| ... |
... |
@@ -1,0
+1,14 @@ |
|
1 |
+====TEXT – the 50 States should do ''''''''''''''''''''''' |
|
2 |
+ |
|
3 |
+====States set binding precedent –CP fiats federal courts consistently deny appeals ==== |
|
4 |
+,,Michael S.,, **Catlett 05,** ,,JD, University of Arizona College of Law, "Clearly Not Established: Decisional Law and the Qualified Immunity Doctrine," Arizona Law Review Vol. 47, 2005.,, |
|
5 |
+2. Has the Constitutional Right Been Pronounced In Binding Precedent? When binding |
|
6 |
+AND |
|
7 |
+, the nonexistence of such precede.nt does not end the inquiry. |
|
8 |
+ |
|
9 |
+ |
|
10 |
+====States CP solves better==== |
|
11 |
+Thompson 15, ,,Legislative Attorney, 2015 ~~Police Use of Force: Rules, Remedies, and Reforms, Richard M. Thompson II, Legislative Attorney October 30, 2015, Congressional Research Service 7-5700, www.crs.gov, R44256~~,, |
|
12 |
+These reforms prompt the perennial debate concerning the role of Congress in addressing police reform |
|
13 |
+AND |
|
14 |
+not adequately held their officers legally accountable for the improper use of force. |