>

Rural American democrats. A lot of them are like that.
Young ruled last year that federal immunity laws shielded Crocker and Gutierrez from Nazario’s claims that they violated his constitutional protections against excessive force and unreasonable seizure, as well as Nazario’s right to free speech by threatening him with arrest if he complained about their behavior.

That sounds interesting for why there would be "federal immunity shield" preventing a claim for actions that seem to be exactly what the government isn't allowed to do.  I'd dig into that further, but I've had enough disappointment for one day.  I'm sure there is some technical basis for why that "makes sense", but it doesn't read positively in this summary. >

Makes zero sense. Rights are there specifically to keep the government from violating them, and the ruling is that "well these government agents have special immunity so of course they're allowed to violate your rights!" >

If they can be taken away, they're not rights. >

Everything can be taken away. There is no such thing as rights >

Such an absurd take, if there's no such thing as rights why do we put so much effort into protecting them? >

Its a pointless empty statement to sound deep. >

So why do we protect rights then?
Wait you were talking about them werent you. Look at all the other comments of people doubling down, it's hilarious. >

Apologies if my message was unclear, I was agreeing with you.
If a law can be broken, is there no such thing as Laws? >

I realized it as soon as posted it, i get triggered pretty easily so it's not you. That is a great question, it's like they still think we live in the wild where there is no right or wrong. >

Right and wrong is subjective. Your cultural and societal influences while growing up effect how you form the concepts of right and wrong. 
There is nothing that is objectively right or wrong.
It's a valuable lesson to learn in life, it's one big grey area. >


Nazario also said: “I’m honestly afraid to get out.”
“You should be,” Gutierrez responded.

Jury: Yeah that seems okay. >

It’s disgusting. I live nearby Windsor and there aren’t a lot of lights through it. It’s a pretty small town. I’m not surprised that he wanted to pull somewhere safer with lights. Should be everyone’s right. >

It is. In fact it's recommended by the State. >

They literally tell you to do this for the safety of the officer… >

Cops get pissed at that though. I had a cop behind me when I was turning right at an intersection. My tabs were past due so he lights me up in the intersection while the light was still red. He gets out and I asked him if we should pull into the gas station directly to our right.  He was pissed and said "I make the decision on when and where to pull you over, not you, do you understand me?" I watched cars back up trying to go around us and people still trying to make right hand turns. I am surprised he didn't get hit or cause anyone to have an accident. All to give me a expired tabs ticket. >

That stuff is so infuriating. It’s one thing if the driver is just nervous and doesn’t wanna piss off the cop but it’s crazy if the cop insists on impeding traffic and creating a dangerous situation. 
There’s an ultra busy 4 lane road where I live with plenty of parking lots on both sides, but I’d say half the time the driver just stops right in the road or even on the median. It’s nuts. Cops should be encouraging people to stop in safe spots. Some do. Most don’t. >

That is such a dangerous place to do a traffic stop for the cop...for the person they are stopping, it isn't as dangerous, but a cop walking around traffic going by is so dangerous. >

Surprisingly, it's actually not dangerous! In 2022, only 4 police officers in the U.S. died due to getting struck by motor vehicles - and that's in any situation, not necessarily just during traffic stops. In the same year, 4 police officers died due to health complications arising from exposure to toxic conditions during the September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001.
In other words, in the year 2022, a cop was equally like to be killed by 9/11 as they were to be killed by getting hit by a car! >

Not everybody dies from being hit by a car… >

As of the pandemic, we only measure health tragedies by the number of body bags. And even then you have to make sure the right tag is on it.
Depressed pessimistic /s >

How can any sane person look at that video and support the police? >

Large portions of our population are still fully under the impression that the police are infallible good guys from decades of propaganda. Large portions of our population are also still very racist and enjoy when the police abuse the "others". Unfortunately it isn't hard to put together a jury of people who will just be happy to "back the blue" no matter what happens. >

I have a democratic family. Their propagandized brains just fail to grasp that cops hardly do anything other than harass people. They do serve the public sometimes, but as far as crime goes they barely help. My brother works in a populated area and seems to think cops at his retail store are a good idea because it stops theft. Fails to realize that our current society is pushing people to feel the need to steal through extreme poverty and cops being there will barely help / is using our taxpayer money to protect a corporations bottom line.  Rather than use that money to help people escape extreme poverty or give them tools to better their life. >

That’s weird because in my experience, it is Republicans and conservatives who back and put their trust in police and their institutions in general. 
I’ve literally never seen a democrat have the stance are talking about.