The Supreme Court made it harder Monday to sue police for using deadly force against fleeing suspects, ruling that officers are immune from lawsuits unless it is "beyond debate" that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable.
By an 8-1 vote, the justices tossed out an excessive force suit against a Texas police officer who ignored his supervisor's warning and took a high-powered rifle to a highway overpass to shoot at an approaching car. The officer said he hoped to stop the car but instead shot and killed the driver.
The high court said the benefit of the doubt in such cases always goes to the police officer who sees a potentially dangerous situation. The court has "never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment," the justices said in an unsigned 12-page opinion.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor faulted the majority for "sanctioning a 'shoot first, think later' approach to policing."The one dissenting voice is concerning, of course. 8 - 1. The decision was about as short as I've ever seen reported, 12 pages. Seems Sonia is out of her element. Even Ms Ginsberg was among the eight.
Again, The Los Angeles Times showing its bias: headline was that the Supreme Court was giving cops using deadly force more immunity. Sounds like they simply maintained the status quo. According to the decision, the court has "never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment," the justices said in an unsigned 12-page opinion. What additional immunity were the cops given? Immunity if firing from a bridge?
No comments:
Post a Comment