"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
No Police Immunity for Claims of Urine Torture
Submitted by Melinda L. Secor on Sun, 2012-01-08 01:00
in
"Pennsylvania state police officers do not have immunity from claims that they tortured a woman with pepper spray, cold water and urine while she was in custody and restraints, a federal judge ruled."
0
Your rating: None
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
-
12 weeks 11 hours ago
-
30 weeks 6 days ago
-
38 weeks 6 days ago
-
39 weeks 3 days ago
-
39 weeks 4 days ago
-
1 year 11 weeks ago
-
1 year 15 weeks ago
-
1 year 15 weeks ago
-
1 year 15 weeks ago
-
1 year 26 weeks ago
Comments
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!
"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?