Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

  • Thread starter Thread starter lovesMary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
majick275 said:
they could sue the abusive/neglectful foster parents or they could sue the individual CPS member that committed the abuse but no they can’t get money out of it.
Click to expand...
hmm… so some people are above the law… just like judges are… no accountability…

Told ya

(That this country isn’t as free as one thinks… or believes)
 
distracted said:
hmm… so some people are above the law… just like judges are… no accountability…

Told ya

(That this country isn’t as free as one thinks… or believes)
Click to expand...
yes. judges in family court especially can pretty much do what they want. i have seen that one for myself.

personal injury suits are nothing but debate contests between lawyers trying to dupe ignorant jurors into siding with them.

criminal verdicts can be bought since once again a collection of people who don’t know the law and were selected at random and then vetted by potential bias will decide the case…and just so you know…judges can set aside jury verdicts too.

it’s not as bad as europe and it’s way less corrupt than central or south america and far more free than asia but america is neither a true democracy nor the land of freedom.

but until God rules us himself no government is capable of being perfect. i’ll take the USA as the best i’ve found in spite of it’s imperfections.
 
twopekinguys said:
It’s called “qualified immunity”. Try this link instead:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity
Click to expand...
Thank you. That only proves my point. It is called “qualified immunity,” not “total immunity,” or “unconditional immunity”. Here is the text of your quote:

Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal constitutional law which shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court’s inquiry into a defendant’s subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent’s liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with “malice,” but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that her actions violated clearly established law.

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

The “qualification” is established in the clearly established law clause. There is no such thing as blanket immunity. There are boundaries which they cannot cross, otherwise they lose their immunity.

Furthermore, this “immunity” is only granted to individual officers who act in the course of their duty. It does not apply to the institution itself. If it becomes clear that there has been an institutional failure, as there appears to have been in this case (with hundreds of armed officers going there with armored vehicles invading the private compound of an unarmed and peaceful group, and taking hundreds of kids from innocent families in complete violation of clearly established guidelines), that no longer has any “immunity”. It becomes subject to prosecution in civil courts.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
Thank you. That only proves my point. It is called “qualified immunity,” not “total immunity,” or “unconditional immunity”. Here is the text of your quote:

Qualified immunity is a doctrine in U.S. federal constitutional law which shields government officials from liability for the violation of an individual’s federal constitutional rights. This grant of immunity is available to state or federal employees performing discretionary functions where their actions, even if later found to be unlawful, did not violate "clearly established law." The defense of qualified immunity was created by the U.S. Supreme Court, replacing a court’s inquiry into a defendant’s subjective state of mind with an inquiry into the objective reasonableness of the contested action. A government agent’s liability in a federal civil rights lawsuit now no longer turns upon whether the defendant acted with “malice,” but on whether a hypothetical reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have known that her actions violated clearly established law.

As outlined by the Supreme Court in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982),[1] qualified immunity is designed to shield government officials from actions “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”

The “qualification” is established in the clearly established law clause. There is no such thing as blanket immunity. There are boundaries which they cannot cross, otherwise they lose their immunity.

Furthermore, this “immunity” is only granted to individual officers who act in the course of their duty. It does not apply to the institution itself. If it becomes clear that there has been an institutional failure, as there appears to have been in this case (with hundreds of armed officers going there with armored vehicles invading the private compound of an unarmed and peaceful group, and taking hundreds of kids from innocent families in complete violation of clearly established guidelines), that no longer has any “immunity”. It becomes subject to prosecution in civil courts.

zerinus
Click to expand...
you obviously misunderstood this article then. the qualified immunity only applies to individuals within CPS. CPS itself, i.e. the state still has sovereign immunity. the CPS employess aren’t going to have substantial assets and the states are off limits so no one is going to profit financially from suing over this.

Waco was far worse (branch davidians) and no one got money from that
 
majick275 said:
you obviously misunderstood this article then. the qualified immunity only applies to individuals within CPS. CPS itself, i.e. the state still has sovereign immunity. the CPS employess aren’t going to have substantial assets and the states are off limits so no one is going to profit financially from suing over this.

Waco was far worse (branch davidians) and no one got money from that
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
majick275 said:
you obviously misunderstood this article then. the qualified immunity only applies to individuals within CPS. CPS itself, i.e. the state still has sovereign immunity. the CPS employess aren’t going to have substantial assets and the states are off limits so no one is going to profit financially from suing over this.
Click to expand...
Okay, I looked it up. It looks more complicated than that, and It is not certain that it applies to CPS or not. There are exceptions:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Immunity
Waco was far worse (branch davidians) and no one got money from that
Click to expand...
Waco was invaded by an army. CPS is not an army. I don’t know enough about the charter of the CPS to now how it falls. In any case, whether they are sued or not, the collapse of the case could have some very serious reprecussions, such the ligalization of polygamy, or redefining the guidelines so that such a thing could not happen again. Also, su or not, there may be provisions for claiming compensation under CPS’s own rules, or those of Texas. There are too many unknown factors. We just have to wait and see.

zerinus
 
the mayor of eldorado was interviewed a few weeks ago and expressed the community’s aoutrage over the way inwhich the FLDS (allegedly) misrepresented themselves during the deal on the property. The community has not been happy with the FLDS presence there, evidently.

Isn’t this reminiscent of the problems the earlier LDS peoples had with their neigborhs?
 
PaulDupre said:
Those who work for CPS, or any gov’t agency, are only protected from lawsuits so long as they are acting within the scope of their official duties. Any employee who murdered someone under color of authority would not be immune to either prosecution or civil suit because they acted outside the scope of their authority.
Click to expand...
taking children from non-abusive parents is a form of murder…

There is murder of the body and murder of the mind/heart/soul…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top