Supreme Court backs Arizona policeman accused of excessive force

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with an Arizona police officer in a case testing the constitutional limits for the use of force, throwing out a lawsuit brought against him by a woman he shot four times in her driveway while she held a large kitchen knife.

Over the dissent of two liberal justices, the court overturned a 2016 lower court ruling that had allowed the civil rights lawsuit seeking at least $150,000 in damages from University of Arizona Police Department Corporal Andrew Kisela to proceed.

The wounded woman, Amy Hughes, had accused Kisela of using excessive force in the 2010 incident in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The court issued its decision at a time of intense focus on the issue of police use of force arising from a series of incidents around the country including shootings by officers of unarmed suspects. Protests erupted in California’s capital Sacramento after last month’s police shooting of an unarmed black man named Stephon Clark.

-snip-

SUPREME COURT APRIL 2, 2018 / 9:44 AM / UPDATED AN HOUR AGO
Andrew Chung
4 MIN READ


Read more: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-police/supreme-court-backs-arizona-policeman-accused-of-excessive-force-idUSKCN1H9170

[benld74]

1. Additional BS from courts wrong side

[former9thward]

11. Which side?

It was a 7-2 decision.

[benld74]

12. Side opposite Soto and Gins of course

[former9thward]

13. Two liberals voted in the majority.

I was just wondering how you were keeping score.

[benld74]

14. So glad to meet your approval

Can’t even make comments without a 3rd degree
Anymore?
WTH
I do read the cases before commenting

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Kisela’s conduct was unreasonable and the court should not shield him from liability. Sotomayor criticized the court’s decision as another example of its “unflinching willingness” to reverse lower courts when they deny officers immunity. Fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sotomayor in the dissent.

The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” Sotomayor added.

[former9thward]

15. If you think my comments were the 3rd degree

I would wonder what you think of other posts on this site.

But that aside I think the message of the court was that it is suicidal to approach a police officer with a weapon or anything that appears to be a weapon. A cop does not have to wait until they are struck by a knife before responding. A cop does not have to wait until a person kills a dog over a $20 subscription before acting. A cop does not have to wait before the roommate's throat is slit before acting.

[benld74]

16. I still side with the two ladies.

[Angry Dragon]

2. POLICE STATE

[Lonestarblue]

3. Police state indeed!

The Court just declared open season on all people of color. Do what you want—no questions asked. The worst that will happen to a cop is firing, as with the cop in New Orleans who murdered a black man.

[bucolic_frolic]

4. Degrees of force, degrees of threat

Unable to talk down or taze a woman with a knife and shooting her 4 times to disarm the threat

seems overestimated threat and overusing force to me, but maybe they were in close proximity, who knows

[groundloop]

5. Please read the article before jumping to conclusions

The woman was holding a large knife while following her roommate outside, police had received a call about a woman wielding a knife and acting erratically, she was ordered to drop the knife and didn't, and when shot she had started moving towards her roommate.

Personally, I'm on the fence on this one. One way of looking at it is that the cops possibly saved someone from a knife attack.

[djg21]

6. Agree with you.

Last edited Tue Apr 3, 2018, 09:17 AM - Edit history (1)

Imagine the outrage if the roommate had been stabbed to death after the responding officers had decided not to fire. If one can reasonably be on the fence, then qualified immunity probably should protect the officers.

[Jedi Guy]

9. Yep, I agree.

The cops were damned if they did, damned if they didn't. If they hadn't shot her and she'd killed or injured her roommate, everyone would be screaming about how they should have intervened to save the victim. No matter what they do, they're always wrong, according to some folks.

[procon]

7. It also should be noted that the victim had bipolar disorder and was taking medication.

Police seem to share a common philosophy that revolves around the notion that if they have a hammer then everything is a nail. That might work in construction, but not in police work, let alone the treatment of people with mental illnesses.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Kisela’s conduct was unreasonable and the court should not shield him from liability. Sotomayor criticized the court’s decision as another example of its “unflinching willingness” to reverse lower courts when they deny officers immunity. Fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sotomayor in the dissent.

The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” Sotomayor added.

[mountain grammy]

8. I agree with Sotomayor and Ginsburg on this.

We are always sending the "wrong signal" to police.

[Jedi Guy]

10. Out of curiosity...

Let's say that they had held back and not opened fire, and the woman had stabbed her roommate and killed her. What would you say then?