Supreme Court Sides with Deputies In Lancaster [CA] Shooting

cbs2la ^ | 05/30/2017

[BenLurkin]

A unanimous Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with Los Angeles County Sheriff’s deputies in a legal dispute stemming from 2010, when a couple of bystanders were shot while the deputies searched for a wanted man in Lancaster.

The justices overturned an award of $4 million in damages to the couple and ordered a lower court to take another look at whether the deputies could be held liable for the shooting.

...

Angel wasn’t the suspect they were searching for, and it turned out he was carrying a BB gun.

Deputies had been told before they entered the cluttered backyard that a man and woman were staying in a shack there, according to court records. When they opened the door, one of the officers saw a man holding a gun, shouted “gun” and two officers fired 15 shots.

Angel said he had picked up his BB gun at the time officers entered in order to move it. The couple filed suit in 2011, alleging excessive force and federal civil rights violations.

A federal appeals court ruled that the deputies were liable because they provoked a violent confrontation by entering the shack without a warrant.

But Justice Samuel Alito said such a “provocation rule” is not compatible with excessive force claims under the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

[from occupied ga]

Triumph of the jackboots.

[rstrahan]

Another 9th Circus reversal

[taxcontrol]

I am of the opinion that absent:

- a warrant
- observing the suspect entering the shack

The officers had no legal authority to be there in the first place, thus the officers are responsible for beginning the chain of actions that resulted in the shooting. As such, they are at fault.

[VietVet876]

His mamma should have told Angel when you was young that he could put an eye out with that thing.

[rednesss]

There is a simple solution for this, require police to be bonded. As soon as their bond is too expensive to pay, they find another line of work. A free market solution to weeding out the trigger happy dumbasses.

[House Atreides]

Well, I guess the UNANIMOUS Supreme Court decision is legally wrong and you are right. /sarc

The correct test is whether the officers were reasonable in using force to defend themselves...nothing more. The Supremes got this one right IMHO.

[eyeamok]

they raided the makeshift residence of Angel Mendez and his wife, Jennifer, without a warrant, court records show.

Sig Heil!!

[taxcontrol]

Legality is far different from my stated opinion. Darn it. Then world would be a much better place (for me) if it ran the way I wanted it to. /sarc

Too bad the same test does not go the other way.

[Oil Object Insp]

I guess cops are allowed to "defend" themselves​ if they kick or enter any door and are confronted by someone perceived to be a threat? I wonder if your opinion on siding with a group of detached black robe eletists protecting their goose stepping thugs when it's a house of someone you know will change? When it happens to you it's too late to attempt to get your allies to come to your aide. "Lawful protection" for LEO, even when they are botching the job? Any professional who cannot be held accountable for their errors, due to protection by the courts from the people is a thug. No other way to slice and dice. Goose stepping, jack boot thugs. Acts like this are what erodes the peoples confidence and trust. - Law in the court, Justice in the streets. Choose just one,. They are mutually exclusive. More so each day, for the normal people. Perhaps you confirm yourself with the others?