Posted on 05/27/2014 9:31:07 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
The Arkansas police officers who fired 15 rounds into a fleeing vehicle, killing both the driver and passenger, were justified in doing so, the Supreme Court ruled Monday.
In 2004, police officers in West Memphis ended a high-speed car chase by firing shots into the fleeing vehicle. The drivers of the car weren’t armed and were killed as a result of the firing, leading many to argue the use of force by the police squad was excessive. Not so, declared Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the decision for the court.
“Under the circumstances present in this case,” Mr. Alito said, “we hold that the Fourth Amendment did not prohibit petitioners from using the deadly force that they employed to terminate the dangerous car chase.” “If police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety,” the high court held, “the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
I WORKED in a medium sized city in Texas, and our next-door sister city did implement a no-chase policy. I know the effects of this perceived policy on crime and criminals’ knowledge and capitalization on such policies. They become very flagrantly defiant. And dangerous.
No different than people who never believe the government can do anything right. It's good to have a healthy distrust of both the government and its armed enforcers.
Almost no innocent people flee. Armed and dangerous offenders often do.
The following may or may not answer your question. It's from the syllabus:
Rickard’s outrageously reckless driving—which lasted more than five minutes, exceeded 100 miles per hour, and included the passing of more than two dozen other motorists—posed a grave public safety risk, and the record conclusively disproves that the chase was over when Rickard’s car came to a temporary standstill and officers began shooting.
...
Petitioners did not fire more shots than necessary to end the public safety risk. It makes sense that, if officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, they need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. Here, during the 10-second span when all the shots were fired, Rickard never abandoned his attempt to flee and eventually managed to drive away.
Thanks for posting that.
The actual ruling:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1117_1bn5.pdf
5 minute chase, speeds over 100 mph, “and the record conclusively disproves that the chase was over when Rickard’s car came to a temporary standstill and officers began shooting. Under the circumstances when the shots were fired, all that a reasonable officer could have concluded from Rickard’s conduct was that he was intent on resuming his flight, which would again pose a threat to others on the road.”
And you are always there to defend the cops.
Plus, a dead person behind the wheel of a speeding car is not something I want to encounter on the highway...Just doesn't seem,,,,safe...
I can somewhat see this ruling in that the driver’s daughter brought the lawsuit. However I wonder if the outcome would have been the same if it had been relatives the passenger, who had broken no law, bringing the suit. BTW the stop was for a broken headlight.
I don't defend a nebulous "cops," the way some here consistently condemn a nebulous "cops." There are facts to consider. Had the ruling come down against these officers, it would have decimated much of their crime prosecution procedures across the board.
Deliberately ramming a police car is pretty high on the list of assault. Once you do that, you are using deadly force.
Thank goodness. I feel so much safer.
Morons.
How many times do police ram the hell out of others' vehicles? Is that deadly assault? What about when they use the PIT maneuver, and the suspect's car crashes into a completely innocent person's car, at high speeds?
Wow...A cop put about 8 shots into the passenger’s head...Guess shooting tires only works in the movies...
Did you see my post 31?
If a perp is attacking the area with a heavy high speed weapon, put the perp down asap. Let you whiners whine, stop the perp before they kill citizens.
So he was driving that fast and reckless and the cops weren’t even chasing him?
FWIW, I agree with Alito. The ‘unarmed’ passenger was in the weapon. Bad choice being in that weapon.
This is the typical leftist twist: “The drivers of the car weren’t armed and were killed as a result of the firing ...” And how many have been killed by a speeding vehicle? The bastards were armed with a very heavy weapon, and they were using it ...
Respondent, Rickard’s minor daughter, filed a 42 U. S. C. §1983 action, alleging that the officers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
The specific questions presented to SCOTUS were:
1. Whether the Sixth Circuit wrongly denied qualified immunity to Petitioners by analyzing whether the force used in 2004 was distinguishable from factually similar force ruled permissible three years later in Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (2007).
2. Whether the Sixth Circuit erred in denying qualified immunity by finding the use of force was not reasonable as a matter of law.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/12-01117qp.pdf
Wow, everyone speeding on the interstate is apparently using a threatening, heavy, deadly weapon.
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.