I hope the families of every one of these victims sues the federal government.

[Bricker]

@The_Tao_s_Revenge

Arizona needed to get the word out about what the law really meant, then. As I said people, particularly people in troubled situations, don’t necessarily understand their rights. Further the government recognizes this on some level, otherwise what’s the point of the Miranda rights?

When the nuttier elements of the Tea Party decried health care proposals that would establish “death panels,” I don’t remember too many people here opining that the fault lay with the bill’s proponents for failing to get the word out on the actual provisions of their bill. Instead, people’s complaints were – quite rightly – directed at the incorrect claim that there were death panels.

So, too, here. The hysterical reporting about SB1070 is itself responsible for raising peoples’ fears. Despite numerous attempts at corrections, with citations to the text, people on this board repeatedly made claims about how SB1070 required police to lock up anyone who didn’t have papers. And this board is supposedly populated with people interested in fighting ignorance. It’s no wonder that these kinds of claims gained even more traction in other communities.

As to Miranda rights – yes, the purpose of the Miranda decision was to establish a prophylactic rule regarding the admissibility of confessions: if the suspect was not explicitly informed of his rights, his statements could not be used in evidence against him. This was intended to ensure that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination was given full effect. But the Miranda decision applies to an individual arrestee, and doesn’t contemplate, for example, requiring an ad campaign for the general public.

[Steve_MB]

@magellan01

Not to trouble you too much, but why can’t someone sue the government for this type of thing?

One most certainly can sue the government for this type of thing.

One can also sue the government for shooting ray beams from Area 51 and wilting your begonias.

The two suits would have roughly equal chances of success.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Bricker

When the nuttier elements of the Tea Party decried health care proposals that would establish “death panels,” I don’t remember too many people here opining that the fault lay with the bill’s proponents for failing to get the word out on the actual provisions of their bill. Instead, people’s complaints were – quite rightly – directed at the incorrect claim that there were death panels.

So, too, here. The hysterical reporting about SB1070 is itself responsible for raising peoples’ fears. Despite numerous attempts at corrections, with citations to the text, people on this board repeatedly made claims about how SB1070 required police to lock up anyone who didn’t have papers. And this board is supposedly populated with people interested in fighting ignorance. It’s no wonder that these kinds of claims gained even more traction in other communities.

As to Miranda rights – yes, the purpose of the Miranda decision was to establish a prophylactic rule regarding the admissibility of confessions: if the suspect was not explicitly informed of his rights, his statements could not be used in evidence against him. This was intended to ensure that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against self-incrimination was given full effect. But the Miranda decision applies to an individual arrestee, and doesn’t contemplate, for example, requiring an ad campaign for the general public.

You miss the forest for the trees. Miranda rights would be irrelevant if people were presumed to magically be aware of their rights.

Back to Tu Quoquing I see. I thought you felt Tu Quoqueing was a hijack?

First off do you have any cites that any person was discouraged from receiving health-care? Because I’ve already presented evidence of people suffering physical abuse as a result of this law.

Further Racial Profiling is a documented problem in the US. Per the freaking United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination:

C. Racial Profiling of Immigrants Racial profiling of Latino/as as undocumented immigrants is also pervasive across the country, particularly in the states along the U.S. Mexico border, in violation of the Convention and General Recommendation XXX.109 Human rights advocates in Wisconsin also report that it is a local police and sheriff’s deputy practice to stop individuals who they perceive as immigrants, who are almost exclusively Latino/a, inquire about their immigration status, and notify immigration officials of alleged violations of immigration laws. Almost all violations of immigration law are civil, rather than criminal, and enforcement of civil immigration laws exceeds the authority of local law enforcement.110
D. Behavioral Profiling as a Proxy For Racial Profiling Moreover, the practice of “behavioral profiling,” which is increasingly serving as a proxy for racial profiling and has similarly racially disparate impacts, has become more widespread among

In addition to the racial predicates of some of these criteria, use of such vague or widely applicable characteristics also allows officers to exercise the considerable discretion afforded them to act on racial bias or race-based pre-conceptions as to which racial groups are more likely to represent a “terrorist” threat. 115 Moreover, in some cases behavioral profiles make explicit
reference to religion, classifying it as suspicious if an individual “[e]xpends energy to not stand out as a Muslim, despite professed Islamic beliefs.”116 Other characteristics identified as indicative of a potential terrorist threat are disproportionately manifested in certain communities.

For instance, reliance on “unwillingness to make eye contact”117 as a basis for suspicion will disproportionately impact certain groups, including some Asians and Arabs, who consider making eye contact to be rude or disrespectful.118 Similarly, officers are more likely to interpret “nervous behavior”119 exhibited by minorities as evidence of criminal intent, when in fact for many people of color and immigrants, ill-treatment by police in their home countries and/or uneasy relations with the police in the U.S.120 may make them nervous around law
enforcement.121

The report includes grizzly accounts of police brutality.

2. Physical Beatings
   As suggested by available national data concerning traffic stops, excessive force is
   disproportionately used against people of color across the U.S.61 For instance, a recentinvestigation revealed that use of force by officers in San Francisco police department– definedas any physical restraint causing injury up to shooting a person to death – was alarmingly high, and that 40% of cases in which force was used involved African Americans, who make up less than 8% of the City’s population.62 The following cases of excessive force are representative of hundreds of similar cases, many unreported by the media. In most incidents, the culpable police officers have not been brought to justice.

Here’s a few of the many documented examples in the report:

• In 2006, CB, a Haitian man was sitting in his car when Minneapolis Police Officer Mark Beaupre approached him with his gun drawn. CB asked why he was being stopped and Beaupre ordered him to put his hands behind his back. CB informed Beaupre that he was having shoulder surgery the next day and could not put one of his arms behind his back. Beaupre threw him to the ground, jumped on his back and put his fingers in both of his eyes, scratching them severely. CB begged him to stop, to which he replied, “Nigger I’ll put your eye out." Beaupre’s partner, Kristin Sturgis, hit CB at least 25-30 times with a nightstick and ripped dreadlocks from his head. At the precinct Sturgis told him, “We Rodney Kinged you.” Although obviously injured, he was refused medical care in the jail. He was charged with felony assault on a police officer and had to go to trial to defend himself. He was ultimately acquitted of all charges.63

• In July 2005, St. Paul, Minnesota police arrived at the home of DS, a Native American woman, asking for her husband. She asked if they had a warrant, and when they indicated they did not, she refused them entry explaining she was not dressed. The police pushed the door in, knocked her down and injured her 12-year-old daughter. They screamed and swore at her and would not allow her to call an ambulance. One of the officers threatened her, stating “I will call downtown and get a welfare worker. I guarantee you will never receive another benefit in your life.” Police eventually called an ambulance. DS spent four hours in the hospital being treated for injuries to her neck, back, shoulder and arm. While there, she was visited in the hospital by a police officer who took pictures “for our records.” DS left the hospital uncharged.6

So yea, maybe people are a little leery of things that encourage racial profiling.

However lets say both things are factually equivalent and the good year blimp of hypocrisy. Why am I wrong in this case?

[magellan01]

@Bricker

Sure!

Sovereign immunity is so sweeping that it protects the government even in that case.

But let’s remember what sovereign immunity is: it’s the immunity of the government from lawsuits, except where it consents to be sued. Assuming the federal government or a state government was directly liable for the disrepair of the building, there will be a law that allows people to sue the government in that sort of case.

This isn’t my area of law, but I can give a brief overview. The federal government has waived its immunity for torts committed by federal employees thought the passage of the Federal Tort Claims Act (PDF).

States have similar laws allowing citizen to sue them, and there’s also a federal law (42 USC § 1983) making states amenable to suits for violating federal civil rights.

Thanks. So, if I understand this: if I can, in fact, sue my town of San Francisco for damage to my car for hitting a huge pothole, it is because at some point the city took the steps to make that allowable. Correct?

[Acsenray]

Bricker, is there any reason in this discussion to bring up the issue of the chain of proximate cause being broken by an intentional act?