Supreme Court issues unanimous decision defending police in fatal shooting

[n2doc]

The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled Tuesday in favor of three Arkansas police officers who fired 15 bullets at a fleeing motorist and his passenger, killing both.

With a vote of nine justices to zero, the Supreme Court held in Plumhoff v. Rickard that the officers did not use excessive force and were entitled to “qualified immunity.” A judge-made doctrine with no basis in the Constitution, “qualified immunity” operates to bar civil rights lawsuits that challenge official misconduct. The authoritarian doctrine already results in large numbers of cases being arbitrarily thrown out of court every year, never to be decided by a jury.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Plumhoff in the midst of a rising tide of police killings and violence around the country. Awash with “war on terror” funding and armed to the teeth with military hardware, police in America increasingly operate without restraint and without any conception of basic democratic and legal rights.

Earlier this year in Albuquerque, New Mexico, a police officer was captured on video shooting a homeless man eight times with an assault rifle and saying, “booyah.” This month, bystanders filmed the police gunning down an unarmed man in Long Beach, California. The population confronts an epidemic of similar incidents of police brutality across the country, with the police on average committing between one and two “justifiable homicides” every day.

more

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/05/29/immu-m29.html

[lostincalifornia]

1. What I would need to know is did the police do a background on the license plate and did they

identify the driver in such a way that he poised a real risk to the public?

If not, then why didn't they try to shoot out the tires of the fleeing automobile?

[AngryAmish]

3. Im not a gun person but fancy shooting like that only works in the movies im told

[onenote]

13. This was the culmination of a high speed chase started by the driver

According to the SCOTUS opinion (joined by all 9 Justices):


The police had pulled over the driver for a traffic violation and found evidence that he had been drinking. When they asked the driver to step out of the car, he instead attempted to flee, leading the police on a chase that exceeded 100 miles per hour. The use of rolling road blocks to stop him were unsuccessful but led eventually to collisions between the driver's car and a couple of police cruisers. The driver continued maneuvering in an attempt to extricate his car while the police approached on foot. As they approached, the driver managed to collide with another police cruiser. At that point, three shots were fired into the car, but the driver continued to maneuver, managing to get the car onto another street. The police then fired 12 more shots into the fleeing car, at which point the driver lost control. Cause of death is described as a combination of the gunshots and the effects of the crash.

[geek tragedy]

2. dude was using his car to ram police vehicles with cops in/around them

when you turn your car into a weapon, this is what happens

[bluestateguy]

4. Legitimate news sources please

Not the rantings of the WSWS. Then I'll make a decision.

[n2doc]

6. Hope you never post from CNN or Fox n/t

[truebrit71]

7. Google is your friend...

...just check under "Legitimate News Sources according to some random guy on an obscure Democratic Bulletin Board"...

[enough]

8. Here are a couple:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/12-1117

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/plumhoff-v-rickard/

[truebrit71]

5. Wow.

Good thing it's not a police state yet...



"Qualified Immunity"?

Did these people read the document they are supposedly upholding?

[markpkessinger]

16. Did you read the actual decision?

Look, I am the first to take issue with the excessive use of force by police, and to be sure police brutality is running rampant in this country. But in this particular case, it appears the police were absolutely justified. When a Supreme Court that is as divided as the current one is on virtually every issue that comes before it, a 9-0 ruling should tell you something.

[truebrit71]

18. But the problem is this ruling is then used as a blanket excuse by the fuzz...

...to basically carry on as they please...

THAT is the downside...

[markpkessinger]

19. The decision is by no means a blanket immunity . . .

The concept of 'qualified immunity' has been around for quite some time. No doubt it is sometimes interpreted in an overbroad manner, but it is a necessary concept, since without it you would have every perp under the sun trying to sue police officers. There is nothing about this suit that should prevent someone who is genuinely the victim of police abuse from bringing suit. And in a case such as this one, where a suspect was not only fleeing, but attempting to use his vehicle as a weapon, police were absolutely justified in using whatever force was necessary to stop him.

[NYC Liberal]

9. Good decision. The guy was going over 100mph and rammed through two police cars along the way.

The passenger is a different story, and SCOTUS left open the possibility that their family could sue.

[Lurks Often]

10. Here is a link to the actual decision

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1117_1bn5.pdf

It was a 9-0 decision and after reading summary it seems the correct decision.

[dilby]

11. Remember kids, the only good person with a Gun is a person with a badge. n/t

[JJChambers]

12. More alarmist nonsense

This was clearly the right decision. A unanimous decision was your first clue.

[NCTraveler]

14. Good to see the courts get one right. nt.

[ananda]

15. I'm very liberal and human rights oriented and ..

.. I would have ruled the same way in this case.