PDA

View Full Version : Sotomayor "Cops Shoot first think later"




mrsat_98
04-25-2017, 08:21 PM
https://bluelivesmatter.blue/sonia-sotomayor-police-officers/


Justice Sonia Sotomayor Shows Anti-Police Bias

Washington, DC – In a scathing dissent to the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to take a certain case, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor not only attacked police officers and their credibility but accused the nation’s highest court of developing a “disturbing trend” of siding with police officers.

One of the Supreme Court’s two most liberal Justices, she continued in her rant and said that this trend involved “siding” with police officers who have been accused of excessive force, at the expense of who she referred to as victims, according to The Washington Post. I would refer to them as defendants, suspects, or criminals.

Justice Sotomayor was joined in her dissent by the Supreme Court’s second most liberal Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Neither is known for being supportive of law enforcement, but attacking the court’s prior judgments is new territory.


The case in question, Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, occurred during a 2010 traffic stop. Houston Police Officer Chris Thompson stopped Salazar-Limon’s vehicle for speeding and suspected drunk driving. Officer Thompson told Salazar-Limon he was under arrest and began to handcuff him.

He said that Salazar-Limon tried to push him into traffic, and then moved his hand toward his waistband. Officer Thompson said that he told him to stop, and that he feared for his life. He said he shot Salazar-Limon, who later sued him for ‘unconstitutional excessive force’, according to Reuters.

Justice Sotomayor said that there has been no hesitation to reverse court decisions in cases involving the use of force, but that the Court rarely accepts cases where police officers are offered qualified immunity.

The concept of qualified immunity for police officers has been defined by the Supreme Court in the past as a way to protect them from frivolous lawsuits. The Court has said that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they have a reasonable basis to believe that their conduct was constitutional, even if their actual conduct falls somewhat short of the constitutional standard.

Two other Supreme Court Justices, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas, issued a sharp rebuttal to the dissent. Justice Alito referred to five cases that Justice Sotomayor had used in her dissent, and said that in all but one of those cases there was no “published” dissent. If she’s dissenting in a decision, it must be published, or it doesn’t count.

He also said that she “has not identified a single case in which we failed to grant a similar petition filed by an alleged victim of unconstitutional police conduct.”

Justice Sotomayer said that the Court was authorizing a “shoot first, think later” approach. She also said in her dissent that “there has been an increasing frequency of incidents in which unarmed men allegedly reach for empty waistbands when facing armed officers.” This is a clear indication that Justice Sotomayer actually believes that law enforcement officers want to kill people for absolutely no reason.

Despite her impression that there is an increase in unarmed men who are killed by police for no reason, what we have actually seen is an increasing number of police officers who have been murdered, and an increasing number of anti-police politicians, liberals, and media pushing an anti-police, violent, and hate-filled agenda.

Justice Sotomayer said that a jury should have decided the Salazar-Limon case, noting that both men offered differing accounts of what happened. I don’t think most criminals know what the truth is. And unfortunately, unless you were there, you have to take the facts presented in their totality.

Justice Alito responded that there was nothing unusual about the case. He said that appeals courts decide hundreds of cases every year to determine whether “thin evidence provided by a plaintiff is just enough to survive a motion for summary judgment of not quite enough. This is one such case.”

None of the other justices had any remarks about the decision, not to accept the Salazar-Limon case.

We’ve seen the way that people live their lives, keeping their head in the sand, and failing to examine information in the proper context. We would expect a supreme court justice to judge information based on the actual facts, within the proper context. However, it appears that Justice Sotomayor is lost within her own biases.

Thankfully, the balance of the Supreme Court is shifting, thanks to President Trump and the recent appointment of new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Our police officers go out every day to do a thankless job, not knowing if they will go home at night. They need support and reason, not an overall judgment against their decisions without examining the specific circumstances of each case individually.

Thankfully, most of the justices are reasonable people, even if they have opinions that we may disagree with.

Do you think that Justice Sotomayer revealed an unreasonable bias against police officers? We’d like to hear what you think. Please let us know in the comments.

jkr
04-25-2017, 08:56 PM
try think NEVER

Anti Federalist
04-25-2017, 10:24 PM
Our police officers go out every day to do a thankless job, not knowing if they will go home at night.

So do garbagemen, who stand a much greater risk of being killed on the job.


Justice Sotomayer said that the Court was authorizing a “shoot first, think later” approach. She also said in her dissent that “there has been an increasing frequency of incidents in which unarmed men allegedly reach for empty waistbands when facing armed officers.” This is a clear indication that Justice Sotomayer actually believes that law enforcement officers want to kill people for absolutely no reason.

They do...It's been documented countless times...they will use the thinnest of excuses, the slightest whiff of non compliance, to execute you.

So, she's right.

How about a linky there OP, so we can go "vote"?

CPUd
04-25-2017, 11:12 PM
This is the opposite position of Gorsuch, interesting that she would raise this particular issue.



The U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s decision to throw out a lawsuit against the city of Lafayette and its police filed by the parents of a 22-year-old man who died after being shot with a Taser as he ran from officers.

In the appeal, Ryan Wilson’s parents, Wendy and Jack Wilson, claimed that Lafayette Police Officer John Harris used excessive force when he tased their son in 2006.

The three-justice panel last week upheld U.S. District Court Judge Philip A. Brimmer’s decision that Harris had qualified immunity, which protects government officials doing their jobs from civil liability for damages.

“We sympathize with the Wilsons over their terrible loss. But the Supreme Court has directed the lower federal courts to apply qualified immunity broadly to protect …. all officers except ‘the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,'” Circuit Judge Neil M. Gorsuch wrote in affirming the district court decision.
...

http://www.denverpost.com/2013/02/21/appeals-court-judge-rightfully-dismissed-suit-by-parents-of-tased-lafayette-man/

mrsat_98
04-26-2017, 04:26 AM
So do garbagemen, who stand a much greater risk of being killed on the job.


How about a linky there OP, so we can go "vote"?

https://bluelivesmatter.blue/sonia-sotomayor-police-officers/

jmdrake
04-26-2017, 06:18 AM
This is the opposite position of Gorsuch, interesting that she would raise this particular issue.


http://www.denverpost.com/2013/02/21/appeals-court-judge-rightfully-dismissed-suit-by-parents-of-tased-lafayette-man/

And ^that is why libertarianism != conservatism. Libertarianism >>>>>>>>>>>> conservatism and liberalism.

Here's a simple solution. Pay officers well, reduce the size of the force, have zero tolerance for unjustified assaults and killings. First time you're off the force. Period. No paid vacations. Nothing. You can get a job as a private security guard. Same goes for 911 operators like that idiot that said Tamir Rice was an active shooter.

jmdrake
04-26-2017, 06:31 AM
Okay. Reading the article, instead of reacting to it, the decision isn't so black and white.

The case in question, Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, occurred during a 2010 traffic stop. Houston Police Officer Chris Thompson stopped Salazar-Limon’s vehicle for speeding and suspected drunk driving. Officer Thompson told Salazar-Limon he was under arrest and began to handcuff him.

He said that Salazar-Limon tried to push him into traffic, and then moved his hand toward his waistband. Officer Thompson said that he told him to stop, and that he feared for his life. He said he shot Salazar-Limon, who later sued him for ‘unconstitutional excessive force’, according to Reuters.

Justice Sotomayor said that there has been no hesitation to reverse court decisions in cases involving the use of force, but that the Court rarely accepts cases where police officers are offered qualified immunity.

The concept of qualified immunity for police officers has been defined by the Supreme Court in the past as a way to protect them from frivolous lawsuits. The Court has said that law enforcement officers are entitled to qualified immunity when they have a reasonable basis to believe that their conduct was constitutional, even if their actual conduct falls somewhat short of the constitutional standard.

Two other Supreme Court Justices, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Clarence Thomas, issued a sharp rebuttal to the dissent. Justice Alito referred to five cases that Justice Sotomayor had used in her dissent, and said that in all but one of those cases there was no “published” dissent. If she’s dissenting in a decision, it must be published, or it doesn’t count.

He also said that she “has not identified a single case in which we failed to grant a similar petition filed by an alleged victim of unconstitutional police conduct.”

Justice Sotomayer said that the Court was authorizing a “shoot first, think later” approach. She also said in her dissent that “there has been an increasing frequency of incidents in which unarmed men allegedly reach for empty waistbands when facing armed officers.” This is a clear indication that Justice Sotomayer actually believes that law enforcement officers want to kill people for absolutely no reason.

The victim isn't dead. The officer's testimony makes the taser use seem justified. This isn't a case like what were were discussing a couple of days ago of an officer on video saying "I'm going to MF kill you" and then tasing someone to death. And apparently Sotomayor just finally found the cojones to dissent on police brutality. To win the battle against police brutality, the most inexplicable cases are the ones that need to be highlighted.

TheCount
04-26-2017, 07:28 AM
The officer's testimony makes the taser use seem justified.I think that's part of her point.


She also said in her dissent that “there has been an increasing frequency of incidents in which unarmed men allegedly reach for empty waistbands when facing armed officers.”

jmdrake
04-26-2017, 07:41 AM
I think that's part of her point.
She also said in her dissent that “there has been an increasing frequency of incidents in which unarmed men allegedly reach for empty waistbands when facing armed officers.”
[/COLOR]

Fair enough.

phill4paul
04-26-2017, 08:17 AM
In United States law, the term color of law denotes the "mere semblance of legal right", the "pretense or appearance of" right; hence, an action done under color of law colors (adjusts) the law to the circumstance, yet said apparently legal action contravenes the law.

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

It's a Federal law and it belongs in Federal courts.


Our police officers go out every day to do a thankless job, not knowing if they will go home at night.

http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/topstories/2013/04/19/hi-thank-you-rtxysxf.jpg


For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

There is not even a mock trial anymore. There is only "qualified immunity."

Fuck a bunch of clowns in gowns that go against the D.O.I. and the Constitution.

Anti Federalist
04-26-2017, 12:50 PM
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to phill4paul again.

Anti Federalist
04-26-2017, 12:52 PM
The victim isn't dead. The officer's testimony makes the taser use seem justified. This isn't a case like what were were discussing a couple of days ago of an officer on video saying "I'm going to MF kill you" and then tasing someone to death. And apparently Sotomayor just finally found the cojones to dissent on police brutality. To win the battle against police brutality, the most inexplicable cases are the ones that need to be highlighted.

Maddening isn't it?

I'm sure part of it is done on purpose, by the system itself, weeding out obvious and blatant cases of abuse and murder, and only "allowing" these "questionable" cases to appear before the clowns in gowns, in order to deliberately dilute and obscure the issue.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-26-2017, 03:26 PM
...what we have actually seen is an increasing number of police officers who have been murdered,..


Not according to the numbers. This is from Newsweek, but the numbers seem to pan out. And I think Anti-Federalist posted something even more recent. AF, do you happen to remember that thread you created? I continually post the article below on Yahoo Answers for the all the young people desiring to be cops. I also post it for the cops and copsuckers to read.



Article: "It has never been safer to be a cop"

"...the FBl has its own database for fel0ny killings of police in the last few decades. The Bureau 0f Justice Statistics has als conducted a nat'l police census every 4 years since 1992, giving us some reliable estimates for the total number of sworn officers up through 2008.

------

And no matter how you slice it, police work has been getting a lot safer. Fatalities and murders of police have been falling for decades—per resident, per officer and even in absolute terms."



"...some people prefer the data from the 0fficer Down Memorial Page.

AEI’s Mark Pery has crunched their numbers for firearm related deaths (a good proxy for homicides), and his findings closely mirror my own.

Again, the data show that 2015 is one of the safest years for American policing in history, both in abs0lute terms and adjusted for population."




"It’s safer to be a cop than it is to live in Baltim0re. It’s safer to be a cop than it is to be a fisher, logger, pilot, roofer, miner, trucker or taxi driver. It’s safer to be a cop today than it’s been in years, decades, or even a century, by some measures."


"But none of these things-—and certainly not a mythical “war on cops”—should stop us from having a hard conversation about law enforcement and criminal justice reform in America.

Exaggerating the dangers 0f being a cop does no one any good."

Source in comments.

http://www.newsweek.com/it-has-never-been-safer-be-cop-372025

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-26-2017, 03:30 PM
He said that Salazar-Limon tried to push him into traffic, and then moved his hand toward his waistband.


More lies.

No copsuckers, you lie about the sequence. The pig first pulls the gun, and then the pig's assaultee moves to push the gun away from the pig's psychotic hands.

phill4paul
04-26-2017, 03:33 PM
Not according to the numbers. This is from Newsweek, but the numbers seem to pan out. And I think Anti-Federalist posted something even more recent. AF, do you happen to remember that thread you created? I continually post the article below on Yahoo Answers for the all the young people desiring to be cops. I also post it for the cops and copsuckers to read.

That's asking a lot. :p Threads by AF regarding this issue....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?487269-In-the-end-2015-saw-no-%91war-on-cops%92-and-no-%91national-crime-wave%92

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?404881-Police-Chief-Admits-Our-Guns-are-Offensive-Weapons-Used-to-Commit-Aggression

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?410709-Why-We-Need-To-Stop-Exaggerating-The-Threat-To-Cops

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?510023-OH-Cop-trying-to-blame-his-suicide-attempt-on-Mundane-caught-in-his-own-police-state-web

There's more....https://www.google.com/#q=mythical+war+on+cops+anti+federalist+site:ronpa ulforums.com

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-26-2017, 03:44 PM
That's asking a lot. :p Threads by AF regarding this issue....




Yeah, that dude posts too much for me to look it up. Ha ha.

Actually, I might be thinking of that first link you posted; however, I seem to remember something at the end of 2016. If AF does not have it handy, then I can look it up. And thanks for posting those. + rep

Anti Federalist
04-26-2017, 10:10 PM
Yeah, that dude posts too much for me to look it up. Ha ha.

Actually, I might be thinking of that first link you posted; however, I seem to remember something at the end of 2016. If AF does not have it handy, then I can look it up. And thanks for posting those. + rep

This one?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/19/there-is-still-no-war-on-cops

Maybe this one?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/?utm_term=.51ee50e97b06

Fact is, there is no war on cops.

Wars on alcohol and drugs prompted high rates of cop killings.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2015/09/PerryAEI.jpg

NorthCarolinaLiberty
04-26-2017, 11:58 PM
This one?

http://reason.com/blog/2016/07/19/there-is-still-no-war-on-cops



Yeah, that is probably it. Thanks.

Weston White
04-27-2017, 04:37 AM
If she’s dissenting in a decision, it must be published, or it doesn’t count.

Ah yes, great, the courts can simply conspire to keep all cases that do not toe the statute quo line, unpublished and out of public consideration. Yea, nice!



But the Supreme Court has directed the lower federal courts to apply qualified immunity broadly to protect …. all officers except ‘the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,'”

Yea, because this is what Tasers are for, shooting people in the back as they run away from you. This is not unreasonable at all, forget about chasing after them, too much effort there, just draw, fire, bag and tag, then go enjoy your paid vacation.