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 ...
N00bie, you are self-identifying as a troll when you deliberately use the undistributed middle fallacy. Run along, fool.
What would stop a fleeing armed and dangerous murderer from hijacking a different car, or stealing a different license plate to put on his vehicle.
Very sad. Was he wearing his seat belt? Would it have made a difference?
I think that will change as more and more people are beat up, tortured, and killed by cops.
Not armed with a gun anyway. The law says that using a vehicle to inflict serious bodily harm qualifies as assault with a deadly weapon. The driver was armed under the law.
(I make no assertions about whether or not the officers used justifiable force or should have been granted qualified immunity.)
Yes, I am the troll, when you're resorting to juvenile name-calling.
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
Did the driver ram his vehicle into cop vehicle(s)? try and keep up, fool.
So shooting to death the occupants of a vehicle traveling at a high rate of speed makes the situation safer how?
Just asking a question I haven't seen asked yet and used your comment as a springboard.
Just curious... who do you hold responsible for such a tragic death?
The officers were not prosecuted. This was a civil case filed by the driver’s daughter alleging that the officers used excessive force. The officers claimed qualified immunity.
You mean like how the cops killed the citizen in the passenger seat who's only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time?
Yes, had the driver lived and the passenger died, the legal charges against the driver would have included the death of the passenger. Whine to someone else. maybe the n00bie will give your ego some stroking.
You are a winner! The police can stop any high speed chase every time if they stop chasing.
helicopter? Drones? Police radios.
Don’t know the reason for this chase, but most chases are unnecessary and dangerous to everyone!
It is my fervent prayer that your cold hearted, smart mouthed, callous a$$ is caught up in a situation similar to this.
There are four different standards to determine what constitutes a government official’s 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 force—that 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.
Because of these reasons, many, many police forces years ago instituted policies prohibiting officers from firing from a moving vehicle at another vehicle. This was just a police force protecting a fellow officer who endangered the public with reckless behavior.
By ramming a vehicle into a police vehicle a perp is demonstrating the use of a weapon with intent to do bodily harm or kill. ‘Choot ‘um’
She had the opportunity to exit the vehicle. Wonder why she didn’t?
“As he did so, Evans and Plumhoff got out of their cruisers and approached Rickard’s car, and Evans, gun in hand, pounded on the passenger-side window. At that point, Rickard’s car “made contact with” yet another police cruiser. Ibid. Rickard’s tires started spinning, and his car “was rocking back and forth,” ibid., indicating that Rickard was using the accelerator even though his bumper was flush against a police cruiser.”
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.