Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

Trogdos!: Jul 11, 2009; A DRAGON POKEMAN
well technically a water/flying type

Toasticle posted:

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.

Walter Scott was stopped due to a broken taillight. Surely you can't let such a hardened criminal escape. Eight shots in the back, five of which hit.

# ? Nov 11, 2015 23:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 14:34

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Trabisnikof posted:

Also, does it matter if the suspect was armed or just if the office had reason to believe they were armed?

In practice? The latter. Police have been justified in killing not only people with fake guns, but also wallets (the shooters of Amadou Diallo were acquitted), with their hands in their pockets or lifting up their shirt, or unarmed and just big and scary (Michael Brown).

# ? Nov 11, 2015 23:38

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

FAUXTON posted:

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:

Thus makes a lot of sense sadly

# ? Nov 11, 2015 23:55

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

amanasleep posted:

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.

I'm on my phone but you're neglecting the fact the majority concluded that Garner was independently satisfied by either the imminent threat posed by the intoxicated high speed flight or the fact he was approaching the officer at the sponge strips after twice threatening to shoot cops in order to escape.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 00:10

amanasleep: May 21, 2008

Jarmak posted:

I'm on my phone but you're neglecting the fact the majority concluded that Garner was independently satisfied by either the imminent threat posed by the intoxicated high speed flight or the fact he was approaching the officer at the sponge strips after twice threatening to shoot cops in order to escape.

That information (and threat) was already assessed and responded to by the other officers, who made an objectively reasonable decision not to shoot.

He did not have different info or perceive a new and different threat, so his decision is not objectively more rational than that of the other officers present.

He did not advance a government interest in changing the method of seizure from spike strips to shooting the engine block, and had no basis for believing it to be safer or more effective.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 00:16

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

amanasleep posted:

That information (and threat) was already assessed and responded to by the other officers, who made an objectively reasonable decision not to shoot.

He did not have different info or perceive a new and different threat, so his decision is not objectively more rational than that of the other officers present.

He did not advance a government interest in changing the method of seizure from spike strips to shooting the engine block, and had no basis for believing it to be safer or more effective.

That's not how there objectively reasonable standard works at all

# ? Nov 12, 2015 01:46

amanasleep: May 21, 2008

Jarmak posted:

That's not how there objectively reasonable standard works at all

Graham directs the court to consider the specific facts of the case in determining what is objectively reasonable. The facts are that other officers with precisely the same information and knowledge of the threat posed by Leija used force differently. Mullenix acted with deadly force despite receiving an order to wait. That is objectively unreasonable because to act differently than the other officers would require information that they lacked. Here we need no hypothetically objectively reasonable officer--we have the example of other officers with exactly the same information and perspective on the situation.

Mullenix is not operating in a vacuum. It is likely true that had the first officer to encounter Leija fired at him under whatever circumstances, he would rightfully have retained immunity. Sotomayor contends that once other officers at the scene had chosen a specific course of action, the fact of their having chosen that course of action conditions what is objectively reasonable. The decision of whether to stop Leija or let him go had already been decided, so it can no longer be relevant to Mullenix's decision to use deadly force. It is only reasonable to choose a different method of stopping Leija if your assessment of the threat he posed was different from the other officers (who had decided already that confronting him with the spike strips was the safest and most effective course of action).

amanasleep fucked around with this message at 03:09 on Nov 12, 2015

# ? Nov 12, 2015 03:04

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

amanasleep posted:

Graham directs the court to consider the specific facts of the case in determining what is objectively reasonable. The facts are that other officers with precisely the same information and knowledge of the threat posed by Leija used force differently. Mullenix acted with deadly force despite receiving an order to wait. That is objectively unreasonable because to act differently than the other officers would require information that they lacked.

You're assuming there's only a single reasonable course of action.

For example, if Mullenix had chosen to call the guy on his cell phone to try to talk to him, that likely would have been objectively reasonable. But that's different than what the other officers did. But both actions would be objectively reasonable.

(This isn't to say that him shooting the guy was reasonable or not, just that your argument fails right away because it relies on him acting differently to show unreasonableness - that's not the inquiry.)

# ? Nov 12, 2015 08:27

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

amanasleep posted:

Graham directs the court to consider the specific facts of the case in determining what is objectively reasonable. The facts are that other officers with precisely the same information and knowledge of the threat posed by Leija used force differently. Mullenix acted with deadly force despite receiving an order to wait. That is objectively unreasonable because to act differently than the other officers would require information that they lacked. Here we need no hypothetically objectively reasonable officer--we have the example of other officers with exactly the same information and perspective on the situation.

Mullenix is not operating in a vacuum. It is likely true that had the first officer to encounter Leija fired at him under whatever circumstances, he would rightfully have retained immunity. Sotomayor contends that once other officers at the scene had chosen a specific course of action, the fact of their having chosen that course of action conditions what is objectively reasonable. The decision of whether to stop Leija or let him go had already been decided, so it can no longer be relevant to Mullenix's decision to use deadly force. It is only reasonable to choose a different method of stopping Leija if your assessment of the threat he posed was different from the other officers (who had decided already that confronting him with the spike strips was the safest and most effective course of action).

Again, no, I have no idea how you're managing to twist a standard that is "could anyone have concluded this action was reasonable" into "could anyone has not concluded this action was reasonable" these are not remotely the same things.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 08:41

Terraplane: Aug 16, 2007; And when I mash down on your little starter, then your spark plug will give me fire.

I don't think I've seen this incident in this thread, if I missed it, mea culpa.

Back in 2014 a young man named Brandon Ellingson drowned in the Lake of the Ozarks. He'd been arrested for boating while intoxicated, handcuffed, and put in a life jacket. At some point he fell out of the police boat and drowned. The officer transporting him told investigators that they had hit the wave of a large wake which knocked Brandon out of the boat. Brandon was in the wrong type of life jacket for a handcuffed person. He was instead in the normal type of jacket that you or I would wear on a weekend boat outing. Imagine wearing one but without your arms through the arm holes because they're locked behind your back instead. He slipped right out of it and then he slipped under the water.

Here's the early story.

Even in that early article there is some anger over suggestions that the victim might have jumped out of the boat. There are also accusations that the arresting officer 'floored it' as he left with his improperly secured prisoner. But it's the kind of story that tends to fall by the wayside because, while there may be some questions, the facts are so obfuscated that it's difficult to sustain any inquiries or outrage.

Unless you have a whistleblower.

quote:

Sgt. Randy Henry opened up about the drowning death of Brandon Ellingson, who drowned Memorial Day weekend in 2014.

...

He told us today, 'We killed as an agency, we killed Brandon Ellingson. Are my hands in that? Yes, I was part of the agency. I was a supervisor at Lake of the Ozarks. I was a supervisor who signed off on Piercy to work the water.' Sgt. Henry says he approved Trooper Tony Piercy to work the water after Missouri Governor Jay Nixon merged Water Patrol with Highway Patrol. Henry said, 'I was pressured. It was my mistake. I should`ve not done it, but I was being pressured because we were having boat races and they said the only thing he has to be able to do is navigate on the water.'

...

Sgt. Henry said the Highway Patrol did not want him to write a report. He said, 'I knew right then the fix is in.' Highway Patrol investigators recorded Henry's concerns, but shut it down after you could hear on the recording, 'They`re going to want full transparency on this thing so did you ask ourselves, did he use the highest degree of care here?' I asked Sgt. Henry, 'Was that a coincidence that the recorder went off at about that time?' Henry: 'No, that was deliberate because I also said the word manslaughter.'

If you want more details, try here or here.

It's not a story like a lot of the other ones in this thread. No outright murder. No resisting arrest with an ensuing panicked violence. Just a failure to follow policy that resulted in tragedy. It's mostly what happened afterward that makes it interesting in the context of this thread. The cover up and the pressure brought to bear on the one cop trying to tell the truth. What the bad apples can't spoil they simply throw out of the barrel entirely.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 10:26

PostNouveau: Sep 3, 2011; VY till I die; Grimey Drawer

Not very substantiated, but based on some posting on a police officer message board:

quote:

A �challenge coin� to honor a NYPD Detective for the four people he has killed during his career is apparently being sold online. The proceeds will go to the families of fallen police officers.

Cop who this NYPD "challenge coin" for killing 4 was dedicated to had "Justified 4X" tattood on his trigger finger. pic.twitter.com/IWyy9VCPGW

� Keegan Stephan (@KeeganNYC) November 9, 2015

Challenge coins are typically a military tradition, and are normally presented by unit commanders in recognition of special achievement. They are usually stamped with an organization�s insignia or emblem to prove membership or to enhance morale, but have become collector�s items.

A posting from July to a police-oriented message board titled �Thee Rant� has been uncovered by New York City based writer and activist Keegan Stephan, and appears to be advertising commemorative coins for a NYPD Detective killing four people. They feature four skulls to represent the dead.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 11:09

Grundulum: Feb 28, 2006

It's a dumb idea to get "justified 4x" tattooed anywhere. What happens if you shoot a fifth person? Laser tattoo removal?

# ? Nov 12, 2015 12:01

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; This does not make sense when, again, aggregate indicia also indicate improvements. The belief that things are worse is false. It remains false.

Grundulum posted:

It's a dumb idea to get "justified 4x" tattooed anywhere. What happens if you shoot a fifth person? Laser tattoo removal?

"+1"

# ? Nov 12, 2015 12:31

justsharkbait: Dec 20, 2013; HOO HA HA; Grimey Drawer

On the topic of police reform, the more i stay in this job the more i realize that poo poo's hosed up. However it is not coming from the day to day deputies and officers. It is because, despite what they say to the media, the administrators, politicians, and heads of departments don't want to spend the time and money needed to fix the problems.

There is no "main problem" area as the whole system needs reform from the judicial system down. It has to start from the top down. Line officers in most cases are being cleared / found not at fault because they are just doing their jobs as legally allowed. If society wants to change that it can't force the change from the bottom as the bottom has no control over policy/procedure. Granted, as in any job, there are plenty who don't need to be in it, but for the vast majority it is a job. A job where we have to enforce the law regardless of personal opinion on it. The politicians need to reform the laws, judicial processes, sentences, probation, parole, and prison system before anything meaningful can trickle down to the street level.

As an example, plenty of people started screaming "Body cams" and just expected departments to start using them. However, since law enforcement is a local thing, most departments cannot afford the expense to get them. Options? federal/state money? Well, no grants for body cams really exist yet (legislation takes years for Federal grants let alone actually processing applications once a grant is passed).

Other options? Make your officers write more tickets, have the court raise costs of the tickets? Money goes to the state in most places for tickets, not the department (Traffic law is STATE charge not local). It goes to general fund, where the politicians assign where it goes.

Other options? Make room in your own budget for it at the expense of something else like better training in conflict management....

Now there are other problems. The data management required to store that much information from body cams for even a small department is far beyond the capabilities set up for just dash cams.

Another problem:

The people who screamed for the body cams don't want them now once they started being used. Why? Privacy. Whatever we record is public record. So now legislators are having to make laws to exempt footage form being able to be pulled by the open records act so people won't feel there privacy rights are being infringed on. Because if we start recording every call we get your business now becomes public record just because you needed an officer....it could not have resulted in anything but just needing a police report but now your house, stuff you have, personal business, etc, is subject to open records...and this cause a freak out and politicians were forced to do something to keep people happy.

So. As my point stated, the problem is reform has to start at the top and work its way down to be truly effective. Rush decisions based on public outcry cause snap judgments by departments that make things worse overall. Just appeasing the public to avoid having to make meaningful changes will continue to go on as long people continue to follow the media's agenda to cause public disorder. It only forces the divide between law enforcement and the general public and takes the focus off the politicians who are the ones who can make real change.

justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 12:45 on Nov 12, 2015

# ? Nov 12, 2015 12:36

justsharkbait: Dec 20, 2013; HOO HA HA; Grimey Drawer

Grundulum posted:

It's a dumb idea to get "justified 4x" tattooed anywhere. What happens if you shoot a fifth person? Laser tattoo removal?

also this..

that would be an interesting cover up job. What could you turn it into?

# ? Nov 12, 2015 12:37

SSJ_naruto_2003: Oct 12, 2012

justsharkbait posted:

also this..

that would be an interesting cover up job. What could you turn it into?

Justified4x5x

# ? Nov 12, 2015 12:44

justsharkbait: Dec 20, 2013; HOO HA HA; Grimey Drawer

GreyPowerVan posted:

Justified4x5x

Haha. That could work.

But i think if we start getting tattoos for justified deaths society has a much bigger problem to worry about...

justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Nov 12, 2015

# ? Nov 12, 2015 12:49

Murderion: Oct 4, 2009; 2019. New York is in ruins. The global economy is spiralling. Cyborgs rule over poisoned wastes.

The only time that's left is
FUN TIME

GreyPowerVan posted:

Justified4x5x4x3x

Found Not Guilty By IA 2x

# ? Nov 12, 2015 14:10

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

amanasleep posted:

Graham directs the court to consider the specific facts of the case in determining what is objectively reasonable. The facts are that other officers with precisely the same information and knowledge of the threat posed by Leija used force differently. Mullenix acted with deadly force despite receiving an order to wait. That is objectively unreasonable because to act differently than the other officers would require information that they lacked. Here we need no hypothetically objectively reasonable officer--we have the example of other officers with exactly the same information and perspective on the situation.

Mullenix is not operating in a vacuum. It is likely true that had the first officer to encounter Leija fired at him under whatever circumstances, he would rightfully have retained immunity. Sotomayor contends that once other officers at the scene had chosen a specific course of action, the fact of their having chosen that course of action conditions what is objectively reasonable. The decision of whether to stop Leija or let him go had already been decided, so it can no longer be relevant to Mullenix's decision to use deadly force. It is only reasonable to choose a different method of stopping Leija if your assessment of the threat he posed was different from the other officers (who had decided already that confronting him with the spike strips was the safest and most effective course of action).

I think that is where�Sotomayor's dissent falls apart. The decision to employ spike strips was a judgement call. The fact that some officers decided on one course of action does not render any other course of action unreasonable. As the majority noted,�"The dissent can cite no case from this court denying qualified immunity because officers entitled to terminate a high-speed chase selected one dangerous alternative over another." (There was an amicus brief discussing the dangers involved in employing spike strips.)

"Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." The question the court looked at was: is the question of whether an officer in�Mullenix's situation is entitled to use deadly force to end a pursuit so clearly settled in the negative that he should have known his conduct was illegal? Since the issue of exactly when police are allowed to intervene with deadly force to stop a pursuit is not a settled matter, and the supreme court has upheld qualified immunity in similar circumstances, there is no basis to find that�Mullenix should obviously have known that deadly force was not permitted, and strip him of qualified immunity.

Whether qualified immunity should exist in the first place is a whole different ball of wax, but in this case and with the law as it stands, I think there is a good reason it was 8-1.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 18:37

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Dead Reckoning posted:

"Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law."

Isn't disobeying the lawful order of a police officer a violation of the law in most states?

# ? Nov 12, 2015 18:39

amanasleep: May 21, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

I think that is where�Sotomayor's dissent falls apart. The decision to employ spike strips was a judgement call. The fact that some officers decided on one course of action does not render any other course of action unreasonable. As the majority noted,�"The dissent can cite no case from this court denying qualified immunity because officers entitled to terminate a high-speed chase selected one dangerous alternative over another." (There was an amicus brief discussing the dangers involved in employing spike strips.)

"Qualified immunity protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." The question the court looked at was: is the question of whether an officer in�Mullenix's situation is entitled to use deadly force to end a pursuit so clearly settled in the negative that he should have known his conduct was illegal? Since the issue of exactly when police are allowed to intervene with deadly force to stop a pursuit is not a settled matter, and the supreme court has upheld qualified immunity in similar circumstances, there is no basis to find that�Mullenix should obviously have known that deadly force was not permitted, and strip him of qualified immunity.

Whether qualified immunity should exist in the first place is a whole different ball of wax, but in this case and with the law as it stands, I think there is a good reason it was 8-1.

I think what Sotomayor is getting at is that in the other cases there was no disagreement between officers on the scene about methods. Any reasonable individual method selected by officers (including reasonable deadly force) would be immune.

Her contention is that Officers participating in an officially selected method of terminating a chase should not be immune when changing that method absent official authorization or new information not available to other participating officers.

The fact that there is no precedent is immaterial, Sotomayor says, because the situation in this case was fundamentally different, with the immunity question applying only to the decision of use force to stop or let the suspect go. In this case that decision had been made lawfully by other officers.

Sotomayor is arguing that Mullenix must show a compelling gov interest in replacing the judgment of the other officers with his own to receive immunity from 4th violations in doing so.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 19:08

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Trabisnikof posted:

Isn't disobeying the lawful order of a police officer a violation of the law in most states?

I'm not really sure. My understanding is that, in most jurisdictions, the police can issue certain lawful orders, and that there is generally a law against impeding a peace officer in the course of their duties. For example, the law might require that you give ID when requested, or exit your vehicle during a stop when requested, or might consider fleeing an order to stop to be illegal, but I don't think there's a general duty to do what the police say. (Insert "pick up that can" jokes here.) For example, if the police order you to stop filming them, you generally aren't under any obligation to comply. On the other hand, if you're getting close in order to film them to them while they are working, because your cell phone camera has lovely zoom, they could probably give you a legal order to get back. This is different from the military, where any order issued for a lawful purpose is assumed to be valid and carries the force of law. I'm guessing this varies from state to state. I'm also not sure what the authority of department policy and the orders of superiors are in a legal sense. For example, if a cop doesn't show up to work, he gets fired, while a private who doesn't show up can be charged with failing to follow orders.

amanasleep posted:

Sotomayor is arguing that Mullenix must show a compelling gov interest in replacing the judgment of the other officers with his own to receive immunity from 4th violations in doing so.

Which I don't think is the right interpretation, because the judgement of other officers does not set a legal precedent. If two officers are on a scene and have different ideas about how to take a suspect into custody, does the first one to decide get his way, and the other has to go along with it or risk losing qualified immunity?

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Nov 12, 2015

# ? Nov 12, 2015 19:08

Mavric: Dec 14, 2006; I said "this is going to be the most significant televisual event since Quantum Leap." And I do not say that lightly.

Is the other officer his superior? Why should a cop get to disobey the chain o command and keep his immunity? Again absent new information.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 19:39

amanasleep: May 21, 2008

Dead Reckoning posted:

Which I don't think is the right interpretation, because the judgement of other officers does not set a legal precedent. If two officers are on a scene and have different ideas about how to take a suspect into custody, does the first one to decide get his way, and the other has to go along with it or risk losing qualified immunity?

I think yes, because it changes the "specific facts" of the case. There is no "legal precedent" for the officers themselves. The 4th requires that officers show gov interest in selecting methods of seizure, but then their actions will be judged by the standard of objective reasonableness, guided by the specific facts of the case.

This shows more that the "objectively reasonable" test is really a "subjectively reasonable" test as it stands, because the prior decisions specifically state that there is no objective standard that exists outside the facts of each case. Given that judgment, the subjective decisions of other officers with the same information as the officer seeking immunity should be relevant to the court's determination of the standard of objective rationality to apply in this case.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 19:43

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

This case in brief

Lower court: this cop is a dumbass, let's make up a reason to strip his QI

SC: What the gently caress are you guys smoking the law is crystal clear on this, do your loving job you can't just make poo poo up

Sotomayor: But he's such a dumbass, can't we keep the gibberish the lower court made up? Pretty please?

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:09

The Larch: Jan 14, 2015; by FactsAreUseless

I can't help but feel that if you're going to record your kills on your body you should at least have some class and go for ritual scarification.

And use tally marks, not numbers. Come on, this is basic poo poo.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:15

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Mavric posted:

Is the other officer his superior? Why should a cop get to disobey the chain o command and keep his immunity? Again absent new information.

Because your boss' opinions do not constitute a legal finding, except in the rare cases where you have a statutory duty to obey. The police are not the military. Also, it has been alleged by the plaintiffs that Mullenix heard the instruction to let the car hit the spikes, but never proven.

amanasleep posted:

I think yes, because it changes the "specific facts" of the case. There is no "legal precedent" for the officers themselves. The 4th requires that officers show gov interest in selecting methods of seizure, but then their actions will be judged by the standard of objective reasonableness, guided by the specific facts of the case.

This shows more that the "objectively reasonable" test is really a "subjectively reasonable" test as it stands, because the prior decisions specifically state that there is no objective standard that exists outside the facts of each case. Given that judgment, the subjective decisions of other officers with the same information as the officer seeking immunity should be relevant to the court's determination of the standard of objective rationality to apply in this case.

No, they shouldn't. That isn't how objective reasonableness works. If nine out of ten dentists recommend Crest, the tenth is not acting unreasonably if she recommends Colgate. If the tenth dentist recommends her clients brush their teeth with acetone, that would be so obviously outside the scope of normal dental practice that she should know it is wrong. There is a huge difference between "I wouldn't do it this way because the other way is better" and "I wouldn't do it this way because it's obviously illegal."

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:19

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Most of the time it is alleged the shooting victim heard the officer order them to do something, but never proven.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:29

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

Dead Reckoning posted:

No, they shouldn't. That isn't how objective reasonableness works. If nine out of ten dentists recommend Crest, the tenth is not acting unreasonably if she recommends Colgate. If the tenth dentist recommends her clients brush their teeth with acetone, that would be so obviously outside the scope of normal dental practice that she should know it is wrong. There is a huge difference between "I wouldn't do it this way because the other way is better" and "I wouldn't do it this way because it's obviously illegal."

I get the point you're making here, but I would think shooting live ammunition at a vehicle in the midst of a pursuit compared to using spike strips seems a similar level of recklessness. This is the point Amana seems to make - the feasibility of shooting a car into mechanical failure while causing minimal collateral damage seems action movie absurd on its face and unnecessary in light of the already agreed on deployment of spike strips as well as his superior advising him against it, to the point that it seems to the layperson on par with your comparison of brushing your teeth with acetone.

A more fruitful direction though might be to examine how many chases were ended by shooting out the car's machinery successfully. That is to say, comparing how often it achieved the goal of stopping the car to what, if any collateral damage occurred. Perhaps it's more effective than what common sense would suggest.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:30

FAUXTON: Jun 2, 2005; spero che tu stia bene

Could the rifle the cop was using even penetrate the engine block?

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:34

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

We should give all officers KS-23M's with 23mm solid steel Barricade rounds that can take out engine blocks at 100 meters.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:35

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Raerlynn posted:

I get the point you're making here, but I would think shooting live ammunition at a vehicle in the midst of a pursuit compared to using spike strips seems a similar level of recklessness. This is the point Amana seems to make - the feasibility of shooting a car into mechanical failure while causing minimal collateral damage seems action movie absurd on its face and unnecessary in light of the already agreed on deployment of spike strips as well as his superior advising him against it, to the point that it seems to the layperson on par with your comparison of brushing your teeth with acetone.

A more fruitful direction though might be to examine how many chases were ended by shooting out the car's machinery successfully. That is to say, comparing how often it achieved the goal of stopping the car to what, if any collateral damage occurred. Perhaps it's more effective than what common sense would suggest.

It's irrelevant because the officer was constitutionally allowed to intentionally target the driver.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:35

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

Jarmak posted:

It's irrelevant because the officer was constitutionally allowed to intentionally target the driver.

Yes, well goodness me I guess we shouldn't actually discuss how effective police tactics are ever then.

Legal and/or "constitutionally allowed" was how we ended up in this thread over the course of the last year or so. Maybe you could actually contribute instead of shutting the conversation down.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:42

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Raerlynn posted:

Yes, well goodness me I guess we shouldn't actually discuss how effective police tactics are ever then.

Legal and/or "constitutionally allowed" was how we ended up in this thread over the course of the last year or so. Maybe you could actually contribute instead of shutting the conversation down.

The conversation has been about the supreme court case for more then a page now, the point Amana is making that you posted about is an opinion on the legal standard, I assumed you were commenting on the legal issue because the person you quoted and the person you are siding with are arguing over a legal claim.

That and I don't think anyone in this thread thinks trying to shoot out the engine block wasn't extremely stupid.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 20:48

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

Jarmak posted:

That and I don't think anyone in this thread thinks trying to shoot out the engine block wasn't extremely stupid.

Then address the point made. I stated that it seems to me that trying to shoot a car into mechanical failure is a wacky, irresponsible thing to do with a firearm that has the ability to end lives easily. I also stated that to me, a layperson, that it strikes me as highly irresponsible, to the point of recklessness. I then suggested reviewing previous chases to see if there is merit to trying to shoot out a moving vehicle. Your response was basically, as it always has been in this thread, "Welp it was legal so we shouldn't discuss it because..."

Your concern trolling is getting old. Knock it the gently caress off.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 21:01

DARPA: Apr 24, 2005; We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over.

Shoot to wound a person is an absurd idea that can only happen in movies and Europe.

Shooting to wound a car on the other hand, perfectly reasonable.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 21:04

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Basically, trying to shoot out the engine block was a bad idea, which is why he wasn't trained to do it, (and Scalia's concurrence was weird and I disagree with a lot of it.) But in a scenario where the supreme court has in similar situations held that shooting the driver in the loving head was constitutionally permissible, it does not constitute an obvious and knowing violation of the plaintiff's fourth amendment rights due to excessive force.

That was the question the court answered. They didn't even rule that there was no fourth amendment violation, they were silent on the question. They just ruled that, if there was a violation, it wasn't so egregious that the officer should have known in advance that the force was excessive, and therefore qualified immunity therefore protects Mullenix from an excessive force civil suit.

Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Nov 12, 2015

# ? Nov 12, 2015 21:05

twodot: Aug 7, 2005; You are objectively correct that this person is dumb and has said dumb things

Raerlynn posted:

Then address the point made. I stated that it seems to me that trying to shoot a car into mechanical failure is a wacky, irresponsible thing to do with a firearm that has the ability to end lives easily. I also stated that to me, a layperson, that it strikes me as highly irresponsible, to the point of recklessness. I then suggested reviewing previous chases to see if there is merit to trying to shoot out a moving vehicle. Your response was basically, as it always has been in this thread, "Welp it was legal so we shouldn't discuss it because..."

Your concern trolling is getting old. Knock it the gently caress off.

I think it's more a case of you attempting to derail a legal discussion, and then getting upset that they didn't go with your derail and instead you got answered in the context of the legal discussion. An analysis of tactics for stopping fleeing vehicles is a fine discussion to have, but it's weird to do that and quote someone discussing how qualified immunity works.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 21:07

Raerlynn: Oct 28, 2007; Sorry I'm late, I'm afraid I got lost on the path of life.

twodot posted:

I think it's more a case of you attempting to derail a legal discussion, and then getting upset that they didn't go with your derail and instead you got answered in the context of the legal discussion. An analysis of tactics for stopping fleeing vehicles is a fine discussion to have, but it's weird to do that and quote someone discussing how qualified immunity works.

DR: Supreme court says QI was upheld because the officers actions were deemed reasonable.

Amana: But it's not reasonable for an officer to do something that reckless needlessly.

DR: Well that's not how QI works, you have to do something dangerously reckless that no one would recommend. Like "dentist recommending acetone as a toothpaste" reckless.

Me: Wouldn't shooting out a moving vehicle count since it seems like the kind of thing that only works reliably in an action movie and has tons of ways it could end badly for anyone in our around the pursuit? Maybe we should review other chases where this was used, maybe it is reasonable and okay, maybe it's not.

Jarmak: No let's not do that because it was constitutional. But it was a dumb thing to do.

Me: If it was a dumb thing, shouldn't we review it then?

Conversations are not that loving hard you guys.

# ? Nov 12, 2015 21:17

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 14:34

Toasticle: Jul 18, 2003; Hay guys, out this Rape

That's the running theme of the thread.

"This is hosed up and should not happen"
"It's legal"
"Then the law needs to change"
"Oh so you think violating the constitutional rights of cops is cool"

Withe such in depth legal analysis like the above "A Supreme Court justice is dumb unlike me, self proclaimed legal scholar" .

# ? Nov 12, 2015 21:19

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »