SCOTUS Rules on Police Shooting...and Sotomayor's Scathing Dissent

Townhall.com ^ | April 3, 2018 | Cortney O'Brien

[9YearLurker]

I agree. Gotta give the Wise Latina her due here.

[Ancient Man]

This is an insane ruling which will inspire and embolden similar acts in the future. Police officers are trained in the principle of “Continuation of Force” which includes:

1. Presence of authority
2. Verbal commands
3. Soft physical force (restraints)
4. Hard physical force (takedowns)
5. Impact & chemicaal weapons
6. Electronic immobilization devices, and finally
7. Lethal or potentially lethal force

Why train police officers to apply escalating applications of force, when they can just jump straigt to the use of lethal force? Did no one think of using Mace or a taser?

[Garvin]

Left out of Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissent;They had been there but a few minutes, perhaps just a minute. When Kisela fired, Hughes was holding a large kitchen knife, had taken steps toward another woman standing nearby, and had refused to drop the knife after at least two commands to do so.

[ViLaLuz]

“they believed at the time that Hughes was a threat to Chadwick.” That’s the reason right there.

[Neoliberalnot]

She’s hacking on a tree with a dagger? Is that a lethal weapon? I’ll go with the LEOs, not some LaRaza klan member that has no business in such a position.

[arthurus]

The sheriff here would probably have pulled the lady fop off the street immediately. He has lectured local officers about the fact that they are trained to handle certain types of situations, in the specific case-threatening dogs, without the using their guns. We had two dogs shot here in the space of a month back when it had become almost a normal part of everyday police work in several cities. Sheriff Mckiethen's lectures to all the local police forces in the county ended that and no dogs have been shot since. Police are trained to handle even big dogs, and very very few of the encounters are actually threatening. Likewise they are trained to handle people with knives though that is more likely to require use of deadly force. With a fence between the two and no hostage, shooting is not required and seems more like whim.

[arthurus]

Me too. Stopped clocks and all that.

[jpsb]

Strange as it is to find myself agreeing with Sotomayor, in this case.

Me too

[Faith Presses On]

Yes. Within six feet of her.

“The Arizona police officer, Andrew Kisela, had shot Amy Hughes four times after she ignored calls from three police officers to drop her weapon, which she held while standing within six feet of her roommate, Sharon Chadwick.”

https://amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/2/supreme-court-says-policeman-isnt-personally-liabl/

[Wuli]

I have seldom if ever agreed with Sotomayer.

With the bare evidence we have in this case, the context to me seems as Sotomayer suggests - the officer acted in unnecessary haste. The person he claimed he was acting in defense of did not demonstrate they felt threatened, and other than holding a knife she had been hacking a tree with, the woman who was shot did not seem to be verbally threatening anyone.

I do not believe acting in unnecessary haste qualifies for immunity for a police officers actions.

I am as tough on criminals as the next person, as well as being tough on acknowledging police commands when necessary. None of that dismisses police officers to act first and think later. The first act of police is to quickly and CALMLY assess the context of a situation, not just act first as if there is always a perp to be taken down. Failure to immediately respond to rapid fire police commands does not in and of itself - without additional actions - automatically constitute a threat. What were the additional actions of the woman that constituted a threat? In the evidence we are shown it appeared to be none.

[ConservativeMind]

Who was she threatening with the knife? It sounds like it was a tree.

From what was said here, I do not see a justifiable reason to shoot this lady.

If they really wanted to stop her from torturing the tree, they could have tazed her.

[Bonemaker]

“A fence separated them but he was scared and had to shoot her anyway????”

Sure, same as if a puppy was on the other side of the fence.

[shelterguy]

Was the roommate chained to the tree?

[ConservativeMind]

Then the roommate should have backed away when the police drew their guns to cover her.

[Bonemaker]

““they believed at the time that Hughes was a threat to Chadwick” The roommate was on the same side of the fence as Hughes.”

But Chadwick wasn’t afraid or feeling threatened nor were the other two cops....only the super hero.

[JayGalt]

Despite the officer’s name ending in a vowel “he dropped to the ground & shot”
The Arizona police officer, Andrew Kisela, had shot Amy Hughes four times after she ignored calls from three police officers to drop her weapon, which she held while standing within six feet of her roommate, Sharon Chadwick.

[moovova]

"Why you would want to be close to someone hacking away at a tree with a knife I don’t know."

[ConservativeMind]

The tree was being hit with the knife and three cops were ready to shoot, so the roommate was not threatened and could have easily left.

[Aevery_Freeman]

La Raza’s opinion: America is always wrong (and Racist).

Got it?

[Moonman62]

From another article:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for an Arizona police officer who shot a woman outside her home in Tucson. The court’s decision was unsigned and issued without full briefing and oral argument, an indication that the majority found the case to be easy.

...

So the rest of the court including the the liberals found this to be a slam dunk case.