A bit of a personal attack saying "I have no problem etc".
I'm well aware that police sometimes act quite badly; indeed many years ago I was arrested and the officers lied on the stand but my attorney was able to put doubt as to their testimony in the judge's mind. As the only white member of a nine man band, I''ve been roused roughly by police etc.
Your passion on this issues seems to not notice the word "qualified"-- so far neither of us have engaged on the parameters of that qualification.
Hmm, the "personal attack" feels two edged on my end. Having confessed I don't have the legal background required to formulate an elegant system for ensuring that malfeasant and/or illegal acts by police officers are not underwritten--when something is underwritten you tend to get more of it, don'tcha know--by the state/feds/whomever, you persists in implying the wheels on the law enforcement bus will fall off unless we continue to do just that, even in the face of examples I've provided, examples you have not spoken to where the "Q" is indeed a factor, labeling comments that I view as staying in my lane as "unresponsive," acting as though I don't understand guilt or innocence needs to be established before a penalty phase is entered into, and generally persisting in asking me to provide a solution in a complex area in which I've no expertise, though you do.
So yes, penalties can't be assigned in advance of a trial, but once guilt is established and we get to the penalty portion of the trial financial penalties such as court costs can be assigned, yes? Perhaps if LEOs know they will have to bear those costs if found guilty that may inspire the benefits and costs of illicit behavior to be weighed differently, at least if one assumes, as the criminal justice system does, that assigning accountable costs to crime has an impact on criminal behavior.
At the end of the day a system of justice that appears to support official misconduct that a citizen would undoubtedly be penalized for has its share of downsides and can be used by agitators to inspire conflagrations as we saw occur across the country in the wake of the George Floyd incident and subsequent gross exaggeration and sacrifice on the SJW altar, as I feel was the case, where Thomas Lane in particular is concerned. QI and spineless LEO administrators ought to bear that onus IMO, and I also have no problem in my lay view with coming up with a means of ensuring those types of expedient metaphorical defenestrations don't occur, or at least the officer(s) involved have access to the sorts of resources to counter the weight of political expediency, something I feel would have far more bearing on LEO retention and willingness to engage in proactive law enforcement than modifying QI to disincentivize illegal behavior in an official capacity.
Again as noted, I view my perspective as something of a tautology: bad motivating factors lead to bad outcomes. I assume you don't take issue with that statement, leaving me to wonder what you are arguing for? The status quo? Increasing the protections offered by QI? As it stands I'm left making a point I feel is an obvious one while be asked to offer a solution I don't have the training or background to intelligently craft while you defend ... I'm not sure exactly what, though you've the ol' Esq. to fall back on as the issue is discussed.
This is hardly the first time someone on this list has tried to drag me into their area of expertise, whereupon they can showcase my admitted ignorance, but it's the first time you have done so, and I'm not sure to what end.
Recent Posts
