Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Sotomayor: “By sanctioning a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing, ..."

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,166

    Sotomayor: “By sanctioning a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing, ..."

    SCOTUS: Not clearly established deadly force could not be used on suspect fleeing at high speed who threatened to shoot officers; Sotomayor: “By sanctioning a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing, the Court renders the protections of the Fourth Amendment hollow.”

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...-1143_f20h.pdf

    http://fourthamendment.com/?p=19495#more-19495

    A wise Latina indeed.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,274
    Terry v. Ohio was the hollowing of the 4A.

    Wise? Not really.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Terry v. Ohio was the hollowing of the 4A.

    Wise? Not really.
    +1

    And, I agree Sotomayor was not any special wise.

    Nonetheless, I gotta kinda be a tiny little bit thankful she sided with rights. God knows, she's pretty anti-liberty. I'll take what I can get.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  4. #4
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    The real problem here is the ruling on use of qualified immunity. There's a very fine line that needs to be drawn through the middle of the argument.

    On the one hand, you have incidents like what happened in Marksville, Louisiana, where the cops killed a 6 yr old for no reason. On the other, you have the ones like Mullenix/Leija or the Todd Kirkpatrick's of the world where the criminals and/or their friends and relatives know they're guilty but still try to turn them into innocent victims so they could get a payday.

    I don't think that SCOTUS got it right in the fact that of making it tougher for these cases to go forward, BUT in this specific case, they were correct in saying there was no real basis for the lawsuit. There should be a better defined, not tougher, set of standards that need to be reached before the cases can be heard, and currently there isn't.
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •