TexasCHLforum.com

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/ ... eme-court/

“In the early morning hours of July 15, 2012, a young man named Andrew Scott was up late, home with his girlfriend. They were playing video games when they heard a loud pounding on the door. Alarmed, Scott grabbed a pistol and opened the door. He saw a man crouching outside in the darkness. Scott retreated, gun still at his side, pointing down to the ground.

Almost instantly, the crouching figure fired his own weapon. The encounter was over in two seconds. Scott lay on the ground, dead. The man who fired? He was a police officer. He was at the wrong house. Andrew Scott was a completely innocent man who had done nothing more than exercise his constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense of his own home.

As for the officer? Well, not only was he at the wrong house, but he had no search warrant even for the correct house, he had not turned on his emergency lights, and he did not identify himself as police when he pounded on the door.

The officer was never prosecuted. The state ruled that the shooting was “justified” — in part because it said the police had no obligation to identify themselves. Then, when Scott’s estate sued the officer for money damages, the court threw out the lawsuit. A panel from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Then last year the entire court rejected en banc review.”

I'm thinking in public here, which is dangerous, but it seems citizens ought to be compensated when their government wrongs them.

So if the government agent could not reasonably be expected to know his conduct was wrong, let the citizen recover from the government employer. If the government agent knew or should have known the conduct was wrong, make the agent personally liable--as well as the government, which should have hired better agents.

Here's some additional discussion of the case cited:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/307505/#respond

KLB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:41 pm I'm thinking in public here, which is dangerous, but it seems citizens ought to be compensated when their government wrongs them.

So if the government agent could not reasonably be expected to know his conduct was wrong, let the citizen recover from the government employer. If the government agent knew or should have known the conduct was wrong, make the agent personally liable--as well as the government, which should have hired better agents.

While I see where you're going here. Keep in mind that the government does not have any money of it's own. Every penny that the federal/state/local governments have is from the governed. While the person mentioned above suffered a terrible tragedy, you are effectively proposing that the rest of the citizenry compensate them for their loss.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:47 pm

KLB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:41 pm I'm thinking in public here, which is dangerous, but it seems citizens ought to be compensated when their government wrongs them.

So if the government agent could not reasonably be expected to know his conduct was wrong, let the citizen recover from the government employer. If the government agent knew or should have known the conduct was wrong, make the agent personally liable--as well as the government, which should have hired better agents.

While I see where you're going here. Keep in mind that the government does not have any money of it's own. Every penny that the federal/state/local governments have is from the governed. While the person mentioned above suffered a terrible tragedy, you are effectively proposing that the rest of the citizenry compensate them for their loss.

We already compensate people for their loss. FEMA doles out huge sums of cash. Our money.

This won't get fixed until a few homeowners survive and the Leo's at the wrong house get killed.

It’s just an awful story for that family. After all that and they receive nothing. Doesn’t seem right.

Also raises the point of these no-knock warrants. Definitely contributed to his death.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:47 pmWhile I see where you're going here. Keep in mind that the government does not have any money of it's own. Every penny that the federal/state/local governments have is from the governed. While the person mentioned above suffered a terrible tragedy, you are effectively proposing that the rest of the citizenry compensate them for their loss.

Certainly it's taxpayers' money, but we set up the government and the police, because we expect to get more benefit than cost. But injury to innocent people is part of the cost that should be factored into the equation. Why should some hapless schmoe who has the misfortune of encountering rogue police have to bear the cost? We all should bear the cost, because we maintain the police for our benefit.

KLB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:41 pm I'm thinking in public here, which is dangerous, but it seems citizens ought to be compensated when their government wrongs them.

So if the government agent could not reasonably be expected to know his conduct was wrong, let the citizen recover from the government employer. If the government agent knew or should have known the conduct was wrong, make the agent personally liable--as well as the government, which should have hired better agents.

The problem is it's our money.

I'm not sure qualified immunity applies in this case. She wasn't operating in her official capacity.

I think the application of it is wrong.

KLB wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:41 pm I'm thinking in public here, which is dangerous, but it seems citizens ought to be compensated when their government wrongs them.

So if the government agent could not reasonably be expected to know his conduct was wrong, let the citizen recover from the government employer. If the government agent knew or should have known the conduct was wrong, make the agent personally liable--as well as the government, which should have hired better agents.

If the government agent could not reasonably be expected to know that the conduct in the OP was wrong, then we need to abolish that government agency and replace it with an agency where the employees are trained sufficiently to actually know not to do insane crap like this.

The homeowner should have exercised better SA by not opening the door, and possibly also been better prepared / armed. Other than that, I agree that he did nothing wrong.

Bottom line, before we entrust certain of our fellow citizens with the power to take away our freedom and even our lives, we need to ensure that those folks are up to the task. And we also need to never forget that the safety of ourselves and our family is our responsibility, not something that we should ever delegate to others.

This is one of the few things for which I think new Legislation would perhaps be a good answer. Generally speaking, there are already plenty of laws on the books. In this case, it would be a law born of judicial activism.

Flightmare wrote: ↑Thu Sep 13, 2018 9:47 pm While I see where you're going here. Keep in mind that the government does not have any money of it's own. Every penny that the federal/state/local governments have is from the governed. While the person mentioned above suffered a terrible tragedy, you are effectively proposing that the rest of the citizenry compensate them for their loss.

Then you would also be named in the lawsuit since you are compensating the officer for his service with your money. Same thing.