Posted on 04/03/2018 5:47:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a police officer who shot a woman outside of her home in Tucson, Arizona in May 2010. The officer, Andrew Kisela, shot Amy Hughes after she was seen acting "erratically," hacking at a tree with a knife and arguing with her roommate.
Kisela and another police officer, Alex Garcia, heard about the report on their patrol car radio and responded. A third police officer, Lindsay Kunz, arrived on the scene on her bicycle.
All three officers drew their guns. At least twice they told Hughes to drop the knife. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hughes, Chadwick said “take it easy” to both Hughes and the officers. Hughes appeared calm, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife. The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s line of fire, so he dropped to the ground and shot Hughes four times through the fence. Then the officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics, who transported her to a hospital. There she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Less than a minute had transpired from the moment the officers saw Chadwick to the moment Kisela fired shots.
Hughes, they later learned, had a history of mental illness. She and Chadwick were roommates and they apparently had a disagreement over $20.
Kisela, Garcia and Kunz defended Kisela's decision to shoot, noting they believed at the time that Hughes was a threat to Chadwick. Still, Hughes sued Kisela, alleging that he had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In their ruling Monday, the Supreme Court cited several other court cases as precedent in their acquittal of the police officer. They cited Kisela’s qualified immunity, which protects public officials from damages for civil liability as long as they did not violate an individual's "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights, Cornell explains.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, offering a different perspective of what transpired, concluding Officer Kisela acted hastily.
"Kisela did not wait for Hughes to register, much less respond to, the officers’ rushed commands," Sotomayor insisted. "Instead, Kisela immediately and unilaterally escalated the situation."
Furthermore, he gave no advance warning that he would shoot, and "attempted no less dangerous methods to deescalate the situation."
She also disagreed with her colleagues in terms of qualified immunity. An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity, she said, if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”
Hughes, Sotomayor noted, had not committed a crime. Furthermore, when the police officers arrived on the scene, reports indicate that Hughes was standing “composed and content” during her encounter with Chadwick. With the above context, the justice came to the following conclusion.
The majority today exacerbates that troubling asymmetry. Its decision is not just wrong on the law; it also sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public. It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished. Because there is nothing right or just under the law about this, I respectfully dissent.
You can read the whole court ruling – and Sotomayor’s dissent – here.
I agree. Gotta give the Wise Latina her due here.
This is an insane ruling which will inspire and embolden similar acts in the future. Police officers are trained in the principle of “Continuation of Force” which includes:
1. Presence of authority
2. Verbal commands
3. Soft physical force (restraints)
4. Hard physical force (takedowns)
5. Impact & chemicaal weapons
6. Electronic immobilization devices, and finally
7. Lethal or potentially lethal force
Why train police officers to apply escalating applications of force, when they can just jump straigt to the use of lethal force? Did no one think of using Mace or a taser?
Left out of Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissent;They had been there but a few minutes, perhaps just a minute. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward another woman standing nearby, and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so.
“they believed at the time that Hughes was a threat to Chadwick.” That’s the reason right there.
She’s hacking on a tree with a dagger? Is that a lethal weapon? I’ll go with the LEOs, not some LaRaza klan member that has no business in such a position.
Me too. Stopped clocks and all that.
Me too
Yes. Within six feet of her.
“The Arizona police officer, Andrew Kisela, had shot Amy Hughes four times after she ignored calls from three police officers to drop her weapon, which she held while standing within six feet of her roommate, Sharon Chadwick.”
https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/supreme-court-says-policeman-isnt-personally-liabl/
I have seldom if ever agreed with Sotomayer.
With the bare evidence we have in this case, the context to me seems as Sotomayer suggests - the officer acted in unnecessary haste. The person he claimed he was acting in defense of did not demonstrate they felt threatened, and other than holding a knife she had been hacking a tree with, the woman who was shot did not seem to be verbally threatening anyone.
I do not believe acting in unnecessary haste qualifies for immunity for a police officers actions.
I am as tough on criminals as the next person, as well as being tough on acknowledging police commands when necessary. None of that dismisses police officers to act first and think later. The first act of police is to quickly and CALMLY assess the context of a situation, not just act first as if there is always a perp to be taken down. Failure to immediately respond to rapid fire police commands does not in and of itself - without additional actions - automatically constitute a threat. What were the additional actions of the woman that constituted a threat? In the evidence we are shown it appeared to be none.
From what was said here, I do not see a justifiable reason to shoot this lady.
If they really wanted to stop her from torturing the tree, they could have tazed her.
“A fence separated them but he was scared and had to shoot her anyway????”
Sure, same as if a puppy was on the other side of the fence.
Was the roommate chained to the tree?
Then the roommate should have backed away when the police drew their guns to cover her.
““they believed at the time that Hughes was a threat to Chadwick” The roommate was on the same side of the fence as Hughes.”
But Chadwick wasn’t afraid or feeling threatened nor were the other two cops....only the super hero.
Despite the officer’s name ending in a vowel “he dropped to the ground & shot”
The Arizona police officer, Andrew Kisela, had shot Amy Hughes four times after she ignored calls from three police officers to drop her weapon, which she held while standing within six feet of her roommate, Sharon Chadwick.
Got it?
From another article:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for an Arizona police officer who shot a woman outside her home in Tucson. The court’s decision was unsigned and issued without full briefing and oral argument, an indication that the majority found the case to be easy.
...
So the rest of the court including the the liberals found this to be a slam dunk case.
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.