Posted on 04/19/2015 7:10:47 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie
Walter Scott dreamed he would rent an RV and load up all his children. stepdaughters included, and take them to Disney World.
......
Walter Scott always wanted to be famous. He used to tell his friends he could have made it as a singer..........
(Excerpt) Read more at postandcourier.com ...
I don’t care.....Still waiting for a debate from you.
Justice White’s conclusion:
” The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”
So, what happened is the Tennessee statute was found barely to meet Constitutional requirements. So,it applies only to Tennessee and any state that has a similar statute, see?
No, you are wrong.
Garner v Tennessee is a seminal case cited since 1985.
TENNESSEE v GARNER, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless “the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
The “probable cause to believe that the suspect (Scott) poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer (Slager, who Scott had just attacked and taken his taser) or others” (any innocent bystanders and the general public which were numerous).
This is settled law and has been for 30 years. The cop gets nothing more than manslaughter and should not even get that. HE WAS DOING HIS DUTY!
There is also this from last year, if that’s recent enough for you, for your perusal.
The first of the Supreme Court rulings that still govern law enforcement policies nationwide on the use of deadly force is Tennessee v. Garner. In the 1985 case, the court concluded that police officers could not shoot at a fleeing suspect simply to prevent their escape. They could shoot, however, if they had probable cause to believe the person was a violent felon and posed a significant threat of death or serious harm to the community.
The more overarching decision is the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling, written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and at a time when violence against police was rising amid a crack epidemic. In that case, Charlotte diabetic Dethorne Graham had rushed into a convenience store to get orange juice to stop an oncoming insulin attack but left the juice inside and left suddenly because of the long line. He asked a friend who had driven him to the store to instead drive him to another friend’s house for food.
Charlotte city police officer M.S. Connor, suspicious at Graham’s hasty exit, followed him and his friend, stopped them for questioning and didn’t believe Graham’s story about being diabetic. As Connor was checking by radio with the store, Graham got out of his car and passed out briefly. Backup officers arrived, told Graham to shut up and rammed his head into a patrol car while throwing him in the back of it.
Graham sustained minor injuries and argued that the officer’s use of force was excessive. But the Supreme Court found that the officer’s actions were justified because he reasonably believed the force he was using was necessary to prevent or detect a crime in progress.
Annnnnd this one from the SCOTUS itself, without dissent.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/05/27/supreme-court-rules-in-favor-of-police-w
The U.S. Supreme ruled today in favor of several West Memphis, Arkansas, police officers who used deadly force to end a high-speed car chase. The Court’s ruling in Plumhoff v. Rickard overturns a previous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, which had denied qualified immunity to the officers involved in the incident.
“Under the circumstances present in this case,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Supreme Court, “we hold that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit petitioners from using the deadly force that they employed to terminate the dangerous car chase.”
At issue was a 2004 pursuit that began with a routine traffic stop and ended with the West Memphis police firing 15 rounds into the fleeing vehicle, killing both the driver and his passenger, neither of whom were armed. As expected, the Court upheld the constitutionality of those actions by the police. “If police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety,” the Court held, “the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
The opinion in Plumhoff v. Rickard is available here. No dissents were filed.
This one was 9 to ZERO.
At this point in the discussions on this thread.... I have to ask the question: Who’s side are you on in all these cases... including the present one?
no friend you are wrong
Hilarious. You are really going to compare a high speed car chase to a traffic stop?
“All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force - deadly or not - in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment’s “objective reasonableness” standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 392-399. [490 U.S. 386, 387]”
Graham v Connor was a 1983 Civil Rights action. The issue was the standard to apply, substantive due process or 4th Amendment reasonableness standard. Court found the Appellate level applied the wrong standard and remanded the case. That is all.
As Graham v. Connor applies to this set of circumstances? If the family of the deceased sues for damages under a 1983 Civil Rights cause of action, the standard to be applied in determining liability os 4th AM objective reasonableness standard. Any more questions?
I don’t know why the Wash Post analysis is so off, but it is.
Its not the Wash Po analysis. It’s the settled law that cases are judged against for the last 30 years.
The fact of the matter is this: The cop isn’t gonna be lynched by 7 seconds of edited video and 6 months of Leftist media b.s. The law is on his side until they prove otherwise and a jury says it isn’t. It isn’t 1st degree and it isn’t 2nd.
Hilarious. You are really going to compare a high speed car chase to a traffic stop?
......
And no two cases are ever alike, you know that. How does the present case fit into the framework of the settled law is all that matters.
We should establish a new national holiday to honor this martyr.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.