• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

CA6: Shooting a man in the back for lawfully carrying a gun doesn’t get QI [yet D.Ct. bought it] John Wesley Hall Esq.

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,785
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
From the federal case.
Turnure attempts to rely on Redrick’s later conviction for inducing panic and indictment for felonious assault to support his argument. 2
Footnote:
2 Facing multiple felony charges, Redrick accepted a plea deal for misdemeanor inducing panic. R. 23-4, P. 207–08.
"Prosecutors dropped felonious assault charges against Redrick before trial last week. He pleaded no contest to misdemeanor inducing panic at trial."

In other words Redrick keeps his conceal carry license. And no, there was not a plea deal.
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,491
Location
Northern Piedmont
Not accurate for the Court to say that there was no controlling law that a reasonable cop ought to have known about (though the Court ruled that this aspect of qualified immunity was irrelevant in this case). Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985) had been decided in this same court and is well-settled, and I can't imagine that there's a cop out there who hasn't heard of the case. The fact that the cop was engaged in an unlawful (if not illegal) act at the time of the shooting (violation of the decedants' due process rights under color of state authority), that makes the shootings a minimum of manslaughter if not murder. I'm smelling political corruption in the prosecutor's office, and possibly malfeasance in office. It is possible to abuse prosecutorial discretion, which is not absolute.
 
Top