|
archangelwar posted:The guy disobeyed his commanding officer and operated outside the scope of procedure, why should personal immunity be granted? If he did the exact same thing, but he was instead a construction worker, should he enjoy the same immunity? In your construction worker example, if a construction supervisor tells one of his workers to go put down the boards for the dining room floor before the bedroom, and the worker decides to do the bedroom first, he shouldn't be ineligible for workman's comp if he gets injured laying boards in the bedroom.
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:In your construction worker example, if a construction supervisor tells one of his workers to go put down the boards for the dining room floor before the bedroom, and the worker decides to do the bedroom first, he shouldn't be ineligible for workman's comp if he gets injured laying boards in the bedroom. Except eligibility for workers comp and legal liability for the deaths caused by your actions are vastly different. I think most people here think the killer cop in this example should not lose worker's comp, just maybe the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for his mistakes and willful disregard of his supervisor's orders.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IANAL, but as far as I can tell, the first part has been established, the second part has not. If the department's standing Use of Force policy permits firing on the vehicle of a dangerous suspect, then his superior's instruction to use spike strips instead would not necessarily create a legal duty. I don't think that going against a supervisor's judgement should create legal liability, in much the same way that "my boss told me to do it" is not a sufficient defense to illegal actions. Note that the spike strip had already been laid. The guy just decided to be more "proactive" and get his shots in before the victim reached the spikes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except eligibility for workers comp and legal liability for the deaths caused by your actions are vastly different. I think most people here think the killer cop in this example should not lose worker's comp, just maybe the tax payers shouldn't have to pay for his mistakes and willful disregard of his supervisor's orders. Dead Reckoning posted:IANAL, but as far as I can tell, the first part has been established, the second part has not. If the department's standing Use of Force policy permits firing on the vehicle of a dangerous suspect, then his superior's instruction to use spike strips instead would not necessarily create a legal duty. I don't think that going against a supervisor's judgement should create legal liability, in much the same way that "my boss told me to do it" is not a sufficient defense to illegal actions. The construction worker analogy is worthless beyond repair, construction workers don't have qualified immunity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:IANAL, but as far as I can tell, the first part has been established, the second part has not. The officer attempted to disable the vehicle by shooting a rifle from an overpass. Exactly what part of this could/should be proper procedure because it does not even make sense as a valid method of disabling a vehicle. Was he going to shoot through the engine block? Was he going to shoot through the body of the car to hit the tires? It would be one thing if he fired from level ground claiming to aim at the tires. quote:If the department's standing Use of Force policy permits firing on the vehicle of a dangerous suspect, then his superior's instruction to use spike strips instead would not necessarily create a legal duty. I don't think that going against a supervisor's judgement should create legal liability, in much the same way that "my boss told me to do it" is not a sufficient defense to illegal actions. I didn't mean a construction worker doing "a thing," I meant a construction worker shooting a gun at a car from an overpass attempting to disable the vehicle. Because it does not make sense for either person to do it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I think he's saying they didn't have body cams, not that they were turned off. If not wearing them is against department policy that could be another point towards them deliberately trying to do something wrong. Still waiting for clarification. The article in which it was mentioned didn't state whether they had cams on their person (turned off) or weren't wearing them at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not how qualified immunity works "Are department policies blatantly unreasonable when followed properly?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:"Are department policies blatantly unreasonable when followed properly?" I'm at a 100% loss as to what you're trying to get at
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:"Are department policies blatantly unreasonable when followed properly?" Irrelevant to current QI. It only matters if they're blatantly unconstitutional. (Current QI standards are terrible.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Whether qualified immunity should exist at all is an interesting discussion I'd love to have because I'm not sure where I stand on it, the linked case is however an absolutely correct application of it I think Sotomayor was correct to point out that the majority dodges the requirement to establish if a right has been in fact violated in judging whether to grant qualified immunity. Mullenix had a stupid idea to snipe the car before it hit the roadblock even though he had no relevant training or reason to believe he could pull it off, or that it would be safer to the officers at the roadblock or to the public. He certainly knew it could result in death or injury to the driver. A reasonable officer in that position should know that his reckless actions could cause the driver's death, and that doing so would be a 4th Amendment violation (because department policy and his own superior officer council him against this action). In particular, in choosing a specifically unsanctioned, recklessly lethal method to stop a car that his fellow officers were already attempting to stop through other department approved methods, Mullenix fails to put forth a reason for his action that includes a state interest of any kind in his personal use of lethal force. If qualified immunity is justified at all, it must be applied to law enforcement whose violations of rights could not reasonably have been assessed by the officer at the time of the violation. But Mullenix has not advanced to the court a rationale for his actions that preclude him reasonably understanding that recklessly shooting at the car could easily kill the driver, and that doing so would not be preferable to the methods already being employed by other officers. In particular, Mullenix claims that he planned to shoot the engine block to stop the car more safely. This is objectively unreasonable, since the car was going 85 miles per hour at the time, and if successful would likely lose control and careen into the officers Mullenix was trying to protect (note: that is what happened although they were not injured). In the case that the car was stopped safely and the driver was unharmed, the putative aim, he would have presented the same risk to the officers as before shooting (should he have been armed, which he wasn't). Although Sotomayor does not go so far as to state this, the only way to interpret Mullenix's actions as protecting his fellow officers at all is if he plainly intended to kill the suspect. If so then that would be a clear and knowing 4th violation. If that was not his aim, then his actions were recklessly risking (and causing) the driver's death while not asserting that the driver posed an immediate risk that necessitated lethal force.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think Sotomayor was correct to point out that the majority dodges the requirement to establish if a right has been in fact violated in judging whether to grant qualified immunity. Unfortunately, simple deductive reasoning based on logical evaluation of the facts isn't "blatant" enough to bust through the court's take on qualified immunity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
FYI, it looks like the judge has issued a gag-order on the Marksville marshals case as of now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:FYI, it looks like the judge has issued a gag-order on the Marksville marshals case as of now. The body cam footage must be appalling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
C2C - 2.0 posted:FYI, it looks like the judge has issued a gag-order on the Marksville marshals case as of now. I wonder why they've moved so fast on arresting these particular cops, is there something special about the victim or the officers this time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder why they've moved so fast on arresting these particular cops, is there something special about the victim or the officers this time? Might be the death of a child. It's easy to handwave away killing unarmed suspects if they may have had a tiny, middling chance of being threatening or delaying stuff for ages while you waffle over whether or not he really pulled out a wallet as fast as the officers said he did. But right now we've got a 6-year-old's brains splattered all over a car next to an unarmed man after the officers involved tried to pass it off as a gunfight. The only really worthwhile defense would be trying to pin the death on the father.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Might be the death of a child. It's easy to handwave away killing unarmed suspects if they may have had a tiny, middling chance of being threatening or delaying stuff for ages while you waffle over whether or not he really pulled out a wallet as fast as the officers said he did. But right now we've got a 6-year-old's brains splattered all over a car next to an unarmed man after the officers involved tried to pass it off as a gunfight. The only really worthwhile defense would be trying to pin the death on the father. Surely if they were in a dangerous situation related to a moving car they'd have some kind of skin abrasions. Have their pictures (mugshots or cop glamour shots) been released?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Surely if they were in a dangerous situation related to a moving car they'd have some kind of skin abrasions. Have their pictures (mugshots or cop glamour shots) been released? Mugshots are out there, along with a few photos of the crime scene (albeit with the vehicles removed and some confusing spray paint on the ground). I think it'll be a looonnnggg time before that bodycam footage ever sees the light of day though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder why they've moved so fast on arresting these particular cops, is there something special about the victim or the officers this time? Did they actually arrest the shooter(s)? Last I remember, they hadn't been arrested yet and posters here were complaining about how slowly the wheels were turning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Did they actually arrest the shooter(s)? Last I remember, they hadn't been arrested yet and posters here were complaining about how slowly the wheels were turning. 2 of them were arrested
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:25
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:Did they actually arrest the shooter(s)? Last I remember, they hadn't been arrested yet and posters here were complaining about how slowly the wheels were turning. They were arrested and charged with murder this past Friday, 3 days after the shooting. The critique wasn't really a "The wheels of justice turn slowly" critique. It was more that despite having solid evidence that the officers lied about the circumstances almost immediately after the incident and full knowledge that they shot a 6-year-old boy in the head (while attempting to kill his unarmed father), they still let the officers run around free until they had charges when any civilian who gunned down a kid while trying to shoot an unarmed man would have been immediately arrested on the scene and thrown in a cell for as long as they could get away with it. Even in a situation as heinous as accidentally shooting a child when firing at an unarmed man (who supposedly had his hands up in surrender during the shooting according to people who saw the footage), the officers were still given the benefit of the doubt for several days that normally isn't given to non-cops.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
I'm confused. It's been established that shooting at anyone except to kill them is something only every other first world cop is capable of, so how could he disable a car if American cops are only able to shoot to kill?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
woah, did you read this opinion upside down in a mirror or something? I can't imagine how you managed to get it so muddled. amanasleep posted:I think Sotomayor was correct to point out that the majority dodges the requirement to establish if a right has been in fact violated in judging whether to grant qualified immunity. A right being violated is not a requirement for granting qualified immunity, it is in fact just the opposite, the violation of a constitutional right was the mechanism through which the plaintiff was attempting to pierce qualified immunity. And the fact you say the majority did not address this is really bizarre since the entire basis of the majority's argument was that the use of lethal force in this circumstance would not constitute a violation of the fourth amendment. It was in fact Sotomayor's dissent ignored this and never attempted to address it that makes her look so foolish. amanasleep posted:Mullenix had a stupid idea to snipe the car before it hit the roadblock even though he had no relevant training or reason to believe he could pull it off, or that it would be safer to the officers at the roadblock or to the public. He certainly knew it could result in death or injury to the driver. A reasonable officer in that position should know that his reckless actions could cause the driver's death, and that doing so would be a 4th Amendment violation (because department policy and his own superior officer council him against this action). And the rest of this is pretty much Sotomayor's dissent, and its silly, because its really irrelevant how stupidly dangerous Mullenix's attempt at stopping the vehicle when intentionally shooting the driver would have been constitutionally valid. chitoryu12 posted:They were arrested and charged with murder this past Friday, 3 days after the shooting. The critique wasn't really a "The wheels of justice turn slowly" critique. It was more that despite having solid evidence that the officers lied about the circumstances almost immediately after the incident and full knowledge that they shot a 6-year-old boy in the head (while attempting to kill his unarmed father), they still let the officers run around free until they had charges when any civilian who gunned down a kid while trying to shoot an unarmed man would have been immediately arrested on the scene and thrown in a cell for as long as they could get away with it. Even in a situation as heinous as accidentally shooting a child when firing at an unarmed man (who supposedly had his hands up in surrender during the shooting according to people who saw the footage), the officers were still given the benefit of the doubt for several days that normally isn't given to non-cops. Justified use of force that kills a bystander is generally still justified, I'm not sure why people keep bringing that up like its what makes this case different from every other self defense case where the shooter doesn't get arrested right away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:00
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Justified use of force that kills a bystander is generally still justified, I'm not sure why people keep bringing that up like its what makes this case different from every other self defense case where the shooter doesn't get arrested right away. Most self-defense cases where the shooter doesn't get arrested right away are "You shot someone after claiming he was a threat, but you didn't tell the full story and now we're suspicious." Not "You shot an unarmed man after claiming it was really a gunfight, injured him, and also killed a 6-year-old. Everything you claimed was disproven almost immediately from a cursory glance at the scene. Oh, and the bodycam footage shows that he was surrendering."
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:I wonder why they've moved so fast on arresting these particular cops, is there something special about the victim or the officers this time? chitoryu12 posted:Might be the death of a child. It's easy to handwave away killing unarmed suspects if they may have had a tiny, middling chance of being threatening or delaying stuff for ages while you waffle over whether or not he really pulled out a wallet as fast as the officers said he did. But right now we've got a 6-year-old's brains splattered all over a car next to an unarmed man after the officers involved tried to pass it off as a gunfight. The only really worthwhile defense would be trying to pin the death on the father. I wish Tamir Rices family could get this level of closure this quickly. That case has been dragging on for a loving year now with no end in sight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I wish Tamir Rices family could get this level of closure this quickly. That case has been dragging on for a loving year now with no end in sight. Tamir Rice had a fake gun in his waistband, therefore it was a Good Shoot. We should be grateful that our hero cops acted with such jurisprudence instead of risking their lives waiting to make sure that they should kill a 12-year-old!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Tamir Rice had a fake gun in his waistband, therefore it was a Good Shoot. We should be grateful that our hero cops acted with such jurisprudence instead of risking their lives waiting to make sure that they should kill a 12-year-old! Well you see *500 word post about how the cop was within his rights to shoot a child as his cruiser was in mid stop then lie throughout his report*
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Well you see *500 word post about how the cop was within his rights to shoot a child as his cruiser was in mid stop then lie throughout his report* Just because the cops created the situation that only gave them mere seconds to outdraw a 12 year old doesn't make it a good shoot you hippie. What else could they do besides come to a screeching halt 5 feet away and scare the crap out the kid? Have a heart, he used to cry at the gun range and every supervisor said he couldn't handle stress and didn't think he could be taught, what else do you do with an emotionally unstable cop besides arming him and sending him with incomplete info to investigate a kid with a toy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:[quote] It only would be constitutionally valid if there were no alternative method of stopping the car, as clearly stated in the dissent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Lyesh posted:It only would be constitutionally valid if there were no alternative method of stopping the car, as clearly stated in the dissent. That's not true at all, and it's addressed thoroughly in the majority opinion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Out of curiosity, what is the feeling regarding the use of deadly force for a fleeing person? As a hypothetical, cop sees someone who fits the description of a suspect of let's say petty theft. Stole some cigarettes or something. Cop tells the guy to stop and he runs. At this point he may be the right guy or he may just look like him. Is shooting him justified? As I said it MAY be the right guy but may not be. Is simply disobeying and running from an officer justification to shoot if he's going to get away?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Out of curiosity, what is the feeling regarding the use of deadly force for a fleeing person? Personal feeling: only if you believe the fleeing person to be an immediate danger to others should the flight be successful. But I also have strong opinions on non-pursuit as well. I suppose this speaks to possible gap in the conversation earlier, as I am much less interested in whether the cop should have been covered under existing qualified immunity provisions than I am in the fact that this case represented actions that no one should be able to legally take in general. As I said, the construction worker reference was not an analogy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Out of curiosity, what is the feeling regarding the use of deadly force for a fleeing person? Justified? Hell no. Legal? IANAL, so I have no idea. Probably though, considering that it happens.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Justified? Hell no. Legal? IANAL, so I have no idea. Probably though, considering that it happens. Tennessee v. Garner quote:Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)[1], was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, he or she may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." It's unconstitutional to use deadly force on a simple unarmed person fleeing with no other aggravating issues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's not true at all, and it's addressed thoroughly in the majority opinion. The crux of the disagreement between Majority and Dissent is whether Mullenix's actions were objectively reasonable and whether part of the immunity test is asserting a governmental interest in choosing a particular method of seizure. Sotomayor concludes that an objectively reasonable officer could not view Mullenix's actions as improving the safety of his fellow officers or himself given the existing decision by officers to stop Leija with spike traps, and in fact were likely to increase that danger vs. no action. She also asserts that neither the plaintiff nor the Majority put forth any governmental interest in choosing to shoot over waiting (as opposed to the decision to shoot vs. letting him go). For instance Mullenix had no reason to believe that his assessment of the dangers of deploying the spike strips vs. shooting the engine block was objectively more reasonable than those of his fellow officers who also knew about Leija's threats, etc. and had chosen a different method. In fact, it was objectively less reasonable since they had training on their tactic and he had none. Given that knowledge, the Majority's citing of disputes in the Law Enforcement community about the effectiveness and safety of spike traps vs. shooting the engine block as not putting the objective unreasonableness of Mullenix's actions beyond debate is specious, because Mullenix himself was wholly ignorant of any such controversy. All the other cited cases involve situations where the plaintiff's actions were governed by a choice either to attempt or not to attempt to stop a dangerous fugitive. No such dilemma faced Mullenix. Instead, he assigned himself (against orders) the task of selecting a method that he claims would improve the safety and/or efficacy of a stop already in progress. The majority only establishes that Mullenix's actions pass the test if he was tasked with deciding to stop Leija alone. Since Garner requires that the methods selected in a seizure must also pass the test of governmental interest, Sotomayor asserts that the plaintiff has not passed the test in asserting a governmental interest in applying his method relative to the method already selected and being carried out by his fellow officers. Mullenix knew he was incompetent to execute his chosen tactic, and that he was doing so against explicit orders by his superior, and that his alternative of inaction would not necessarily result in increased danger to himself or others since a reasonable stop attempt was in progress. He also knew that firing at a vehicle that posed no immediate threat would be a violation. The threat for Mullenix to evaluate was relative to the threat already evaluated and acted on by his fellow officers in full view of Mullenix and with plenty of advance notice. Those officers, as well as Mullenix's superiors, had already known about, understood, assessed, and made judgments about the threats posed by Leija. Mullenix's actions can only be understood as immune if he was acting upon information unknown to his fellow officers. He was not. Maybe Mullenix was pissed that he missed his chance at the collar. Maybe he thought he was helping. But objectively, beyond all arguments, a reasonable officer with the knowledge and training at Mullenix's disposal should not have "upgraded" the current approved tactic to recklessly lethal without consultation or approval from his superiors or the officers at the roadblock.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Devor posted:Tennessee v. Garner That said, the Michael Brown case has also demonstrated that a sufficiently large or strong unarmed person is an "aggravating issue" for killing, even if there's little difference in actual size and strength between the two. It's also easily possible to use the "threat" of being run down as an excuse for shooting, as long as you've placed yourself in the right position where you could maybe get your foot run over or something. Or just intentionally leap in front of a speeding car, so you're instantly in danger and thus allowed to shoot!
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:That said, the Michael Brown case has also demonstrated that a sufficiently large or strong unarmed person is an "aggravating issue" for killing, even if there's little difference in actual size and strength between the two. It's also easily possible to use the "threat" of being run down as an excuse for shooting, as long as you've placed yourself in the right position where you could maybe get your foot run over or something. Or just intentionally leap in front of a speeding car, so you're instantly in danger and thus allowed to shoot! Yes. Recklessly escalating situations so as to trigger self-defense and/or qualified immunity claims is a general problem in law enforcement. It is a perverse incentive that gets people killed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:Yes. Recklessly escalating situations so as to trigger self-defense and/or qualified immunity claims is a general problem in law enforcement. It is a perverse incentive that gets people killed. *Steps in front of car* "Well I had no choice but to kill that guy. He was trying to run me over"
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Also, does it matter if the suspect was armed or just if the office had reason to believe they were armed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
SalTheBard posted:I wish Tamir Rices family could get this level of closure this quickly. That case has been dragging on for a loving year now with no end in sight. There's a pretty clear reason why Tamir Rice hasn't been honored with his murderer being brought to justice while the two cops who murdered the kid in Louisiana were brought in and charged before the victim's funeral had even taken place: Tamir Rice:  Officer Loehmann, who murdered Tamir Rice:  Jeremy Mardis:  Officers Greenhouse and Stafford, who murdered Jeremy Mardis: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 18:23 |
|
|
The reason I ask some of these situations seem to end up being cop had to shoot him because he was in danger but the only reason he was in danger is because it seems someone getting away, no matter how minor, has become so unthinkable that fighting, tazing, wrestling and sometimes ending up killing someone really only started because the dead person was trying to escape. Yes, of course if it's a known dangersous person they must be stopped. But the cop who planted the tazer it seems the only reason it even became a thing was the planting of the tazer and not 'tazed then shot guy for trying to run' (I forget the background of that one but for this discussion let's say they guy wasn't a fleeing rapist or mugger or anything). So a guy gets away. Why is that worse than creating a situation where now it's kill or be killed? It's starting to look like some kind of ego thing, if he doesn't catch the bad guy he's no longer a man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2015 22:56
|
|