US high court backs police in 'excessive force' case

[FarCenter]

WASHINGTON (AFP) -
A day after Californians protested the latest police shooting of an unarmed black man, the US Supreme Court signalled Monday that law enforcement officers are generally protected against accusations of excessive force.

The court rejected arguments that an Arizona officer had broken the law in 2010 when he shot and wounded a woman standing in her driveway holding a kitchen knife.

Amy Hughes, who testimony showed was far away from police officers and did not threaten them, accused them of violating her constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Echoing past rulings, the court sided with University of Arizona police officer Andrew Kisela, ruling that he enjoyed, as part of his job, "qualified immunity" in the case.

But two of the nine justices objected strongly to the decision, saying it "sends an alarming signal" that police are usually protected against accusations of unjustified shootings.

http://www.france24.com/en/20180402-us-high-court-backs-police-excessive-force-case

[msongs]

1. when trump gets one more judge the constitution is gonna take a dive bigly nt

[LenaBaby61]

5. "When trump gets one more judge the constitution is gonna take a dive bigly."

We're almost toast NOW in the short year that tRumputin was installed into the White House.

I can only imagine what'll happen when the Mercers and Koch's get their hands on the Constitution.

[USALiberal]

2. There is no downside for cops shooting if they are just a little scared......

They usually get off and keep their job. A lot of cowards who want no risk.

[dalton99a]

4. +1. Plus there is a nice taxpayer-paid vacation.

[dalton99a]

3. "there is nothing right or just under the law about this"

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-467_bqm1.pdf