intentional and knowing violation of civil rights must be involved. Believe it or not, in many cases, ignorance of the law is accepted as an excuse! And, this isn't one of those liberal vs conservatives issues, when it comes to the courts- in most cases, Justices RBG, etc. and Samuel Alito, etc., come down on the same side. Personally, I think it is ridiculous that our courts have, throughout our history, recognized these immunities, even though, for the most part, they weren't written into legislation. Instead, they are (expanded versions of) immunities that were inherited from British Common Law, which was/is based on the theory that all rights have been granted by the monarch, whom, for that reason, may not be sued unless he or she deigns to permit it. How any judge, at any time in our history, thought that principle of sovereign/governmental/official or qualified immunity was consistent with the theory of natural or God-given rights, a government whose authority is derived from the consent of the governed, etc., is beyond my admittedly limited comprehension.
     
  4. brian

    brian New Member

    I think that we the people need to do a petition to have the law makers change that. They feel that they can break the law and that the law dose not apply to them hens the people are pushing back and videoing them
     

Share This Page