No Police Immunity for Claims of Urine Torture


Suverans2's picture
    They claimed that "...the officers were intending to serve the purposes of their 'master,' the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania..." according to the court's summary.

Say, who is this person, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania"? Is this so-called 'master' fiction or non-fiction? If (s)he is non-fiction, I would like to talk to him, or her, and, NO, THANK YOU, I do not want to talk to his, or her, 'agent(s)' or 'representative(s)', I want to talk to him, or her, face-to-face. I want to look this non-fiction 'master' in the fricken eye when (s)he falsely accuses me!

Suverans2's picture
    "Commonwealth employees are immune from liability due to intentional misconduct, so long as the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment," [Chief U.S. District Judge Gary] Lancaster wrote.

Interesting! How can "intentional misconduct" be "within the scope of his or her employment"?

'Sounds' like an oxymoron, but then, I'm not a "white...mendacious...domestic...foppish whore", so it probably would seem that way to me.

If there are any "white...mendacious...domestic...foppish whores" in the house, maybe we could 'hear' from you next?