Posted on 02/13/2015 9:00:08 PM PST by Olog-hai
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that three deputy U.S. marshals who shot and wounded a fleeing teenage driver eight years ago cannot be sued for excessive use of force.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said it was not “clearly established” at the time of the shooting that the deputies violated Michael Fenwick’s constitutional rights when they used deadly force to subdue him.
The case in Washington, D.C., unfolded amid a national debate over racially charged incidents of police force in Ferguson, Missouri, and New York City. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
There have been tons of bad rulings lately protecting corruption and criminality among government agencies
Sovereign Immunity.
In this case, I agree with the court. (Importantly, the court said this was a ‘narrow’ decision, applying on in this case, not to other similar cases.)
First reason: a car is presumably a deadly weapon when being used to escape from the police. He was convicted of armed assault.
Second reason: clipping a Marshal with the side view mirror demonstrates reckless endangerment. The Marshals cited this in their use of force.
As an aside, in 2013, US Federal Marshals arrested some 36,000 fugitives, as this is one of their major responsibilities.
More details about this case:
The wording of the title makes it look like something different, i.e. that even when marshals do use excessive force, they cannot be held liable for it. The force used here was not excessive, as it appears.
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.