Even in this seemingly clear definition, it’s amazing how many angels dance on the head of a pin (judicial interpretation of circumstances). The following blog http://www.section1983blog.com is worth following as to how convoluted judicial thinking can be to err on the side of the officer or prosecutor (who have essentially been given de facto absolute immunity).

I agree wholeheartedly with qualified immunity. But I also agree with the following by Roy Kerns: “However, what about cases where said officials openly and willfully did something they very clearly should have known not to do?
I claim the response obvious: they should personally bear some of the costs. ” Not collect trial OT, then suspension pay, and then move to another jurisdiction. When you knowingly harm someone, you are civilly libel for damages.

But, unfortunately, there is common sense decency, the Law, and the System. They are not one and the same.

i always thought cha-ching sounded better, but ka-ching has a nice ring to it also.

You’re the johnny law of the other side of the issue.

In the appellate court’s own words, my blog was used against me.

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/12/22/one-down-one-to-go/

Also, the newest illegality; bad attitude.
It’s now illegal to have a “bad attitude.”

I agree with A. Magnus.
How long before we the people adopt our own new rule?

You know, when I see you (the cops) I’m just going to start shooting and consider it self defense.