Posted on 04/03/2018 5:47:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a police officer who shot a woman outside of her home in Tucson, Arizona in May 2010. The officer, Andrew Kisela, shot Amy Hughes after she was seen acting "erratically," hacking at a tree with a knife and arguing with her roommate.
Kisela and another police officer, Alex Garcia, heard about the report on their patrol car radio and responded. A third police officer, Lindsay Kunz, arrived on the scene on her bicycle.
All three officers drew their guns. At least twice they told Hughes to drop the knife. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hughes, Chadwick said “take it easy” to both Hughes and the officers. Hughes appeared calm, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife. The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s line of fire, so he dropped to the ground and shot Hughes four times through the fence. Then the officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics, who transported her to a hospital. There she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Less than a minute had transpired from the moment the officers saw Chadwick to the moment Kisela fired shots.
Hughes, they later learned, had a history of mental illness. She and Chadwick were roommates and they apparently had a disagreement over $20.
Kisela, Garcia and Kunz defended Kisela's decision to shoot, noting they believed at the time that Hughes was a threat to Chadwick. Still, Hughes sued Kisela, alleging that he had used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
In their ruling Monday, the Supreme Court cited several other court cases as precedent in their acquittal of the police officer. They cited Kisela’s qualified immunity, which protects public officials from damages for civil liability as long as they did not violate an individual's "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights, Cornell explains.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, offering a different perspective of what transpired, concluding Officer Kisela acted hastily.
"Kisela did not wait for Hughes to register, much less respond to, the officers’ rushed commands," Sotomayor insisted. "Instead, Kisela immediately and unilaterally escalated the situation."
Furthermore, he gave no advance warning that he would shoot, and "attempted no less dangerous methods to deescalate the situation."
She also disagreed with her colleagues in terms of qualified immunity. An officer is not entitled to qualified immunity, she said, if “(1) they violated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlawfulness of their conduct was ‘clearly established at the time.’”
Hughes, Sotomayor noted, had not committed a crime. Furthermore, when the police officers arrived on the scene, reports indicate that Hughes was standing “composed and content” during her encounter with Chadwick. With the above context, the justice came to the following conclusion.
The majority today exacerbates that troubling asymmetry. Its decision is not just wrong on the law; it also sends an alarming signal to law enforcement officers and the public. It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished. Because there is nothing right or just under the law about this, I respectfully dissent.
You can read the whole court ruling – and Sotomayor’s dissent – here.
Absolutely ridiculous. What brave "men" these officer's are!
Of course, this woman did disregard a lawful order repeatedly, so she deserved to be shot dead, obviously. After all, it would have been too much of a hassle to act like an actual human being, realize this person was mentally disturbed, and maybe attempt the use of non-lethal force first.
Let's remember, there was an intervening fence. Thus, though this woman was no practical threat to any of these officers, she did fail to respect their lawful authority, and the penalty for doing that to a police officer is death...
I think we can agree to disagree. I’m going to include some input from police officers...
A SCOTUS decision said that law enforcement had no constitutional duty to protect the public. However, this was largely to protect law enforcement from being civilly liable for situations they could not help.
For example, if there was one deputy on duty in a rural county that encompassed 500 square miles, most of it unincorporated area, and therefore the primary jurisdiction of the sheriff’s office, that deputy, and the sheriff’s office that employed him could not be sued if he was on one side of the county, and an “in-progress” call came from the other side, and he couldn’t get there in time.
Jim Doherty, Police officer for 20+ years serving at local, state, and federal levels.
Now, that’s the legal BS of this. Most officers would without a doubt run towards the shooter. To prevent the loss of life is in most mission statements of police departments across the country. In many departments, officers can face disciplinary actions for cowardice or failure to act. Even though police aren’t legally obligated to protect life, its second nature in the everyday duties of each LEO.
Any officer that refuses to act shouldn’t be an officer. If an officer doesn’t act because of fear, they shouldn’t be an officer. If any officer refuses to help another person they shouldn’t be an officer.
Raymond Niglio, Law Enforcement Officer (2002-present)
Answered Feb 23, 2018 · Upvoted by Dan Robb, SpcAgtRetDHS/AdjProf/PhD/GrdCertFornscPsy/USMCOfc&Enl/PI
Millions of us will never forget that.
It’s futile.
Unless it’s a non white cop killing a white person it is *ALWAYS* a ‘good shoot’ around here.
Remember, “civilians” don’t matter, the only thing that does is that the officer gets to go home to their family.
I did not write as is I was there. I wrote based on the only facts in the case we have available.
It is your argument that appears to be suggesting that there are facts in the case you are aware of that nobody else is aware of. If there are those other facts available you should present them, or explain how the facts that are presented are worth less than your animus to Sotomayer, because your animus to Sotomayer is your only argument, and that stands outside of any specific case or any facts on any case.
As I said at first, I seldom if ever have supported Sotomayer. That does not prevent me from putting my bias aside and looking at a case on its own.
I see that you are just responding to #2.
When you read further you'll see that it was the OTHER women that the police were worried about; that the MENTALLY DISTURBED one (WITH THE KNIFE) would suddenly attack the bystander.
2. (Nuke Mecca,
It is SO hard for me to discern which of your statements are sarcasm, and which are not.
First, the Townhall report is faultly, never introducing Chadwick but fist mentioning him as one who said said “take it easy.”
Reuters provides needed details:
Three university police officers went to the off-campus Tucson home that Hughes shared with her friend Sharon Chadwick after receiving a call about a woman acting erratically and hacking a tree with a knife.
Chadwick said in an affidavit that prior to the shooting, Hughes had threatened to kill Chadwick’s dog Bunny with a knife over a $20 magazine subscription. Chadwick went outside to her car to retrieve money from her purse when Hughes followed her outside, still holding the knife, according to court records.
Chadwick said Hughes had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was taking medication, and that she sometimes acted inappropriately but was never actually violent.
The three officers arrived at the edge of the metal yard fence and drew their guns. Hughes did not respond to orders to drop the knife as she walked toward Chadwick, and Kisela opened fire, according to court records. Kisela told investigators he saw Hughes raise her knife, but the other officers said they did not. - https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2018/04/03/scotus-ruling-on-police-shooting-n2467046
Thus we have two females sharing a home, one with manifest mental issues and threatening the life of a dog, and a solitary police officer seeing her raise her knife, and thus shoots her to stop an attack.
From where i see it, one office should have approached her to distract her from Chadwick and engage her in dialog, and tased her if necessary, or another PO could have grabbed her arm firmly, and disarmed her.
However, if you threaten to kill even a dog, and walk outside with a knife, and do not respond to the orders of a PO, who have guns drawn, then you are asking for force to be used against you. Yet one bullet should have sufficed. But then you have this: California lawmakers propose legislation restricting when officers can open fire was no reason
You do know the rule about people with knives?
that within 21 feet of someone, even if that person has a gun out, the knife-wielding assailant will win.
this nutty woman was within six feet of another human being, she was a threat.
I understand your point. However, she wasn’t doing anything wrong.
I’ve been in those situations before. I’m more than versed on the 21ft Rule. I wasn’t there and have no idea what the circumstances were and what course of action the cops took, other than standing behind a chain link fence. Did they as Chadwick to move toward them? Did they put themselves in harms way, as they should have, to shield Chadwick? Again, I wasn’t there, so I don’t know everything.
Just because someone isn’t compliant with “orders” doesn’t mean that they are a threat. However, in this case, reading some more details about the incident that the officer was justified.
But, I’m wondering why the other officer’s didn’t see the same thing, and fire as well.
Unfortunately, that ideology is all too commonplace in law enforcement today. I was one and never bought into that line of thinking.
They didn’t shanghai me to fill out the application or go to the police academy. I wasn’t a conscript. I knew why they gave me a gun and vest.
I was one and am sometimes disgusted with some of the things I read and hear about. But, there’s a lot more to that job than most people will ever know or understand.
Did they do the right thing in this incident? I’m leaning toward, NO. But, neither of us was there.
Well, she is going to make her own law - Latina Law. That’s what she is there for.
Seven SCJs said otherwise.
What facts? That she was threatening someone with a deadly weapon for a long period of time. The fat Mexican woman has no business on the Supreme Court. Her only qualification is being a fat Mexican, that’s it. She’s a Mexican klan member for crying out loud.
That is true. I wonder how many of them were there. I wonder how many of them were ever in positions like that, as I have been, in the past. I wonder if any of those 7 SCJs can cite what law was broken when she was standing there, supposedly cutting into a tree, with a knife, on private property that she had a right to be on. A cop telling you to drop something, while you’re on your property and refusing to do so, does not constitute a crime.
I wasn’t there. I didn’t see what the cop saw. I was a cop. I’ve been in sh*tty situations.
Was the cop able to articulate why he did what he did? Yes.
Does that make it the right thing to do? Neither of us was there.
A cop telling you to drop something, while you’re on your property and refusing to do so, does not constitute a crime.
What have YOU done when a person refused to obey what you told them to do?
The crazed woman might easily have stabbed her if she tried to go anywhere. In my view, when police are in such situations, they’re trying to interpret them very quickly, to boil all that’s complex down to the simple essentials of what matters most in mere seconds. Trying to interpret what’s going on and what matters and weigh it all so quickly can be extremely difficult and can’t involve that much thinking because there’s no time for much deliberation. They’re reacting according to their responsibilities and training and their experiences and common sense in what’s often a fog of war type of situation.
At this point, since there’s so much contention over the police, it might really be good as a society to look more closely at all they do and what it involves. For instance, it’s been proven that eyewitness testimony to an event like a crime is both good in some ways and faulty in others. Well, police are using those same faculties as witnesses do but they’re having to act. Our perceptions in challenging circumstances like that are both sharpened and more prone to error.
In this case, then, I would say from what I’ve heard so far about the case that it’s reasonable to conclude that the officer used reasonable force because his first duty was to protect the woman close to the crazed woman. He was operating on the fact of how the crazed woman acted and the danger to the other woman.
I’m going to look up more about that case, because so far in just about every single case I’ve heard about (with the exception of the Muslim immigrant cop who fired across his partner’s space and killed a woman approaching their police cruiser) the facts have shown that the police’s use of force has been far more reasonable than many people make out. The exact circumstances matter a great deal, and it really seems to me that most often the criticisms of the police are done using the benefit of hindsight and ignoring many of the realities faced by the police in the situation.
Believe it or not, a cop isn’t allowed to just go bossing people around, on their own property not doing anything.
What you do, is explain to the individual that you’d prefer it if they’d drop whatever it is they’re holding. And, you take the time necessary to accomplish that. There’s an old saying: You get more with sugar, than you do with shit. You’d probably be surprised how well, talking to someone in a calm and controlled voice, with reason, can diffuse a situation. It’s called, de-escalation, something that departments are training their personnel on, all over the country. Believe it or not, to prevent this type of stuff from happening.
As I stated, I wasn’t there. I didn’t see or hear what the cop saw or heard. Neither were you and neither were the 7 SCJs. However, I still would like to know why the officers stayed on the “safe” side of the fence and didn’t put themselves between Chadwick and Hughes. And, I’d still like to know why the other officers didn’t fire.
If I’m standing by the perp I don’t want anyone shooting through a fence in my general direction.
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.