Posted: Today 8:06:34 AM EDT
|
It wasn't clearly established that holding someone down in fire ants is excessive force so they get immunity. https://reason.com/2026/09/09/appeals-court-grants-immunity-to-texas-cops-who-held-handcuffed-woman-face-down-in-a-fire-ant-hill/ |
Joined:
May 2024
Posts:
3920
EE: 0% (0)
AL, USA
Big girls make all your dreams come true!
Joined:
Dec 2001
Posts:
63635
EE: 100% (4)
WV, USA
|
Originally Posted By AttachedFile: I remember that one she ran and got tackled/cuffed, in a fireant bed. I think the cop didn't see the antbed or believe her vs the headline of he held her intentionally in the ants. You can’t swing a dead cat in the south now without getting in to fire ants. They are getting thick here in TN, as are the current Texas imports, Armadillos. |
|
Originally Posted By VidaEterna: You can’t swing a dead cat in the south now without getting in to fire ants. They are getting thick here in TN, as are the current Texas imports, Armadillos. In 2015 I had never seen a fire ant. That year I started working an hour away and there were fire ants everywhere. They tore me up so many times early on. Thankfully, some hitchhiked home with me and now we have them too lol. Those things are aggravating as hell. They get in conduits and screw up switches, get in meter boxes, etc. |
|
Sounds like when assholes collide. Santa Fe Independent School District Police officers arrested Rogers in 2021 after she drove erratically through a school parking lot and disobeyed commands to stop. According to the 5th Circuit opinion, she continued to thrash and resist officers in a state of hysteria after being handcuffed. |
Joined:
Jan 2024
Posts:
147
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
The Reason article has a sensationalized headline, as always. The ruling only briefly mentions the fire ant bites, and it is not what the officers are being sued over. The actual ruling is really only on two points. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-40367.0.pdf One, was the Chief, who responded to the scene, liable under "bystander liability" for failing to intervene. Two, was about the main officer's "use of leverage techniques to subdue her, alleging those techniques constituted excessive force." In reading the actual ruling, the plaintiff's attorney's failed to locate any cases that were similar to the fact pattern in this one, and the court ignored some of the plaintiff's arguments because they were contradicted by the video. The officers, according to the court, did not intentionally put her on a fire ant mound; that was an unfortunate thing that happened because of her own resistance and the officers removed her from the ground as soon as it was clear that there were fire ants there. This case appears to have more to do with the plaintiff's attorney not doing a good job. I can also think of another way, based off 5th Circuit case law, that the officers could have been granted QI, because she "pled guilty to a charge of felony evading arrest with a motor vehicle" according to the Court. In the 5th Circuit, a conviction for resisting/evading/interfering/assault on officers means that the court applies Heck v. Humphrey as meaning that the officers' version of events is the correct one and they will not overrule another court's adjudication of a crime. If a Plaintiff pled guilty, the Court essentially views it as the Plaintiff admitting that the officers' version of events is correct. They could have dismissed the case by that method, too, and it would not have sounded as controversial. |
|
Originally Posted By perfectsilence: So who WOULD determine that this case is an example of excessive force? If the standard to be met is to show that a similar technique was ruled as excessive in the past, then who would make such a determination in this case? Jury. |
|
Originally Posted By AttachedFile: I remember that one she ran and got tackled/cuffed, in a fireant bed. I think the cop didn't see the antbed or believe her vs the headline of he held her intentionally in the ants. I have a dim recollection of the event, but I seem to remember her resisting pretty heavily. I'm also thinking the ants were incidental to them trying to handcuff her, after getting her on the ground, and not an intentional "use of force". I'd love the see the raw footage leading up to the arrest, but I'm having trouble finding it. |
"All planes close up tight . . .we'll have to ditch unless landfall . . .when the first plane drops below 10 gallons, we all go down together."
|
Originally Posted By Predicament: I've got nothing nice to say about those cops. 
|
I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me and say "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
|
Originally Posted By TraininginTexas: The Reason article has a sensationalized headline, as always. The ruling only briefly mentions the fire ant bites, and it is not what the officers are being sued over. The actual ruling is really only on two points. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-40367.0.pdf One, was the Chief, who responded to the scene, liable under "bystander liability" for failing to intervene. Two, was about the main officer's "use of leverage techniques to subdue her, alleging those techniques constituted excessive force." In reading the actual ruling, the plaintiff's attorney's failed to locate any cases that were similar to the fact pattern in this one, and the court ignored some of the plaintiff's arguments because they were contradicted by the video. The officers, according to the court, did not intentionally put her on a fire ant mound; that was an unfortunate thing that happened because of her own resistance and the officers removed her from the ground as soon as it was clear that there were fire ants there. This case appears to have more to do with the plaintiff's attorney not doing a good job. I can also think of another way, based off 5th Circuit case law, that the officers could have been granted QI, because she "pled guilty to a charge of felony evading arrest with a motor vehicle" according to the Court. In the 5th Circuit, a conviction for resisting/evading/interfering/assault on officers means that the court applies Heck v. Humphrey as meaning that the officers' version of events is the correct one and they will not overrule another court's adjudication of a crime. If a Plaintiff pled guilty, the Court essentially views it as the Plaintiff admitting that the officers' version of events is correct. They could have dismissed the case by that method, too, and it would not have sounded as controversial. Correct. Sensationalist headline. Kind of like a teen asking two cops what time it is and then he pulls a gun and tries to shoot them and the cops kill him. Headline: Police kill child after he asks the for the time |
|
Sometimes my judgement of LEO’s activities is harsher than the mean here seems to be. Sometimes it is more forgiving. Here the incident seems to be someone was running and resisting and happened to fall in a fire ant hill and they got the cuffs on and got her up. It seems to be more of an act of God than anything to judge someone about. |
|
QI is the catch-22 for anyone trying to claim excessive force, or any other rights violation against the cops. Supreme Court has said that there must be a previous case where the same rights violation happened in the same way to show that the cops should have known what they were doing was wrong. But of course any previous case was dismissed because there wasn't a previous case to it, so the dismissed case doesn't count so the cops didn't know what they did was wrong and can't be sued for doing it. Only when the rights violation is so egregious that it should be obvious it was wrong can the cops be sued. |
|
Originally Posted By AttachedFile: I remember that one she ran and got tackled/cuffed, in a fireant bed. I think the cop didn't see the antbed or believe her vs the headline of he held her intentionally in the ants. I think this is correct. I can remember just laying on the grass when I was a kid and pretty commonly getting stung even when there wasn’t a bed around. When multiple ants get on their victims, they release pheromones to make sure they’re getting multiple stings. I don’t see a bed in the photo where she’s face down on the grass, though she might be on top of it and I would imagine a policeman trying to subdue a resisting suspect probably wouldn’t notice it. Resisting and all of a sudden realizing they’re getting their ass tore up by fireants probably would take a little bit of time for an arresting officer to realize what was happening, definitely enough time for her to get stung as many times as the photo is showing. I doubt a police officer that’s been stung by these bastards just stood by without trying to get them off of her. |
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio,
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Vivat Iesus.
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Vivat Iesus.
|
Originally Posted By flippflopped: In 2015 I had never seen a fire ant. That year I started working an hour away and there were fire ants everywhere. They tore me up so many times early on. Thankfully, some hitchhiked home with me and now we have them too lol. Those things are aggravating as hell. They get in conduits and screw up switches, get in meter boxes, etc. Originally Posted By flippflopped: Originally Posted By VidaEterna: You can’t swing a dead cat in the south now without getting in to fire ants. They are getting thick here in TN, as are the current Texas imports, Armadillos. In 2015 I had never seen a fire ant. That year I started working an hour away and there were fire ants everywhere. They tore me up so many times early on. Thankfully, some hitchhiked home with me and now we have them too lol. Those things are aggravating as hell. They get in conduits and screw up switches, get in meter boxes, etc. The ones that get into meter boxes and air conditioners is a different type of ant. They’re not any fun, either, but not quite as bad as fireant stings. |
Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio,
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Vivat Iesus.
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Vivat Iesus.
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: QI is the catch-22 for anyone trying to claim excessive force, or any other rights violation against the cops. Supreme Court has said that there must be a previous case where the same rights violation happened in the same way to show that the cops should have known what they were doing was wrong. But of course any previous case was dismissed because there wasn't a previous case to it, so the dismissed case doesn't count so the cops didn't know what they did was wrong and can't be sued for doing it. Only when the rights violation is so egregious that it should be obvious it was wrong can the cops be sued. Our whole system is a complete and total sham. It truly borders the unbelievable. |
|
Originally Posted By Hostile1: Our whole system is a complete and total sham. It truly borders the unbelievable. |
Joined:
Jan 2024
Posts:
148
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By alligator94: It is, and also completely contrary to the constitution as written. Thankfully we have clowns in robes that tell us everything the government does is okay because they are in charge. Originally Posted By alligator94: Originally Posted By Hostile1: Our whole system is a complete and total sham. It truly borders the unbelievable. The Constitution, when it was written, excluded suing the Government through Sovereign Immunity. When that wasn't clear enough, one of the first acts of the first Congress was to pass another Constitutional Amendment to make Sovereign Immunity even more clear. |
|
Originally Posted By glklvr: Correct. Sensationalist headline. Kind of like a teen asking two cops what time it is and then he pulls a gun and tries to shoot them and the cops kill him. Headline: Police kill child after he asks the for the time The problem is that GD buys into clickbait all the time and even when confronted with the facts, many times they just double down hoping their false narrative outweighs the facts. |
I obey what I choose to obey.
Joined:
Oct 2003
Posts:
36295
EE: 100% (4)
LA, USA
|
Originally Posted By flippflopped: In 2015 I had never seen a fire ant. That year I started working an hour away and there were fire ants everywhere. They tore me up so many times early on. Thankfully, some hitchhiked home with me and now we have them too lol. Those things are aggravating as hell. They get in conduits and screw up switches, get in meter boxes, etc. Originally Posted By flippflopped: Originally Posted By VidaEterna: You can’t swing a dead cat in the south now without getting in to fire ants. They are getting thick here in TN, as are the current Texas imports, Armadillos. In 2015 I had never seen a fire ant. That year I started working an hour away and there were fire ants everywhere. They tore me up so many times early on. Thankfully, some hitchhiked home with me and now we have them too lol. Those things are aggravating as hell. They get in conduits and screw up switches, get in meter boxes, etc. That sounds more like raspberry crazy ants. |
We've now proven that we have zero rights, just what privileges we are allowed at any given time.
"Yes, Minister" is required viewing. Seriously, watch it. Along with "Yes, Prime Minister." They are not fiction.
"Yes, Minister" is required viewing. Seriously, watch it. Along with "Yes, Prime Minister." They are not fiction.
|
Originally Posted By gotigers: I dont know the details of this story and dont care, but "the officers were shielded from her claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity." QI should be banned. Blanket BS like this endorses corruption. Agreed, Q/I is over-used and shields bad behavior. But from what's been shared about this story, Karen FA, FO and created the scenario specifically where she wound up cuffed face-down on a mound of fire ants. Had she acted like a rational adult, this entire scenario would never have happened. It seems the cops did get her off the fire ant mound as soon as it was realized, so no-bill for me. Karen needs to stop acting like an asshole in public. |
|
Originally Posted By TraininginTexas: The Reason article has a sensationalized headline, as always. The ruling only briefly mentions the fire ant bites, and it is not what the officers are being sued over. The actual ruling is really only on two points. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/25/25-40367.0.pdf One, was the Chief, who responded to the scene, liable under "bystander liability" for failing to intervene. Two, was about the main officer's "use of leverage techniques to subdue her, alleging those techniques constituted excessive force." In reading the actual ruling, the plaintiff's attorney's failed to locate any cases that were similar to the fact pattern in this one, and the court ignored some of the plaintiff's arguments because they were contradicted by the video. The officers, according to the court, did not intentionally put her on a fire ant mound; that was an unfortunate thing that happened because of her own resistance and the officers removed her from the ground as soon as it was clear that there were fire ants there. This case appears to have more to do with the plaintiff's attorney not doing a good job. I can also think of another way, based off 5th Circuit case law, that the officers could have been granted QI, because she "pled guilty to a charge of felony evading arrest with a motor vehicle" according to the Court. In the 5th Circuit, a conviction for resisting/evading/interfering/assault on officers means that the court applies Heck v. Humphrey as meaning that the officers' version of events is the correct one and they will not overrule another court's adjudication of a crime. If a Plaintiff pled guilty, the Court essentially views it as the Plaintiff admitting that the officers' version of events is correct. They could have dismissed the case by that method, too, and it would not have sounded as controversial. Yes, from what I recall it was where she landed after resisting arrest. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
|
Originally Posted By peanutman: I will do what I want to do when I want too. If you hurt me while I am doing what I want to do. I will sue. If she was a reasonable adult, she would have stopped and complied. Or not driving like a drunk. Instead, she wanted to act like a child brat and resist arrest. |
|
Originally Posted By gotigers: I dont know the details of this story and dont care, but "the officers were shielded from her claims under the doctrine of qualified immunity." QI should be banned. Blanket BS like this endorses corruption. Yeah, good luck with that, the ones being hired now are not always the best/brightest. No one with half a brain would sign up for that job if you could get sued for simply doing your job. Hint, lawyers aren't cheap and before you mention recouping losses from filing a frivolous lawsuit, you can't get blood from a stone. Fire ants are now making their way into VA. |
|
Originally Posted By MaxFenig: This reminds me of the officers who held the person down on the asphalt in the summer heat. I think it was somewhere out west. Of course I doubt the officer aimed her face for an ant bed, but you never know with these clowns these days. I had the exact opposite. Dead winter, zero degree weather, ice still on the ground. 2AM, Lowlifes having a loud party in a flea bag motel, ground level. Everyone was being cool and they were being identified before being Trespassed by management. D-bag who had a warrant (unknown at time) bolts past the officer at the door into the parking lot. I get a hold of him and he winds up face down on the asphalt. His T-shirt rode up and he had his bare abdomen on the pavement. He starts wailing about it. "Its cold, it's cold". Guess what? I'm going to cuff you first, search you for weapons, before I roll you over. It was only maybe a minute before I rolled him over and sat him up. I didn't intentionally delay getting him up but safety first, especially when I don't know at the time why you bolted. Don't do stupid shit and you won't be temporarily uncomfortable. I was pissed because when I grabbed a hold of him, we both slipped on the ice and he landed on the front of a parked Crown Vic cruiser. It was so cold, he cracked the plastic honeycomb pattern front grille. I can see where ants could get some bites in. BS lawsuit is BS. |
|
Originally Posted By VidaEterna: You can’t swing a dead cat in the south now without getting in to fire ants. They are getting thick here in TN, as are the current Texas imports, Armadillos. I wonder who the lucky one was that got to pop all those pustules? Sidetrack here, but WTF? Searched where armadillos originated, and came upon these two freaks I never knew existed. The giant armadillo, and the Pink Fairy armadillo. Attached File Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By tep0583: I have a dim recollection of the event, but I seem to remember her resisting pretty heavily. I'm also thinking the ants were incidental to them trying to handcuff her, after getting her on the ground, and not an intentional "use of force". I'd love the see the raw footage leading up to the arrest, but I'm having trouble finding it. Yep, some people here think reading is for suckers. She was acting psycho and resisting after driving erratically thru a school parking lot. Looks like these were city cops working as SROs so their jobs were to protect the students. So the cops looked for an anthill to plant her face in during the melee? FFS. Its unfortunate but shit like this sometimes just happens. It wouldn't take but a few 15-20 seconds to get that many ants on you from an active hill. Stands in contrast to this case where the officers should have gotten the guy up from the pavement sooner: https://www.abc15.com/news/local-news/investigations/man-suffers-third-degree-burns-while-being-held-on-hot-pavement-by-phoenix-police |
|
Originally Posted By perfectsilence: So who WOULD determine that this case is an example of excessive force? If the standard to be met is to show that a similar technique was ruled as excessive in the past, then who would make such a determination in this case? I hate to miss out on a good dogpile, but I’m pretty sure the plaintiff here was the one to dictate where she got taken down and arrested, it’s not like the cops are going to do a site survey before tackling Ms. PrincessandthePea. She bought the ticket and took the ride. Don’t evade arrest near fire ant hill next time. |
Never make another person a priority when they merely see you as an option...
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
|
Originally Posted By wvfarrier: Its always interesting to see the contortions courts go through to shield cops The average cop probably goes thru several hundred accusations of excessive force in a career. If only 1% are successful in suing over bullshit like this story, and cops are personally liable for it or lose their jobs, it ends up being a default system where you don’t have cops anymore. Would you want to arrest beligerent drunk/high subjects all day long and have to worry that every single one of them was a legit shot at a ghetto lottery that you lose your job over? |
Never make another person a priority when they merely see you as an option...
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
"Some People Are Like Slinkies. They're Not Really Good For Anything, But They Bring a Smile To Your Face When Pushed Down The Stairs."
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: QI is the catch-22 for anyone trying to claim excessive force, or any other rights violation against the cops. Supreme Court has said that there must be a previous case where the same rights violation happened in the same way to show that the cops should have known what they were doing was wrong. But of course any previous case was dismissed because there wasn't a previous case to it, so the dismissed case doesn't count so the cops didn't know what they did was wrong and can't be sued for doing it. Only when the rights violation is so egregious that it should be obvious it was wrong can the cops be sued. You're not supposed to notice that feature. |
|
Originally Posted By TheOtherDave: I hate to miss out on a good dogpile, but I’m pretty sure the plaintiff here was the one to dictate where she got taken down and arrested, it’s not like the cops are going to do a site survey before tackling Ms. PrincessandthePea. She bought the ticket and took the ride. Don’t evade arrest near fire ant hill next time.  Or |
|
Originally Posted By engineer61: QI is the catch-22 for anyone trying to claim excessive force, or any other rights violation against the cops. Supreme Court has said that there must be a previous case where the same rights violation happened in the same way to show that the cops should have known what they were doing was wrong. But of course any previous case was dismissed because there wasn't a previous case to it, so the dismissed case doesn't count so the cops didn't know what they did was wrong and can't be sued for doing it. Only when the rights violation is so egregious that it should be obvious it was wrong can the cops be sued. Read the actual court opinion/decision: For Rogers to show her rights were clearly established, she must pinpoint cases from this court or the Supreme Court showing a constitutional violation by “an officer acting under similar circumstances . . . .” Joseph, 981 F.3d at 330 (internal quotation, alterations, and citation omitted). “While there need not be ‘a case directly on point,’ the unlawfulness of the challenged conduct must be ‘beyond debate.’” Id. (citation omitted). Rogers takes issue with Officer Carranza’s use of leverage techniques to subdue her, alleging those techniques constituted excessive force. For support, she cites multiple cases, contending they clearly establish that violation. But the cases Rogers offers do not sustain her claim. The facts in Joseph bear no resemblance to this matter. It wasn't that there was NOT a previous case, but rather the cases noted by the plaintiff in her lawsuit did not resemble what took place in this case in terms of the use of force. The plaintiff must provide the case examples, not the court. And ants have nothing to do with this decision. |
