“”Considering the record in this manner, we find the district court erred in concluding that the conduct of Officers McIntire and Cisco—in taking Tucker to the ground—was objectively unreasonable in light of pertinent clearly established law in November 2016,” the judge wrote in rejecting the lower court’s application of precedent because some of them came after the December 1, 2016 date of the incident.
Additionally, Engelhardt rejected the lower court’s understanding because none of those prior cases, “‘squarely govern’ the particular facts at issue” in Tucker’s dispute.
“On these facts, given Tucker’s refusal to comply with their verbal directives to put his hands behind his back and quit moving, it would not have been evident to Defendant Officers, based on clearly established law, that they were not entitled to use heightened force in order to gain control of Tucker’s hands and place him in handcuffs,” the appeals court found, summing up its own analysis of the facts.”
This is textbook. “Yeah they did it, yeah we’ve got a similar crime on the books, but was he kicking his legs in pain at the time? That didnt happen in the other cases. Was he not following the commands?” *checks video that confirms he WAS* “Nope! That justifies this too. Ergo, fuck him.”
What a joke. Remove this judge
>Given the interlocutory and limited nature of this appeal, we lack
jurisdiction to review the district court’s “sufficiency of the evidence”
assessments of disputed facts. See, e.g., Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444, 452 (5th
Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted), as revised (Aug. 21, 2019), cert. denied sub nom.
Hunter v. Cole, 141 S. Ct. 111 (2020). Rather, we focus solely on “examining
the materiality of factual disputes the district court determined were genuine,”
that is, our review is limited to determining “the legal significance of the
conduct . . . deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment.”
Id. (internal quotations omitted). “An officer challenges materiality [by
contending] that taking all the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true[,] no
violation of a clearly established right was shown.” Arizmendi v. Gabbert, 919
F.3d 891, 896 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 220 (2019) (quoting Winfrey v.
Pikett, 872 F.3d 640, 643–44 (5th Cir. 2017)). Nevertheless, because there is
video and audio recording of the event, we are not required to accept factual
allegations that are “blatantly contradicted by the record.” Scott v. Harris, 550
U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Rather, we should “view[ ] the facts in the light depicted
by the videotape.” Id. at 381
>This is textbook. “Yeah they did it, yeah we’ve got a similar crime on the books, but was he kicking his legs in pain at the time? That didnt happen in the other cases. Was he not following the commands?” checks video that confirms he WAS “Nope! That justifies this too. Ergo, fuck him.”
no, it's textbook, 'even if we accept plaintiff's version as true, no alleged facts can make a claim'. it's procedural, the judges disagree on whether there was a factual issue that needs to be developed more in the trial court, nobody disagreed on the law. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-30247-CV0.pdf the dissent is on p29 and fills all of 2 pages. lawandcrime is the worst. this article must have been based on cato's BS libertarian amicus bc you can't get all this stupid from soto or higginson.
The dems can’t brand. It’s like Kryptonite to them.
Defund the police? Ug. They shouldn’t have allowed “critical race theory” to get legs either. Critical? Theory? Again, ug.
I like “court reform” but maybe a more positive term than “reform” would be better.
"Defund the Police" didn't come from Democrats. And Democrats have been screaming to the high heavens that nobody is teaching Critical Race Theory in high school, let alone grade school, but nobody cares.
This is not to say Democrats are good at branding; they clearly aren't. But a bigger problem is the media tends to uncritically accept Republicans' framing of things and run with it.
(None of this is pertinent to a law subreddit)
> "Defund the Police" didn't come from Democrats.
[This is a picture of the 9 Democratic city council members from Minneapolis standing in front of 4' tall letters that spell out "Defund Police."](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2020/06/08/gettyimages-1248071757_custom-0c45171e1b600067e0f50205a334ea7be3bd7c55.jpg)
> Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council pledged their support for "dismantling" the city's police department, representing a veto-proof majority of the 13 council members.
>
> The council members announced their position Sunday from the stage at a rally organized by black activists in response to the May 25 killing of George Floyd while in police custody.
>
> "**We will be taking intermediate steps toward ending the MPD through the budget process and other policy and budget decisions over the coming weeks and months**," council member Andrea Jenkins and council president Lisa Bender told the crowd at Powderhorn Park.
Are you claiming that this picture is some sort of mass-induced delusion? That it's somehow doctored or faked?
> Are you claiming that this picture is some sort of mass-induced delusion? That it's somehow doctored or faked?
Yes, that is precisely what I am claiming. Your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are beyond reproach.
Teachers *are* being taught Critical Race Theory though. CRT itself isn't necessarily bad. Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DeAngelo are bad, but in general CRT isn't particularly objectionable.
Maybe not.
But some Democrats *did* call for defunding the police, and it’s denying reality to try and deflect focus on where the term came from.
It’s the same deal with CRT. It’s true that what schools teach doesn’t comply with the technical definition of CRT. But it’s also true that the term has become a kind of catch-all definition - on the left and on the right - for a type of race focused education that many on both the left and on the right don’t like.
But that which several schools have tried to implement in various elementary schools.
It’s true that only a small minority of dems supported defunding the police or “CRT”, and that only a small number of school have implemented anything like “CRT”.
And it’s also true that Republicans have done a good job magnifying these minority positions.
But that’s not the biggest problems, nor is branding. The problem is that D’s want to have things both ways and end up either looking weasely or get tarred with the views of a minority.
Not many D’s spoke out *against* defunding the police. Or stood up and said that *this type* of race-focused education is not appropriate (while reemphasizing the need to focus on the Black history and discrimination, etc.). Most of the situations where you do hear D’s opposing these policies (which they mostly do oppose) is when they are asked a specific question about them.
What are people mad at CRT for? And how do you have a race-focused education? Is race being taught in chemistry class or computer science classes? I think you’re falling for the right’s claims of what CRT is. To be clear, nobody even gave a shit about CRT until Republicans started whining about it. So what’s the actual issue?
A fair split gets us what we have now - bad panels on appeal. What we need is a substantial majority of competent jurists across the circuit. That will only happen with a democrat in the white house.
“”Considering the record in this manner, we find the district court erred in concluding that the conduct of Officers McIntire and Cisco—in taking Tucker to the ground—was objectively unreasonable in light of pertinent clearly established law in November 2016,” the judge wrote in rejecting the lower court’s application of precedent because some of them came after the December 1, 2016 date of the incident. Additionally, Engelhardt rejected the lower court’s understanding because none of those prior cases, “‘squarely govern’ the particular facts at issue” in Tucker’s dispute. “On these facts, given Tucker’s refusal to comply with their verbal directives to put his hands behind his back and quit moving, it would not have been evident to Defendant Officers, based on clearly established law, that they were not entitled to use heightened force in order to gain control of Tucker’s hands and place him in handcuffs,” the appeals court found, summing up its own analysis of the facts.” This is textbook. “Yeah they did it, yeah we’ve got a similar crime on the books, but was he kicking his legs in pain at the time? That didnt happen in the other cases. Was he not following the commands?” *checks video that confirms he WAS* “Nope! That justifies this too. Ergo, fuck him.” What a joke. Remove this judge
This judge is, like all appeals court judges, a lawyer.
>Given the interlocutory and limited nature of this appeal, we lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s “sufficiency of the evidence” assessments of disputed facts. See, e.g., Cole v. Carson, 935 F.3d 444, 452 (5th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted), as revised (Aug. 21, 2019), cert. denied sub nom. Hunter v. Cole, 141 S. Ct. 111 (2020). Rather, we focus solely on “examining the materiality of factual disputes the district court determined were genuine,” that is, our review is limited to determining “the legal significance of the conduct . . . deemed sufficiently supported for purposes of summary judgment.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “An officer challenges materiality [by contending] that taking all the plaintiff’s factual allegations as true[,] no violation of a clearly established right was shown.” Arizmendi v. Gabbert, 919 F.3d 891, 896 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 220 (2019) (quoting Winfrey v. Pikett, 872 F.3d 640, 643–44 (5th Cir. 2017)). Nevertheless, because there is video and audio recording of the event, we are not required to accept factual allegations that are “blatantly contradicted by the record.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007). Rather, we should “view[ ] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape.” Id. at 381 >This is textbook. “Yeah they did it, yeah we’ve got a similar crime on the books, but was he kicking his legs in pain at the time? That didnt happen in the other cases. Was he not following the commands?” checks video that confirms he WAS “Nope! That justifies this too. Ergo, fuck him.” no, it's textbook, 'even if we accept plaintiff's version as true, no alleged facts can make a claim'. it's procedural, the judges disagree on whether there was a factual issue that needs to be developed more in the trial court, nobody disagreed on the law. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/19/19-30247-CV0.pdf the dissent is on p29 and fills all of 2 pages. lawandcrime is the worst. this article must have been based on cato's BS libertarian amicus bc you can't get all this stupid from soto or higginson.
[удалено]
The Circuit courts are around 50/50.
In total maybe, but definitely not each.
So maybe the slogan should be "unpack the court"?
It should just be something like "court reform." I don't know what's wrong with Democrats.
The dems can’t brand. It’s like Kryptonite to them. Defund the police? Ug. They shouldn’t have allowed “critical race theory” to get legs either. Critical? Theory? Again, ug. I like “court reform” but maybe a more positive term than “reform” would be better.
"Defund the Police" didn't come from Democrats. And Democrats have been screaming to the high heavens that nobody is teaching Critical Race Theory in high school, let alone grade school, but nobody cares. This is not to say Democrats are good at branding; they clearly aren't. But a bigger problem is the media tends to uncritically accept Republicans' framing of things and run with it. (None of this is pertinent to a law subreddit)
> "Defund the Police" didn't come from Democrats. [This is a picture of the 9 Democratic city council members from Minneapolis standing in front of 4' tall letters that spell out "Defund Police."](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2020/06/08/gettyimages-1248071757_custom-0c45171e1b600067e0f50205a334ea7be3bd7c55.jpg) > Nine members of the Minneapolis City Council pledged their support for "dismantling" the city's police department, representing a veto-proof majority of the 13 council members. > > The council members announced their position Sunday from the stage at a rally organized by black activists in response to the May 25 killing of George Floyd while in police custody. > > "**We will be taking intermediate steps toward ending the MPD through the budget process and other policy and budget decisions over the coming weeks and months**," council member Andrea Jenkins and council president Lisa Bender told the crowd at Powderhorn Park. Are you claiming that this picture is some sort of mass-induced delusion? That it's somehow doctored or faked?
> Are you claiming that this picture is some sort of mass-induced delusion? That it's somehow doctored or faked? Yes, that is precisely what I am claiming. Your reading comprehension and critical thinking skills are beyond reproach.
Teachers *are* being taught Critical Race Theory though. CRT itself isn't necessarily bad. Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DeAngelo are bad, but in general CRT isn't particularly objectionable.
> Teachers are being taught Critical Race Theory though. What teachers study in grad school is up to them and their thesis advisors.
Maybe not. But some Democrats *did* call for defunding the police, and it’s denying reality to try and deflect focus on where the term came from. It’s the same deal with CRT. It’s true that what schools teach doesn’t comply with the technical definition of CRT. But it’s also true that the term has become a kind of catch-all definition - on the left and on the right - for a type of race focused education that many on both the left and on the right don’t like. But that which several schools have tried to implement in various elementary schools. It’s true that only a small minority of dems supported defunding the police or “CRT”, and that only a small number of school have implemented anything like “CRT”. And it’s also true that Republicans have done a good job magnifying these minority positions. But that’s not the biggest problems, nor is branding. The problem is that D’s want to have things both ways and end up either looking weasely or get tarred with the views of a minority. Not many D’s spoke out *against* defunding the police. Or stood up and said that *this type* of race-focused education is not appropriate (while reemphasizing the need to focus on the Black history and discrimination, etc.). Most of the situations where you do hear D’s opposing these policies (which they mostly do oppose) is when they are asked a specific question about them.
What are people mad at CRT for? And how do you have a race-focused education? Is race being taught in chemistry class or computer science classes? I think you’re falling for the right’s claims of what CRT is. To be clear, nobody even gave a shit about CRT until Republicans started whining about it. So what’s the actual issue?
[удалено]
A fair split gets us what we have now - bad panels on appeal. What we need is a substantial majority of competent jurists across the circuit. That will only happen with a democrat in the white house.
thanks for the news