- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Qualified Immunity for Concealed Permit Holders?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 11:56 am to ChanceOfRainIsNever
Posted on 2/21/24 at 11:56 am to ChanceOfRainIsNever
Oklahogjr, I don't understand why you think LEOs do not need qualified immunity, especially in this day and age. In a state like Louisiana which is run by trial lawyers, lawsuits would run rampant since there is no cap on $. Remember, you could get sued whether or not you did your job correctly. I'm sure you're sincere; however, don't be surprised if many don't agree with you. 
0
Posted on 2/21/24 at 11:57 am to RaginCajunz
Am I ignorant to the possibilities or is this a terrible idea? Concealed permit holders are already going to be ok from a legal standpoint as long as they are protecting themselves or others while firing their weapon with the exception of gross negligence. Correct? Why would we need QI for them?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 11:59 am to kingbob
quote:
How about if a criminal court finds one acted reasonably in self defense or refuses to charge that makes them immune to civil damages?
Isn’t that qualified immunity though? Concealed permit holders who act reasonably should absolutely have that protection, especially because of the 2nd amendment. Since that right is guaranteed the state should protect those who exercise it reasonably. The question then becomes what is reasonable?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:02 pm to TDsngumbo
Criminal vs civil
Trump was found guilty in a civil case that would have failed miserably if it were criminal due to the lack of evidence.
This keeps the thugs family from taking you over in a civil case.
That’s the dem strategy. Bankrupt those you don’t like.
NYNOLA wants people sued by thug lawyers apparently.
Trump was found guilty in a civil case that would have failed miserably if it were criminal due to the lack of evidence.
This keeps the thugs family from taking you over in a civil case.
That’s the dem strategy. Bankrupt those you don’t like.
NYNOLA wants people sued by thug lawyers apparently.
This post was edited on 2/21/24 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:02 pm to ChanceOfRainIsNever
quote:
You’re arguing for something that already exists
Except it doesn't. Current case law says there's no legal duty for cops to do anything, with the exception of protecting inmates already in custody.
There's no criminal liability for dereliction of duty, etc, if an LEO really drops the ball, much less permanent record of the nature of discharge like you'd have in active service.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:03 pm to RougeDawg
quote:
Scenario: Bad guy is beating the shite out of you in a mugging and reaches for a knife. You are able to draw your weapon and kill him. Police do not press charges. Bad guys family sues you in a civil court for a million because he was a good boy trying to earn money for college.
This law would tell the family to frick off.
This is an excellent bill.
alot of states already have this for justified homicide. I believe louisiana does also. its why zimmerman wasnt sued by trayvons family
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:06 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
Expanding this beyond them is stupid although I'd immediately go get my concealed and carry for the protections...
You’d shoot yourself in the foot.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:06 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
There's no criminal liability for dereliction of duty, etc, if an LEO really drops the ball, much less permanent record of the nature of discharge like you'd have in active service.
Ok I think I see your point now and I agree that it should be criminal if a cop does those things, I’m just trying to have a discussion that there’s another side to that too. We both agree that good policing is something that everyone wants the question is how to get there
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:06 pm to oklahogjr
quote:
It's been a terrible situation having them not responsible for their own decisions.
These cops you despise deal not only with absolute scum of the Earth on a daily, hourly basis, but corrupt, Politicized Judges who will hang them out to dry with the flimsiest of excuses.
A Policeman can do everything RIGHT and still end up having his life ruined by a POS judge with a Political axe to grind.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:29 pm to oklahogjr
You do not understand how QI works. LEOs are held responsible for their CRIMINAL acts. QI protects LEO from being hung out to dry for doing their lawful duties.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:42 pm to ValhallaAwaits
quote:
LEOs are held responsible for their CRIMINAL acts. QI protects LEO from being hung out to dry for doing their lawful duties.
While technically true, guess who determines what "lawful duty" means?
The larger problem is that while it doesn't protect them from criminal (as they see it) acts, it does protect them from mistakes, negligence, etc etc etc.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 12:52 pm to roadGator
Thank you. I get it now.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:02 pm to RougeDawg
quote:
Scenario: Bad guy is beating the shite out of you in a mugging and reaches for a knife. You are able to draw your weapon and kill him. Police do not press charges. Bad guys family sues you in a civil court for a million because he was a good boy trying to earn money for college.
This law would tell the family to frick off.
This is an excellent bill.
on face value, I agree with you. however, this seems like an olive branch or even a trojan horse in an attempt to gain a gun owners list.
bottom line.....never trust politicians. period.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:14 pm to Screaming Viking
You won’t need to be on a list.
It would just shield you from civil action in the event you legally used your fire arm.
It would just shield you from civil action in the event you legally used your fire arm.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:15 pm to SlidellCajun
quote:
If you have a conceal carry permit, you get some civil liability immunity if you shoot someone.
Why?
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:17 pm to TDsngumbo
quote:
Am I ignorant to the possibilities or is this a terrible idea? Concealed permit holders are already going to be ok from a legal standpoint as long as they are protecting themselves or others while firing their weapon with the exception of gross negligence. Correct? Why would we need QI for them?
I agree the civil lawsuits are bullshite. It sounds more like a reason for tort reform. I still don't understand what the concealed carry class has to do with rewarding qualified immunity to some members of civilian society?
The majority of my CC class was dealing with laws and when to engage etc. Extra knowledge of the law still doesn't seam reason to grant someone with a special immunity.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:27 pm to Clames
quote:
"Stand Your Ground" Laws provide
Stand your ground protects you from criminal liability not civil they can still sue you and wether they win or not bankrupt you with legal fees
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:42 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
What about having that CC class should protect someone from a "bad kill?"
Not much about the class.
It doesn't have to be a kill.
quote:
keep some of the stupidity at bay.
Like I can't be sued for exercising my rights.
quote:
I'm all for constitutional carry.
It doesn't sound like it.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:46 pm to LSUbest
quote:
I'm all for constitutional carry.
It doesn't sound like it.
I am. I think the CC Permit is a bullshite gov tax. I fail to see why it should create a class of citizen protected from BS civil lawsuits. If we agree the civil lawsuit game is a problem, fix that. Don't carve out a special class of people who sat through 8 hours of classroom instruction that has no bearing on the particulars of a civil lawsuit.
Posted on 2/21/24 at 1:47 pm to RaginCajunz
quote:
I still don't understand what the concealed carry class has to do with rewarding qualified immunity to some members of civilian society?
As it stands, the use of a firearm to defend oneself is very likely to result in a huge financial burden, if not bankruptcy, either from spending money to hire a lawyer to defend the inevitable civil suit from young scholar’s family, or, even worse, paying a judgment because they convinced a jury that some action you took in the collection of split seconds that made up the encounter was somehow slightly negligent.
In comparison to the above scenario, think of qualified immunity as a presumption that the concealed carry defender was right and justified and immune from suit unless they can prove gross neligence, malicious intent, etc. It hasn’t eliminated the possibility that they can be held liable for bad actions. It’s a decision that, as a matter of public policy, we don’t want to subject defenders to that kind of civil liability if any aspect of their actions was justified. As a society, we would rather err on the side of the defenders.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News