Posted on 12/03/2005 12:10:38 PM PST by radar101
Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s views on abortion caused a stir this week, but another memo that surfaced from his years as a Reagan administration lawyer was notable for its strong support of the police.
Alito wrote that he saw no constitutional problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who was fleeing after a $10 home burglary.
"I think the shooting [in this case] can be justified as reasonable," Alito wrote in a 1984 memo to Justice Department officials.
Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing, the courts should not set a rule forbidding the use of deadly force, he said.
"I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer's dilemma," Alito advised.
A year later, however, the Supreme Court used the same case to set a firm national rule against the routine use of "deadly force" against fleeing suspects who pose no danger.
"It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape," wrote Justice Byron White for a 6-3 majority in Tennessee vs. Garner. "Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."
The 4th Amendment forbids "unreasonable searches and seizures" by the government, and the high court said that killing an unarmed suspect who was subject to arrest amounted to an "unreasonable seizure."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
He supports Cops over degenerates, a.k.a. Liberals.
Will this same ruling apply to Terrorists fleeing the scene?
If a cop has a gun trained on you, and you've been breaking and entering......YOU BETTER STOP, if he orders you to.....or face the consequences. Is THAT so hard to understand?
A burglar would appear to be an inherent threat, in need of apprehension. When a cop yells "stop," the fleeing felon should expect some sort of follow up, if he does not.
There is far too much erring in favor of the criminal. I agree that it should require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," to convict--and I have won acquittal for more Defendants than I can count in the Court Room. But when a cop yells for a fleeing felon to stop, and he does not, I would never accuse the cop of using excess force if he draws his gun and fires. Some would, but not I. Respect for the authority of the cop to act, in that situation, is essential to effective crime deterrence.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
Fleeing a felony is a shooting offense in Arkansas. Probably is in alot of other States too.
The same should apply to citizens, not just the cops. The reason that we have the crime problems that we do is because so many politicians don't see this like Alito does. Politicians think everybody should be helpless so that the cops have to go out and catch these dirtball criminals after they've already left behind a trail of broken lives and dead bodies.
When a homeowner does whack a criminal in his house, they will still probably wind up paying thousands of dollars in legal fees. The cops think only they should be armed and the govt. is full of nutjob liberal prosecutors that will charge a guy with murder for protecting his family.
Sounds like we need him on the Court to overturn that stupid Supreme Court decision.
A fleeing suspect doesn't pose much of a hazard til he turns and shoots you... or perhaps blows himself up.
Standard trick here. Are we supposed to be pretending that the policeman knew that it was $10?
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.