r/TikTokCringe • u/New_Libran • 26d ago

Discussion The easiest $30k this guy ever made

On October 26, 2022, the judge ruled that Walden's contact with Land should have ended when it became clear that Land was not sleeping in the park or in need of assistance, and that the city was not responsible for Walden's actions.

On November 22, 2022, the city settled the lawsuit for $30,000.

45.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

956

u/hogsucker 26d ago

Heien v North Carolina established that it's actually to a cop's benefit to be ignorant of the law. 

Improperly gathered evidence that should be inadmissible is permitted if a cop credibly claims he thought he was enforcing a law.

507

u/Kiddo1029 26d ago

And yet normal citizens don’t get a break for being ignorant of the law.

180

u/chinggiswhat 26d ago

Oh yeah, that's called "qualified" immunity.

What a joke of a "free" country

-11

u/Legionof1 26d ago

Not what qualified immunity is but good try.

14

u/TheColorblindSnail 26d ago

Actually I believe if you believe you followed tax code but it was minorly wrong they give you a pass on it but make you correct it.

Otherwise, 100%.

9

u/Jumprdude 26d ago

The IRS is actually quite practical about this. Their goal is to collect taxes, they'd much rather have people pay up rather than spend $ and time prosecuting people for honest mistakes.

6

u/ocxtitan 26d ago

if only they'd just tell us what we owe or that they owe us instead of allowing shitty companies like Intuit to lobby against simplifying our taxes

63

u/Cavaquillo 26d ago

Funny you can’t be ignorant of the law when breaking it but they don’t need to know anything about what they’re enforcing. Thats where tongues meet boots

2

u/DreadfulDave19 26d ago

Part of the design

3

u/fatdjsin 26d ago

They need to remove every mention the "freedom" in the us marketing material...it's eroded to only protect the rich now

7

u/IgnatiusRileyFreeman 26d ago

I think the word 'credible' carries a lot of weight, here. That case was specifically about a broken light on a car, and how North Carolina law technically allows driving with only one light. In any other state, the cop would have been correct. The law in this case wouldn't be able to be construed out of narrow situations like that. 

24

u/Dyolf_Knip 26d ago

"I thought everyone was required to provide ID to a cop on demand, no matter what"

And cops are genuinely stupid enough to believe that's actually true.

3

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 26d ago

Nonsense.

1

u/IgnatiusRileyFreeman 26d ago

Which part? Lots of legal rulings are a lot more narrow than you think

3

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 26d ago

Pretending the word 'credible' means shit. Well, other than "whatever the cop felt like that day."

2

u/WarJaques 26d ago

I think Heien's case was weakened by given consent to search, but yeah: Failure to know the law should not be an excuse for a cop.

1

u/mongojob 26d ago

Well they are fucking nailing it lol

1

u/unalivemaps 26d ago

Because the Fourth Amendment tolerates only objectively reasonable mistakes, cf. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813, an officer can gain no advantage through poor study. Finally, while the maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” correctly implies that the State cannot impose punishment based on a mistake of law, it does not mean a reasonable mistake of law cannot justify an investigatory stop. Pp. 4–12.

Another moronic redditor

5

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 26d ago edited 26d ago

All fun nonsense that, in practice, allows cops to do whatever the fuck they feel like and then lie that they had no idea they were wrong.

You need to actually look at the actual effect the ruling actually has, rather than hiding behind words on a page. And the actual effect is cops get away with flagrantly violating rights regularly and pretend they had no idea they were doing so.

It's the exact same logic as was used to justify magicking up the concept of qualified immunity from the ether because the immunity the law actually explicitly created was "too restrictive". (ie cops couldn't wantonly abuse their power and get away scott free every time.)

1

u/unalivemaps 26d ago

Your comment exposes your ignorance. You have 0% understanding of law. Stfu

5

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 26d ago

Do I really have to start pulling out cases to show how little meaning "objectively reasonable" actually has? It might as well be "do whatever you feel like. I don't even care." with how easy a standard it is to pass by just claiming ignorance and mentioning something not-really-related.

1

u/unalivemaps 26d ago

Do it. You won't cause you know you're talking out your ass

1

u/Gornarok 26d ago

US constitution is just of piece of toilet paper. Its ignored by the whole government.

1

u/unalivemaps 26d ago

If what you said is true, youll be in prison for criticizing the government. Dumbass