Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 05/15/2025 4:28:32 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court ruled that the totality of circumstances must be considered when determining whether a police shooting is justified, not just the seconds before an officer opens fire.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that the totality of circumstances must be considered when determining whether a police shooting is justified — not just the split seconds before an officer opens fire — in a case involving the fatal shooting of a Black man from Texas.
The broader standard is likely to make it easier for victims to prove allegations of excessive force in court.
The high court revived a lawsuit by the mother of Ashtian Barnes, 24, who alleged that Roberto Felix Jr., a law enforcement officer in Harris County, Texas, used excessive force when he opened fire on Barnes during a stop for suspected toll violations in the Houston area.
The New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a lower court’s summary judgment for Felix, citing the circuit’s “moment of threat rule” that requires asking only whether an officer was “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force.”
The Supreme Court justices sent the lawsuit back to the lower courts for reconsideration under its more holistic analysis.
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all the relevant circumstances, including facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.
Felix pulled Barnes over in April 2016 after receiving a radio call that the license plate of Barnes’s vehicle matched that of one with outstanding toll violations. The vehicle Barnes was driving was a rental, and he did not know about the toll violations.
Felix ordered Barnes to get out of his vehicle, but Barnes...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Only in Bizarro Commie World would anyone think differently.
Like shooting the guy for not bringing gum for everyone else to chew.
The article says it’ll make it easier to sue the police. It will also make it easier for the police to defend themselves in court.
Part of hiring cops should be to screen for men who know they must sometimes risk their own lives to avoid killing people for no reason.
This killing of anything in front of them that could possibly be a threat is treating our porches and homes and public spaces like a war zone where you kill first and then determine if the threat was real or just an over reaction.
“This killing of anything in front of them that could possibly be a threat is treating our porches and homes and public spaces like a war zone where you kill first and then determine if the threat was real or just an over reaction.”
I agree, it is beyond rational.
I agree if officers can take in all the circumstance’s.
In some cases it will make shooting easier to be justified.
IOW, in our leftist *utopia*.
We need to cashier every single one who uses the phrase “civilian” to refer to non-cops.
A ‘warrior’ mindset is appropriate in the military, and a giant red flag pointing right at the sort of person who should *NOT* have a badge and a gun amongst citizens.
WAPO requires a login to see more than the first couple paragraphs. No thanks.
The crux of the issue comes down to whether the driver, pulled over by cops, did something to provoke a shooting. If the police gave conflicting orders, or unconstitutional orders, the police are at fault. If the driver was belligerent from the start and/or offered a direct threat to the officers - that is the crux of the matter. The excerpt doesn’t provide that information, and I am unwilling to pay WAPO money to see the rest.
“We need to cashier every single one who uses the phrase “civilian” to refer to non-cops.
A ‘warrior’ mindset is appropriate in the military, and a giant red flag pointing right at the sort of person who should *NOT* have a badge and a gun amongst citizens.”
And the label “Perp”. Perpetrator automatically presumes guilt. They are technically “suspects” until they have been given due process and found guilty by a court of law. Then they become a perpetrator of a crime by label but not before.
Any cop on steroids need to be kicked off the force.
The officer ordered him out of the vehicle. He started to drive away. The officer jumped up on the side foot step and shot the driver twice.
The officer not only put himself in danger he put the public at large in danger.
If the description you gave is accurate to all of the actual circumstances, I would agree that this is a bad shoot. However, I have learned that early reports rarely have a straightforward grasp of actual facts.
It happened in 2016. So almost ten years ago. I think all the facts are in already.
I was going to say, that kind of ruling cuts both ways.
CC
As I noted, the article, obscured behind a paw wall, did not proffer those facts. I cannot and will not commit to an opinion unsupported by factual information.
Do liberals consider this a victory? Because if they do, it may be similar to the widespread use of bodycams. Liberals pushed for them, so they could prove that cops are abusive thugs. Instead it proved that many people are veritable idiots.
CC
There was only one additional piece of information. After he was shot the driver was able to get the vehicle stopped and save harm to the officer, more harm to himself, and possibly harm to the public.
Get NoScript. It allowed me to block the paywall and read the full article. It does this for 95% of the paywalls.
It is also available for Chromium, FireFox, and Brave as “addons”.
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.