Poll of the Day > Should police have qualified immunity for setting people on fire?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Reddit link is for link shortening purposes

https://redd.it/m6p5po

> ACLU, Libertarians Oppose Qualified Immunity for Cops Who Set Man on Fire to Stop Him from Setting Himself on Fire

> In 2017, Gabriel Eduardo Olivas was acting strange and threatening to kill himself. His son called 911 for help. The police in Texas arrived and rendered those threats inoperative by setting Olivas on fire and killing him.

> The 39-year-old victims family suednoting that when the cops arrived on the scene, they found Olivas covered in gasoline and decided to respond by tasing him, setting him ablaze, resulting in his slow and agonizing death several days later. Still, the cops got off without consequences. Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two libertarian organizations want the Arlington Police officers responsible for the mentally ill mans death to be held accountable in a court of law.

---

Qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing, period.

---

Force has to be situation proportionate and apropriate, tasing a person that will clearly ignite from being tased, is just simply torture, no other way about it.

---

Lokarin posted...

Reddit link is for link shortening purposes

https://redd.it/m6p5po

> ACLU, Libertarians Oppose Qualified Immunity for Cops Who Set Man on Fire to Stop Him from Setting Himself on Fire

> In 2017, Gabriel Eduardo Olivas was acting strange and threatening to kill himself. His son called 911 for help. The police in Texas arrived and rendered those threats inoperative by setting Olivas on fire and killing him.

> The 39-year-old victims family suednoting that when the cops arrived on the scene, they found Olivas covered in gasoline and decided to respond by tasing him, setting him ablaze, resulting in his slow and agonizing death several days later. Still, the cops got off without consequences. Now, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and two libertarian organizations want the Arlington Police officers responsible for the mentally ill mans death to be held accountable in a court of law.

Uhhh... not really the same thing at all?

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing, period.

Which is basically saying "police shouldn't be a thing, period" because it's damn near impossible for them to operate in any meaningful capacity without qualified immunity.

Nichtcrawler X posted...

Force has to be situation proportionate and apropriate, tasing a person that will clearly ignite from being tased, is just simply torture, no other way about it.

They were trying to subdue him before he could set himself on fire, not realizing that the tasers would set him aflame.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing, period.

---

Zeus posted...

They were trying to subdue him before he could set himself on fire, not realizing that the tasers would set him aflame.

Seriously. I mean, who ever heard of a spark igniting gasoline fumes?

#ThatWasSarcasm

---

Zeus posted...

Which is basically saying "police shouldn't be a thing, period" because it's damn near impossible for them to operate in any meaningful capacity without qualified immunity.

Maybe if they didn't kill and injure thousands of civilians every year they might be able to function without it. The police in other countries seem to be able to carry out their jobs without killing and maiming thousands of people.
Zeus posted...

They were trying to subdue him before he could set himself on fire, not realizing that the tasers would set him aflame.

...You seriously believe that? For real? How about, they knew and they just didn't care because cops in the US literally get away with murder all the fucking time.

---

DiScOrD tHe LuNaTiC posted...

Seriously. I mean, who ever heard of a spark igniting gasoline fumes?

#ThatWasSarcasm

Generally police have to make split-second decisions with life or death outcomes. Had he set himself on fire, they STILL would have faced criticism. Police are routinely put into no-win situations.

It's great to be an armchair expert and have the leisure to sit there and talk about what you think they should have done, but it's another thing to have to make that decision under extremely high pressure at a moment's notice. And again, if they hadn't managed to get to him before he set himself on fire, they'd be facing similar criticism for that failure.

Lirishae posted...

Maybe if they didn't kill and injure thousands of civilians every year they might be able to function without it. The police in other countries seem to be able to carry out their jobs without killing and maiming thousands of people.

...what? Every nation on the planet has situations where police wind up hurting or killing suspects, and most nations have some form of qualified immunity (or stronger). Go troll somebody else.

Lirishae posted...

...You seriously believe that? For real? How about, they knew and they just didn't care because cops in the US literally get away with murder all the fucking time.

>Asks "...You seriously believe that"
>Implies that cops deliberately set somebody on fire for the lulz

Wtf? Seriously, wtf? Go troll somebody else. Your bullshit suggestion is completely fucked up.

---

You don't need the last five words in the title. The answer to "Should police have qualified immunity?" is always a definitive "no."

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing, period.

Zeus posted...

And again, if they hadn't managed to get to him before he set himself on fire, they'd be facing similar criticism for that failure.

I can guaran fucking tee that they wouldn't be.

What a stupid fucking take.

---

Zeus posted...

They were trying to subdue him before he could set himself on fire, not realizing that the tasers would set him aflame.

"It's okay guys they only set him on fire accidentally."

---

Zeus posted...

They were trying to subdue him before he could set himself on fire, not realizing that the tasers would set him aflame.

Failure of training. If I had my druthers the entire department would be on the hook for it. Cop for failing the training, department for letting him fail. There should be no piece of your every day carry that you don't understand completely.

---

Zeus posted...

Which is basically saying "police shouldn't be a thing, period" because it's damn near impossible for them to operate in any meaningful capacity without qualified immunity.

No it isn't. Police have a lot of latitude is how they are allowed to operate. Qualified immunity only comes into play when they clearly have broken the law or overstepped their bounds. Police not being responsible for damages or injuries caused by raiding a home in a no-knock, for example, is because of qualified immunity. But, if the police *correctly* raid the *correct* house, they wouldn't be liable for damages, anyways, because they did their jobs *correctly*

Qualified immunity is what allows the police to essentially operate like Judge Dredd, and was made up specifically to allow police to get away with racist shit in the Civil Rights unrest of the late 60's. There wasn't rampant suing or inability of the police to function before that.

---

CyborgSage00x0 posted...

Qualified immunity shouldn't be a thing, period.

---

If police departments had to pay lawsuit damages out of their operating budgets or pension funds, I bet you'd see an increase in de-escalation training pretty fucking quick.

---

A taser igniting fuel is not "common sense" in the sense that it'll cross your mind in the moment, especially a high tense situation. In hindsight it's obvious.

Exhibit A: https://www.reddit.com/r/Whatcouldgowrong/comments/fhhx8d/wcgw_if_i_soak_this_guy_in_alcohol_and_taser_him/

---

Zeus posted...

Generally police have to make split-second decisions with life or death outcomes. Had he set himself on fire, they STILL would have faced criticism. Police are routinely put into no-win situations.

It's great to be an armchair expert and have the leisure to sit there and talk about what you think they should have done, but it's another thing to have to make that decision under extremely high pressure at a moment's notice. And again, if they hadn't managed to get to him before he set himself on fire, they'd be facing similar criticism for that failure.

You're arguing that only cops can criticize cops? This is like saying you have to be a movie director before you can criticize a film. You do not need to be a cop to look at the info from other countries and realize that American cops are far more brutal and deadly than any other first world country.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/08/us/us-police-floyd-protests-country-comparisons-intl/index.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries

https://vitals.lifehacker.com/how-police-brutality-in-the-u-s-compares-to-other-coun-1843955090

Zeus posted...

...what? Every nation on the planet has situations where police wind up hurting or killing suspects, and most nations have some form of qualified immunity (or stronger). Go troll somebody else.

You know how many people American cops killed in 2017? A thousand. You know how many people British cops killed in 2017? Six. In other first world countries, there's generally an independent organization that investigates police misbehavior. In the US, police generally investigate themselves and rarely have charges brought against them. Cops can do their jobs without being above the law.

Zeus posted...

>Asks "...You seriously believe that"
>Implies that cops deliberately set somebody on fire for the lulz

Wtf? Seriously, wtf? Go troll somebody else. Your bulls*** suggestion is completely f***ed up.

Oh you sweet summer child, you. Where have you been? News stories about police showing callous indifference toward human life are all over the freaking place. US police kill over a thousand people each year and injure many more. If you can't care about human life, you should at least care about the billions of taxpayer dollars that municipalities pay to settle wrongful death and injury cases.

Here's a story where cops shot a woman and prevented her from receiving first aid:
https://reason.com/2015/07/15/cops-shot-unarmed-georgia-woman-in-the-h/

Here's a cop who shot a woman to get a paid vacation. Note that "shooting to incapacitate" someone is a Hollywood myth; your legs are covered in arteries and you can bleed to death in minutes

https://reason.com/2018/08/08/officer-placed-on-paid-leave/

Police shoot a 12 year old boy in his bed:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/08/chicago-illinois-police-shot-12-year-old-black-boy-in-bed-kneecap.html

This is just the tip of the iceberg; there are tons more stories like these. And don't come back at me about these being a "few bad apples," because you know what the rest of that saying is? "A few bad apples spoil the barrel." You can't live in 2021 and seriously believe that the US police system isn't fundamentally broken.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/05/11/the-increasing-isolation-of-americas-police/

---

Shocking that Zeus is hastily siding with law enforcement in a case of horrific police brutality

---

Neither qualified immunity nor Zeus should be a thing.

CyborgSage00x0 posted... No it isn't. Police have a lot of latitude is how they are allowed to operate. Qualified immunity only comes into play when they clearly have broken the law or overstepped their bounds. Police not being responsible for damages or injuries caused by raiding a home in a no-knock, for example, is because of qualified immunity. But, if the police *correctly* raid the *correct* house, they wouldn't be liable for damages, anyways, because they did their jobs *correctly*

Qualified immunity is what allows the police to essentially operate like Judge Dredd, and was made up specifically to allow police to get away with racist shit in the Civil Rights unrest of the late 60's. There wasn't rampant suing or inability of the police to function before that.

Qualified immunity is largely what gives them that latitude to operate. They couldn't fucking operate without qualified immunity. Take that away and then when anybody got injured during an arrest -- which most people who resist arrest will do because physical force becomes necessary -- the cops would have pretty fucking major problems, so literally all you'd have to do to not be arrested is resist arrest. As for the question of rampant lawsuits, American society wasn't nearly so sue-happy in the fucking 60s and courts were less likely to find fault. America's lawsuit culture is fucking insane now.

And cops don't act like Judge Dredd now, considering that that even armed violent offenders usually get taken into custody alive. As for the outcomes of no-knock raids, that's not an argument against qualified immunity, that's an argument against fucking no-knock raids. And we probably shouldn't be having no-knock raids on residences because that's a generally fucking stupid thing to do, unless you have somebody whose life is in danger. Hell, even normal raids on residences need to be scaled back.

Lirishae posted...

You're arguing that only cops can criticize cops? This is like saying you have to be a movie director before you can criticize a film. You do not need to be a cop to look at the info from other countries and realize that American cops are far more brutal and deadly than any other first world country.

No, I'm telling you that either you don't know what the fuck you're talking about or, more likely, you're trolling by pretending that you don't. And whether somebody is or isn't a cop, they'd know that your post is full of shit.

Lirishae posted...

You know how many people American cops killed in 2017? A thousand. You know how many people British cops killed in 2017? Six. In other first world countries, there's generally an independent organization that investigates police misbehavior. In the US, police generally investigate themselves and rarely have charges brought against them. Cops can do their jobs without being above the law.

...what? I don't even know where to start with all of that idiotic trolling. Doubly so considering that a British officer is IN THE FUCKING NEWS RIGHT NOW FOR MURDER which has led to a lot of anti-police discussion over there. Which is only the start of your misleading and outright false claims which disingenuously compare two very different populations. After all, when British police break into a home, they're very unlikely to get shot at because guns are all but outlawed. Compare that to the US where cops get shot during routine traffic stops.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/27/us/virginia-officer-shot/index.html

Look at the date. That was just LAST MONTH. Something like that is virtually unheard of in England. By the way, the cop's murderer -- who was armed and extremely dangerous -- was killed by cops who tried to arrest him, and is a good example of the majority of people who get killed by cops in the line of duty. Shit is infinitely more dangerous for cops in the US than in England.

Lirishae posted...

Oh you sweet summer child, you. Where have you been? News stories about police showing callous indifference toward human life are all over the freaking place. US police kill over a thousand people each year and injure many more. If you can't care about human life, you should at least care about the billions of taxpayer dollars that municipalities pay to settle wrongful death and injury cases.

You suggested that cops deliberately set a guy on fire for the lulz. Don't fucking move the goalposts. That's the kind of shit where I made that kind of a complete bullshit, trollish claim I'd be warned and I would accept the moderation on the spot because that's 100% wrong to do. And you know it, too, which is why you chose to post that on an alt with a grand total of 15 AMP where a good chunk of your activity has been this topic.

---

Zeus posted...

Qualified immunity is largely what gives them that latitude to operate. They couldn't f***ing operate without qualified immunity. Take that away and then when anybody got injured during an arrest -- which most people who resist arrest will do because physical force becomes necessary -- the cops would have pretty f***ing major problems, so literally all you'd have to do to not be arrested is resist arrest. As for the question of rampant lawsuits, American society wasn't nearly so sue-happy in the f***ing 60s and courts were less likely to find fault. America's lawsuit culture is f***ing insane now.

I can see you didn't read any of the links I posted where this argument is eviscerated. You are assuming that police treat everyone the way they treat middle class white people, which is simply untrue. Poor people and minorities, especially black Americans, have a completely different experience with police that you refuse to see. You're suggesting that we can't question excessive use of force by the police because police won't be able to use any force, which is laughable. And while America does have a problem with nuisance lawsuits used to intimidate and harass little people into silence, your specific invocation of the 60s leads me to believe you meant something else entirely by that statement.

Zeus posted...

And cops don't act like Judge Dredd now, considering that that even armed violent offenders usually get taken into custody alive.

You say that, but where's your proof? Police kill a thousand American civilians per year, many of them innocent, fleeing, or only guilty of misdemeanors. But hey, you don't have to take it on my say-so; check out Reason.com, where you can find right-wing authors chronicling massive police abuses. Not only do police kill many innocent civilians, they steal more from innocent civilians each year via civil asset forfeiture than actual robbers do.

Zeus posted...

...what? I don't even know where to start with all of that idiotic trolling. Doubly so considering that a British officer is IN THE f***ING NEWS RIGHT NOW FOR MURDER which has led to a lot of anti-police discussion over there. Which is only the start of your misleading and outright false claims which disingenuously compare two very different populations. After all, when British police break into a home, they're very unlikely to get shot at because guns are all but outlawed. Compare that to the US where cops get shot during routine traffic stops.

The fact that a police officer murdering someone is a big deal in the UK just goes to show how fundamentally different things are over there. You claim that the US is different, but Germany has one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, yet German police do not kill anywhere near as many people per capita compared to the US. This is another thing you would have known if you read my links. You know what the difference between Amerca and Germany is?

https://germanculture.com.ua/daily/gun-laws-in-germany/

Yep, you just made an argument for gun control all by yourself.

Zeus posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/27/us/virginia-officer-shot/index.html

Look at the date. That was just LAST MONTH. Something like that is virtually unheard of in England. By the way, the cop's murderer -- who was armed and extremely dangerous -- was killed by cops who tried to arrest him, and is a good example of the majority of people who get killed by cops in the line of duty. s*** is infinitely more dangerous for cops in the US than in England.

Oh, please. Policing doesn't even make the top twenty for most dangerous occupations in America. You're far more likely to die on the job as a truck driver than you are as a police officer. Additionally, according to FBI data, most officers who die on duty perish in auto accidents rather than being attacked/shot.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2019-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty

Zeus posted...

You suggested that cops deliberately set a guy on fire for the lulz. Don't f***ing move the goalposts. That's the kind of s*** where I made that kind of a complete bulls***, trollish claim I'd be warned and I would accept the moderation on the spot because that's 100% wrong to do. And you know it, too, which is why you chose to post that on an alt with a grand total of 15 AMP where a good chunk of your activity has been this topic.

Uhh, this has been my only account since 2005. I suggested that they showed a callous indifference toward human life and supported my claim with statistics and news articles. It only seems like trolling to you because it challenges the right-wing orthodoxy you uncritically believe.

---

I always find it weird how Zeus is dead-set against executions as long as they're not done by cops.

---