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 don’t know if he was wearing a seat belt. But he didn’t make the decision to run because of some stupid traffic tickets and the family didn’t think the cops should have chased him the way they did, causing the accident. It was sad, he was a good kid.
That wasn’t the case though, and maybe you shouldn’t watch so many movies.
You stated merely driving a vehicle made it possession of a deadly weapon. Now you seek to qualify it.
Oh... I dunno... Fear of being shot by the police? Or maybe fear of getting out of a vehicle that hasn't completely come to a stop?
The kid driving was stupid but the cops didn’t need to start a high speed chase; the kids weren’t in the act of committing a violent crime or anything.
I know. I agree with you.
I can generally understand the fear of being shot. However, when I imagine myself in such situation (which wouldn’t happen because I’ll pull my weapon and demand that the driver let me the hell out), I think it would be fairly easy to indicate to the officer pounding on my window that I needed help and wanted to get out.
JMHO.
You WORKED vs worked? As opposed to VACATIONED?
I guess it comes down to the fact too many people and dogs are getting shot. It keeps getting worse and us CIVILIANS are told not to worry our pretty little heads about it, that we don’t UNDERSTAND because we aren’t COPS.
I’m a radical who thinks law enforcement works for the people. That the power in this country comes from the people and the PEOPLE need to stand up and hold our law enforcement RESPONSIBLE.
Agreed.
You ever seen how cops are during a high speed chase? I seriously doubt that there were any cops there that were calm enough to be able to see that she was afraid and wanted to get out. Most cops are so hyped up and angry that you ran that your a$$ is going to get kicked whether you're guilty or not.
I absolutely agree with that! We the people MUST work to hold irrational cops to the laws. This was not a case of irrational behavior by law enforcement, however. The rash of cops shooting people’s pets is a sign of a sick wing of society. If we the people do not prosecute such irrational behavior then it will continue to infect the institutions of law enforcement. An attacking pitbull is one thing. The puppies in a back yard is quite another.
I have long been an advocate of using lethal force to stop the use of criminal deadly force.
For what? They're only enforcing laws written by the people's elected representatives.
I agree with you. The only attitude I’m condemning is those who hold the entire function of law enforcement in contempt. And there are demonstrably plenty of those on this website. I have no idea who they expect to enforce duly enacted laws approved by communities by the people. If there is no enforcement, the laws have no effect and might as well be repealed. And in case you think I am talking about intrusive laws such as “healthcare,” “hate-crimes,” etc., I am talking about basic property rights and civil society laws, such as theft, assault and community obscenity.
There were very few law enforcement incidences of the type that are making the news lately when I was in the profession, and it is tragic that these incidences have been escalating, and officers should be held accountable for their misconduct, without a doubt. But to reflexively condemn the entire function because of these is just plain ignorant.
So what of the rights of the passenger? I guess it was justified to kill her too. You know... Just in case.
The drivers of the car weren’t armed
Isn’t the car the weapon in this case?
Yes, what you said.
This ruling is a clarifier. The option to shoot was reasonable given the circumstances. Had cops not shot and innocents had been killed, we’d be up in arms over the wimpy response.
FTA:
“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.”
BS!! They were armed with a 4,000 pound projectile, a weapon far more dangerous than most guns, just as St.Trayvon of the Skittles (SBUH) was armed with his fists and a large slab of concrete.
I guess it was impossible to shoot the tires? Much easier to kill the occupants.
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.