I have several remarks about the events depicted and discussed below, but make sure to watch the entire video.

First, none of this would happen if the cops involved – FedGov and local/county/state – didn’t want to engage in it.  In other words, they like beating people up.  There is no other explanation for this.  This is sociopathic behavior.

Second, the problem is exacerbated when local/county/state LEOs are deputized as agents of the federal government, whether FBI or Marshals Office or whatever.  Far from being protectors of rights and peace officers, as would need to be the case if the notion of second amendment sanctuaries means anything, it’s apparently too tempting when a local LEO hears the words “Deputized as a Federal Marshal.”  They can’t turn it down under their own volition.  They are in need of a body of laws and regulations on the local and state level telling them they cannot do that without state penalties.

Third, they should not be armed.  They have all proven much to contemptuous of rights and liberties, and much too dangerous, to walk around armed.  In the case of most LEOs, they are “armed to the terror of the public,” as contrasted with open carriers who obey the law, and act in a peaceful manner.

Fourth, whatever body of law that supports the notion of qualified immunity must be turned back.  It essentially means that LEOs, especially federally empowered LEOs, can violate constitutional liberties and rights with no remedy by those they have offended.  This is prima facie ridiculous, and certainly wasn’t envisioned by the founders.  The founders fought a war to stop this sort of thing and then prevent its recurrence.

Fifth, the FedGov has no business in local and state matters.  Fusion centers and joint operations task forces should be banned by law.

Via Instapundit, Judge Don Willett knows what’s what with this doctrine.

Today’s decision upholding qualified immunity is compelled by our controlling precedent. I write separately only to highlight newly published scholarship that paints the qualified-immunity doctrine as flawed— foundationally—from its inception.

For more than half a century, the Supreme Court has claimed that (1) certain common-law immunities existed when § 1983 was enacted in 1871,2 and (2) “no evidence” suggests that Congress meant to abrogate these immunities rather than incorporate them.3 But what if there were such evidence? Indeed, what if the Reconstruction Congress had explicitly stated—right there in the original statutory text—that it was nullifying all common-law defenses against § 1983 actions? That is, what if Congress’s literal language unequivocally negated the original interpretive premise for qualified immunity? Professor Alexander Reinert argues precisely this in his new article, Qualified Immunity’s Flawed Foundation—that courts have been construing the wrong version of § 1983 for virtually its entire legal life.

Wait, what?

[ … ]

In arguing that qualified immunity is flawed from the ground up, Professor Reinert poses a provocative question: “If a legislature enacts a statute, but no one bothers to read it, does it still have interpretive force?”9 It seems a tall order to square the modern qualified-immunity regime with Congress’s originally enacted language. But however seismic the implications of this lost-text research, “‘[a]s middle-management circuit judges,’ we cannot overrule the Supreme Court.”10 Only that Court can definitively grapple with § 1983’s enacted text and decide whether it means what it says—and what, if anything, that means for § 1983 immunity jurisprudence.

If was a gambler, I would lay all of my money down on the SCOTUS not turning back such awful, wicked doctrine and qualified immunity.  Thus, the LEOs dispatched by the FedGov will become ever more hated, performing ever more cruel deeds as they see that they have no check on their behavior.