Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Kill Non-Threatening People

  1. #1

    Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Kill Non-Threatening People







    Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Kill Non-Threatening People As Long As They Say They Were Scared
    The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a police officer who opened fire on a woman from a distance while she stood on her property, claiming he feared for his safety.
    By
    Rachel Blevins
    -
    April 8, 2018




    Share2K
    Tweet
    +1
    Pin
    Share
    Shares 2K
    In a ruling that will be used to a reinforce a disturbing pattern practiced by police officers across the United States, the Supreme Court has determined that officers who shoot non-threatening citizens are completely justified and cannot face consequences for their actions—as long as they express to the court that they feared for their safety.
    The case of Kisela v. Hughes originated from a police shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in 2010. Police Corporal Andrew Kisela heard a report over police radio about a woman using a kitchen knife to hack a tree and acting erratically in public. He responded to the scene with two other officers.
    On the other side of a chainlink fence, the officers saw Sharon Chadwick standing next to her car. Her roommate, Amy Hughes, emerged from the house with a kitchen knife held at her side. Despite the fact that the two women were standing at least six feet apart, the blade of the knife was facing away from Chadwick, and Hughes did not appear to be threatening her roommate in any way, all three officers approached the fence with their guns drawn.
    Less than 60 seconds after Kisela saw Chadwick, he opened fire and shot Hughes four times through the fence. After she fell to the ground, officers jumped over the fence, approached Hughes and placed her in handcuffs, and then called paramedics.
    It took just seconds for Officer Kisela to choose to shoot Hughes multiple times, even though she had not broken any laws and she did not appear to be threatening anyone. Miraculously, Hughes did not die from the gunshot wounds she sustained and Chadwick was not injured during the reckless attack.
    Hughes filed a lawsuit against Kisela, based on the claim that her civil rights were violated during the shooting. While a federal district judge ruled in favor of Kisela, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision and argued that Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights were clearly violated.
    The Supreme Court has now reversed the 9th Circuit court’s decision, and in its opinion on the case, the court argued that there should not be a debate over whether Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because Kisela should automatically be afforded “qualified immunity” as a police officer.
    “The Court need not, and does not, decide whether Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment when he used deadly force against Hughes. For even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—a proposition that is not at all evident—on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity. ‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful, reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct.’”
    As SCOTUS Blog noted, even if the Supreme Court judges believed that Kisela was guilty of violating Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights, “Kisela still could not be sued because any rights that he might have violated were not clearly established—a key factor in whether government officials enjoy immunity from lawsuits.”


    Even though Chadwick testified that she did not feel threatened by Hughes or the knife in her hand at the time of the shooting, the Supreme Court has chosen to side with the police officer who chose to open fire within seconds, before taking the time to accurately assess the situation.
    By supporting Kisela’s actions, the Supreme Court has essentially given all police officers a blank check, which says that if they see a person standing in the distance on her property, and she appears to be holding a weapon in her hand, the officer has the right to open fire and shoot her multiple times—as long as the officer maintains that he feared for his safety, even if he cannot prove that the person he targeted was threatening him.
    In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that while the other two officers attempted to use verbal commands to convince Hughes to drop the knife, Kisela made no attempt to de-escalate the situation and opted to use deadly force instead.

    “Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else. Faced with these facts, the two other responding officers held their fire, and one testified that he ‘wanted to continue trying verbal command and see if that would work.’ But not Kisela. He thought it necessary to use deadly force, and so, without giving a warning that he would open fire, he shot Hughes four times, leaving her seriously injured. Kisela did not wait for Hughes to register, much less respond to, the officers’ rushed commands. Instead, Kisela immediately and unilaterally escalated the situation.”
    It is no secret that police officers regularly get away with shooting and killing innocent citizens in the United States, and they do so by arguing that they opened fire because they feared for their safety.
    By choosing to support a trigger-happy officer who chose to put lives at risk, the Supreme Court has made it clear that there will be no justice for the innocent woman who received life-threatening injuries as a result of the attack and that police will continue to get away with targeting the mentally ill, and will face no consequences for their actions.
    http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-can-kill-non-threatening-people-without-warning-scared
    Pfizer Macht Frei!

    Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!

    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    So we have the extreme liberal Sotomeyer dissenting against this madness and where are the "conservatives" on this? Sucking cop dick.
    "The Patriarch"

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    So we have the extreme liberal Sotomeyer dissenting against this madness and where are the "conservatives" on this? Sucking cop dick.
    A black mark on all of the majority's record to be sure, but the other libs voted with the majority and THEY want to take away your guns so you don't have a chance.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A black mark on all of the majority's record to be sure, but the other libs voted with the majority and THEY want to take away your guns so you don't have a chance.
    No $#@!, they'll shoot you now if you have a squirtgun saying they feared for there lives. And if you decide to defend yourself, well, the odds aren't exactly in your favor. If you don't feel like going out in a blaze of glory better keep your powder dry.
    "The Patriarch"

  7. #6
    shoot first, ask questions later... the new normal

    Don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    So we have the extreme liberal Sotomeyer dissenting against this madness and where are the "conservatives" on this? Sucking cop dick.
    The dissent by Sotomayor and Ginsberg was very harsh on both the cops and her collegues. Attached link to PDF. The dissent is the last fifteen pages. This reinforced mentality is why SWATting works so well.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-467_bqm1.pdf

    XNN
    "They sell us the president the same way they sell us our clothes and our cars. They sell us every thing from youth to religion the same time they sell us our wars. I want to know who the men in the shadows are. I want to hear somebody asking them why. They can be counted on to tell us who our enemies are but theyre never the ones to fight or to die." - Jackson Browne Lives In The Balance

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    No $#@!, they'll shoot you now if you have a squirtgun saying they feared for there lives. And if you decide to defend yourself, well, the odds aren't exactly in your favor. If you don't feel like going out in a blaze of glory better keep your powder dry.
    You can be executed for any reason. A weapon is not required. Keep your hands out of your pockets. Don't make eye contact.
    There is nothing more dangerous than a pussy with a gun.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    You can be executed for any reason. A weapon is not required. Keep your hands out of your pockets. Don't make eye contact.
    There is nothing more dangerous than a pussy with a gun.
    Even full, groveling, boot licking compliance is not a guarantee of coming out alive.

    Home of the brave my aching $#@!ing ass.

  12. #10
    “The Court need not, and does not, decide whether Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment when he used deadly force against Hughes. For even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—a proposition that is not at all evident—on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity. ‘Qualified immunity attaches when an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known … Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her conduct was unlawful, reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of the law at the time of the conduct.’”
    Parsing the Klowns in Gowns double talk properly, this means, essentially, that the Fourth Amendment means what a cop thinks it means at any given moment.
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 04-09-2018 at 07:13 AM.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Parsing the Klowns in Gowns double talk properly, this means, essentially, that the Fourth Amendment means what cop thinks it means at any given moment.
    Succinctly, you have no rights.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  14. #12
    murdering cowards
    gonna
    murder

    nothing new here...
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Parsing the Klowns in Gowns double talk properly, this means, essentially, that the Fourth Amendment means what cop thinks it means at any given moment.


    Ex-Mesa Officer Philip Brailsford found not guilty of murder in shooting of unarmed man....https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ing/927052001/

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Ex-Mesa Officer Philip Brailsford found not guilty of murder in shooting of unarmed man....https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ing/927052001/


    A police officer fatally shot a man while responding to an emergency call now called a ‘swatting’ prank

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.888dbe322f4c

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by XNavyNuke View Post
    The dissent by Sotomayor and Ginsberg was very harsh on both the cops and her collegues. Attached link to PDF. The dissent is the last fifteen pages. This reinforced mentality is why SWATting works so well.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...7-467_bqm1.pdf

    XNN
    Thanks for the link.
    "The Patriarch"

  18. #16
    Time for the body armor
    Do something Danke



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-24-2017, 06:21 PM
  2. WI-State Supreme Court Rules Cops No Longer Need a Warrant to Enter Homes and Seize Evidence
    By Anti Federalist in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 02-14-2016, 10:03 PM
  3. Google alerts the FBI to YouTube comment threatening to kill cops
    By aGameOfThrones in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-24-2014, 03:57 PM
  4. BREAKING: Supreme Court rules DNA Can be Taken upon Arrest
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 06-03-2013, 08:09 PM
  5. Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Be Filmed
    By coastie in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-01-2012, 12:00 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •