New Mexico Governor wants to make cops like Judge Dredd- Full Immunity!

**unclejumbo** · January 13th, 2018, 12:25 PM

Always two edges to these swords.

On one hand, it will give a level of immunity to those officers that shouldn't have it.

On the other, it will keep municipalities from being sued by idiots that get injured due to their actions then turn around and sue for those injuries. Too many of them are paid off because it's cheaper than a full trial.

I doubt it will work because the lawsuit will be an argument whether the officer followed his training or not.

**vinnyg101** · January 13th, 2018, 07:03 PM

Originally Posted by john9001

" I was just following orders", didn't work at the Nuremberg trials.

You are an alert thinker!!

Rep sent!

**vinnyg101** · January 13th, 2018, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by Bang

Judges are immune when innocent people are found guilty and do long stretches in prison. They are also immune when the guilty are found not guilty and go out and kill someone a week later. And there isn't always a jury to blame.

Why would anybody think a judge is guilty if a dirt bag murders somebody as noted above?

Devils Advocate

**JAKIII** · January 13th, 2018, 07:17 PM

Originally Posted by streaker69

Everything that cops do will always be considered "following training" or "using experience" to justify their actions, no matter how horrible their actions may be.

I read these “talking points” somewhere in some other thread. Perhaps it was posted by dean... can’t recall. Nevertheless, broad-brush comments, such as these, are only relevant for ‘death and taxes’.

**Gunsnwater** · January 13th, 2018, 07:23 PM

Governor Susana Martinez's bill would shield officers who fail to comply with police orders but would not protect officers who do not obey orders or break from training, according to the Albuquerque Journal.

What is the difference between fail to comply with police orders and do not obey orders?

**Manxdriver** · January 13th, 2018, 10:26 PM

I'd agree with this as long as the minute it's found that a cop did something dirty, he gets his life ass-raped just as bad as the people they screw over when they screw up! Oh, and EVERY cop around them who knew, or should have known about the bad cop, gets screwed too!
I had a thought last night while watching that show 911.theres a character, black, female, Sergeant. She found out her husband is gay and now she's just a royal, jaw-jutting, angry , miserable bitch. With her for a wife, no wonder hes gay!
Anyway, wife was watching this, and I was on my iPad, and catching that mindless drivel in the background. Then the thought hit me.
Old man Reedman used to have a policy in all his shops, or , at least it was rumored to be so, and the fact that he was ALWAYS hiring sort of confirmed the rumor. Every month, every one of his shops would hold a vote, secret ballot, to decide who was the least worthy to keep his job. The guy with the most votes would find himself outside looking for a job unless Reedman really liked him, or he was a solid producer.
So, how about every six months, secret ballot , in each department, vote out the crookedest cop? It would certainly make everyone else straighten up and fly right pretty quickly. Oh, and to ensure that everyone voted, and didn't just turn in a blank piece of paper, fire anyone who gets caught not voting.

**nfafan** · January 14th, 2018, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by john9001

" I was just following orders", didn't work at the Nuremberg trials.

Seems to work for LEOs at all levels in the USA.

**BenGlock** · January 14th, 2018, 11:01 PM

This is proposed STATE legislation. Most lawsuits against police are brought under Section 1983, which is a federal law. State law cannot supersede federal law and, therefore, this legislation would have no impact on civil rights lawsuits against police. The only impact this could have is on lawsuits brought pursuant to any NM state civil rights law. I don’t know if NM has such a law, Pennsylvania does not.

**KCJones** · January 14th, 2018, 11:13 PM

Honestly, this one's a pickle. Not even just this particular legislation, but the concept.

Do I think MOST cops are decent folks trying to protect & serve? Yeah, I know many of 'em.
Do I think there are bad cops out there, power-drunk, nuts or whatever? Hell yeah, I've known a couple of those too (my own cousin, e.g. who -thankfully- was drummed out).
Do I think good cops get caught up in such lawsuits for no real/good reason, often having their lives & careers ruined? Yep.
Do I think some such lawsuits sometimes target bad cops and are a 'last resort' for departments didn't purge on their own those who deserve it? Yeah.

I don't have an answer. You shelter the good cops from wrongful lawsuits (and thereby help other good cops who don't have to second-guess everything) that's good. You will also inevitably shelter psycho bad cops in doing so.

What's the greater good? Do we force our good cops to worry constantly about 'what if' and some of them have their lives ruined by unmerited suits in the spirit of "not even one bad cop gets past?" OR do we adopt a 'not letting one bad apple spoil the barrel' attitude and protect the good cops knowing we'll cover some jackholes too?