To: BuckeyeTexan
OK, so "force" is controlled by the 4th amendment? I did not know that.
Is that because the 4th amendment controls warrants for persons being seized, and forceable seizure vs. being secure in one's houses and effects is considered unreasonable when one is being fired upon for fleeing in a car?
I think I see the reasoning now.
-PJ
67 posted on
05/27/2014 10:41:15 AM PDT by
Political Junkie Too
(If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
To: Political Junkie Too
OK, so "force" is controlled by the 4th amendment? There are four different standards to determine what constitutes a government officials use of excessive force, depending on the circumstances. These are variously grounded in the 4th, 8th, and 14th amendments to the United States Constitution.
The constitutional standards for permissible force depend entirely upon the custodial status of the alleged victim of forcethat is, whether the victim is a pretrial detainee (one whom the government has probable cause to believe has committed a crime but has not yet been convicted, and who is confined in a jail prior to trial2), a convicted criminal, or a free citizen.
- A pretrial detainee is protected under the 14th Amendments right to substantive due process, and to violate the Constitution the officials use of force must be conscience-shocking (with two separate culpability standards depending on whether the situation is an emergency, or not);
- An incarcerated convict is protected under the 8th Amendments cruel and unusual punishment clause, and to violate the Constitution the officials force must be used maliciously and sadistically with the very purpose of causing harm; and
- A free citizen is protected under the 4th Amendments search and seizure standard, and to violate the Constitution an officials use of force must not be objectively reasonable.
Source
76 posted on
05/27/2014 11:02:09 AM PDT by
BuckeyeTexan
(There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
To: Political Junkie Too
Is that because the 4th amendment controls warrants for persons being seized, and forceable seizure vs. being secure in one's houses and effects is considered unreasonable when one is being fired upon for fleeing in a car?An arrest is a "seizure." The argument was that shooting to kill was an "unreasonable" method of "seizing" the driver.
To: Political Junkie Too
Is that because the 4th amendment controls warrants for persons being seized, and forceable seizure vs. being secure in one's houses and effects is considered unreasonable when one is being fired upon for fleeing in a car?An arrest is a "seizure." The argument was that shooting to kill was an "unreasonable" method of "seizing" the driver.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson