Supremes make it harder to charge cops for shooting people without reason

[dead0man]

son of a bitch

I'd quote a bit of it, but these things are hard to parse.  Perhaps somebody smarter than me could do it for me?

WaPo article on it.

Reason's take

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Storebought]

I predict this thread will languish behind the 76,509th "OMG Trump tweeted something REALLY STUPID! today" in General Discussion, especially strange given that this forum has 76,509 lawyers in it. I guess they don't like giving advice for "free."

---

As far as this particular case goes, I suppose the fact the defendant had a knife made lethal force "necessary" by the police, and that was what the Court agreed with. But I am distressed about the reasoning behind it -- "'clearly established' rights that a 'reasonable person would have known'" is just as atrocious a rule as "fear for my life".

[Anna Komnene]

Stop! In the name of loooove. Before you break my heart. Think it over. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

"No, I didn't shot him. Poor guy just fell on all the bullets coming from my gun."

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Reasonable person standard is a pretty well-established precedent for self defense, as is, in this case, defense of others. Qualified immunity for federal officers likewise enjoys established precedent in case law stemming from the landmark Bivens case.

In the case of a suit against state officials, as this seemingly was, the defense of qualified immunity stems from 42 USC 1983, known colloquially as "1983 suits," which, as a federal law, the responsibility for amending rests with Congress.

Tldr: the law here is pretty well settled; if one disagrees with the outcome, take it up with Congress.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

So a 7-2 ruling? Good luck overturning that with the moderate heroes that Democrats like to appoint.

[brucejoel99]

In my opinion, the majority's reasoning is perplexing: Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, & didn't raise the knife in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else. What's more, Kisela alone resorted to deadly force in this case; confronted w/ the same circumstances as Kisela, neither of his fellow officers took the same drastic measure that he did. B/c Kisela plainly lacked any legitimate interest justifying the use of deadly force against a woman who posed no objective threat of harm to officers or others, had committed no crime, & appeared calm & collected during the police encounter, he shouldn't have been entitled to qualified immunity. Of course, this decision is just another part of a disturbing trend of unflinching willingness to protect police officers accused of using excessive force. The court's decision here concerning qualified immunity simply transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers. And there's nothing right or just under the law about that.

[IndustrialJustice]

So a 7-2 ruling? Good luck overturning that with the moderate heroes that Democrats like to appoint.

Sotomayor is the only decent Justice on the Court, with Ginsburg far behind in second place. Kagan is often useless and Breyer is a borderline reactionary on many issues.

[politicallefty]

So a 7-2 ruling? Good luck overturning that with the moderate heroes that Democrats like to appoint.

No, it's per curiam, which means the majority was too cowardly to actually show its majority. All we know is that at least 5 Justices voted in the majority. And while I'm sure you'll note the rare instance when they've been wrong, but what is wrong with Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor? As far as left-leaning Justices go, we already knew Ginsburg was good. I've said a number of times before that Sotomayor was really a genius pick by Obama. Despite how she initially appeared, she really is a Scalia of the left. The conservative majority will not reign forever and she is laying the groundwork for when progressives procure the majority once again.