Fascinating Slate article by Emily Bazelon about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Specifically, it focuses on his opinion as a Justice Department lawyer in the eighties in a case of the death of an unarmed 15-year-old black male.In 1974, a Memphis police officer shot the boy in the back as he fled a crime scene with $10 and no weapon. The boy's father sued. Alito tried to get the Justice Department to argue that suspected criminals had no constitutional protection from being shot in the back by police, even if they posed absolutely no physical threat to anyone nearby. To their credit, the Justice Department decided not to argue against, and the Supreme Court ruled in the father's favor.
There's no reason to believe Alito's views have changed. When it comes to civil liberties, Alito even was outside the mainstream of the Reagan administration. That's scary.
Sounds like the old "stop on the name of the law" we used to hear on tv.
That means you get shot if you don't follow the order given by police.
Duh.
The case grew out of a police shooting of a burglary suspect in Memphis in October 1974. Memphis police officer Elton Hymon saw 15-year-old Edward Garner running from a house and shouted for him to halt. When Garner started to climb a chain-link fence in the backyard, Hymon shot him in the back of the head.Apparantly, the memo is available too. I figure if this comes up, Alito will handle it fine in that he was a lwayer counseling his client (the government) as to its involvement in the case.Garner, who was carrying $10 and a purse taken from the house, died at the hospital.
His father sued police and the city, arguing the shooting violated the teenagers Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The city countered that police were acting under state law and a department policy allowing the use of deadly force in burglary cases.
Asked to prepare a memo on whether the Reagan administration should intervene and how the case should be argued, Alito wrote, The shooting can be justified as reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
The young lawyer contended that a fleeing suspect in effect states to the police: Kill me or let me escape the legal process, at least for now.
He added, If every suspect could evade arrest by putting the state to this choice, societal order would quickly break down.
Alito argued against overturning the Tennessee law, but recommended that the administration stay out of the case.