https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-.../supreme-court-gives-police-green-light-shoot The Supreme Court just ruled that a police officer could not be sued for gunning down Amy Hughes. This has vast implications for law enforcement accountability. The details of the case are as damning as the decision. Hughes was not suspected of a crime. She was simply standing still, holding a kitchen knife at her side. The officer gave no warning that he was going to shoot her if she did not comply with his commands. Moments later, the officer shot her four times. “Shoot first and think later,” according to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, is what the officer did. "“If this account of [the officer’s] conduct sounds unreasonable, that is because it was. And yet, the Court ... insulates that conduct from liability under the doctrine of qualified immunity.” The result of the court’s decision is clear. Our right to not be unreasonably shot by the police is less protected, and therefore less important, than the court’s interest in shielding police officers from civil liability for their abuses of authority. Another nail in the Constitutions coffin. In 1989, the "supreme" court ruled that the govt welfare agencies had no legal obligation to protect children (DeShaney v. Winnebago County). That was expanded over time to exempt govt in general. In 2005, the "supreme" court ruled that cops do not have a duty to protect a person (Castle Rock v. Gonzales) Now, in 2018, the "supreme" court ruled that cops can shoot someone and almost certainly avoid any negative ramifications (Kisela v Hughes). Where are all the "progressives"? They stay silent because they want guns banned, and the basis for their argument is that the police will protect citizens so private people don't need guns. Where are all the conservatives? Older conservatives are living in the 1950's and believe the myth that cops are there to "serve and protect". Why isn't this big news?
Good, it limits actions to Internal Affairs actions including criminal charges where this should stay.
I was just reading an old story about a man who mistakenly shot and killed a boy on his property because he thought the 16-year-old had a gun in his hand and his wife had told him to grab his gun after she saw two boys going up to the side of their house under the carport. He was found not guilty by a jury, but later he was sued in civil court and ordered to pay $650,000 to the boy's mother. After exhausting all appeals, he lost his house and had to move into a trailer park. He also lost his job working at a supermarket, and all the strain caused his marriage to take a turn for the worse and his wife left him. http://blogd.com/wp/index.php/archives/118 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Yoshihiro_Hattori
Having a costume and a shiny badge makes all the difference in the world. If you don't have them, your life is ruined. If you do have them, you can get away with murder.
The case decided by the Supreme Court stemmed from a May 2010 shooting in Tuscon, Ariz. Three officers from the University of Arizona were dispatched to a house near campus after receiving a “check welfare” call about a woman hacking at a tree with a kitchen knife. When they arrived, the woman, Amy Hughes, emerged from the house with a large blade at her side. Her roommate, Sharon Chadwick, was standing several feet away from her. Hughes “appeared calm” but ignored officers’ commands to drop the knife, according to the court’s ruling. Worried that Hughes was threatening Chadwick, one officer, Andrew Kisela, shot her four times through a chain-link fence.
A woman in a fight with someone else refuses to drop the knife and starts moving toward who she was fighting with. What would you do, allow her to attack?
Somebody somewhere has got to begin teaching that when police say to drop your weapon, that is a lawful command that must be obeyed, and you have to drop your weapon -- for your own good.
Sometimes you will see a scenario like this one. West bound B.Q.E. and I see a long line of Police cars and one Ambulance, and I pull in behind, I see a lone skinny Black Woman standing behind the Ambulance, I see a uniformed N.Y.P.D. Sergeant and show him my Shield (Gold) and I.D. and ask what is going on, and E.D.P. he informs me, it looks ugly as I see uniformed Officers fingering sidearm grips. I inform him I have EDP training and to have everyone fallback 100 feet, as I approach the Woman, she is disturbed but not Armed and not violent, I ask; whats wrong ma'am ? She says; Deys goan ta kill me ! I respond; no, I will not let them, it started to rain, and she asks, you promise ? I Promise, I said, let Me take you to County (Psychiatric) and you will get dry clean clothes, medications, hot food, and a nice room till you feel better. You will help me ? she asked.... Yes, I will help you, let's get into the Ambulance and I will help you. I stayed with her the whole way and an Officer followed in my car. The incident ended peacefully as many others ended badly.
Moishe would go off his Meds and shake a hammer at people and Grrrrr at them. He never hit anyone, just menacing them, I would walk Moishe ( called Moishy ) back home and tell his parents to give Moishe his pills. One day someone called 911, and a pair of NYPD uniformed officers show up, they do not know Moishe and his story or background, he had never hurt anyone. He Grrrrs at the female Officer and raises the hammer, She says; srop that hammer Mr ! Drop it etc..... He takes a few steps towards her andshe dumps a whole magazine into Moishe and he cries out in pain and crumples and expires. It ended badly, sadly, I was not there to prevent Moishe from being killed. It was a justifiable line of duty shooting. Given Moishe's past and my training, Moishe did not have to die.
She had a weapon, she refused to drop it, she was behaving irrationally, she was reported to the police for the behavior, then she failed to drop the weapon when told to do so. How many folks here would walk towards a group of police with a drawn knife, please raise your hand.
The "supreme" court ruled that police have qualified immunity to the point they effectively cannot be sued for using excessive force. Cops now have no fear of retribution if they simply shoot first. And your facts on the case are wrong. The victim (Amy Hughes), came outside the house, she had a knife in her hand and at her side. The cops admit she was calm. Her roommate - Sharon Chadwick - was there and was not afraid of Hughes and says Hughes was calm and not threatening anyone. Chadwick told the cops to "take it easy". Hughes did not acknowledge the presence of the cops, and did not drop the knife when the cops twice ordered her to. One cop who thought the roommate was in danger shot Hughes, he fired through a chain link fence. The cops were in no danger. The cops were on scene less than 1 minute before shooting Hughes. No crime was reported. The cops were not in danger. Chadwick was not in danger. Hughes was calm. Hughes was never charged with any crime. It was clearly excessive force.
What was the bit about her stabbing a tree? Why were the police called in the first place? All she had to do was drop the knife.
Someone called the cops about a woman acting chopping a tree with a knife, the caller did not identify Hughes or the give Hughes address, only a description of the woman (I don't have that description, it might have been precise, it might have been extremely vague). When the cops arrived, they looked around, then Hughes came outside her house. The cops did not see Hughes chopping a tree. Did she hear the cops? Unknown. Did the cops do their usual "Drop the knife" while shooting her, did she have time to respond? Unknown. All she had to do was "obey"? Why? Was she breaking any law? No, she was not breaking any law. Nobody was threatened, nobody felt threatened, the only possible person who could be threatened was Hughes roommate and she told the cops to "take it easy" and gave no indication she was concerned. Why should cops be able to order an innocent person? Obviously, given cops tendency to shoot people, it makes sense to obey a cop simply out of self-preservation. But why do cops have the power to control any person they choose to control (or as many would say, harass)? And the question relevant to this OP, why should cops be able to shoot and even kill any person (including totally innocent people) and face no repercussions?
Well their job is to enforce the law, and I think walking around with a large knife in your hand in public is against the law in most places. My guess is she was 3 sheets to the wind high on drugs, based on what limited information the ACLU has provided. I mean we all know the ACLU always presents a clear, unbiased view of the situation. Anyone walking towards police with a drawn knife is probably going to get shot. Anyone who refuses to drop it is definitely going to get shot. Her behavior was extremely erratic. There's nothing more dangerous than someone behaving erratically with a weapon in their hands. I don't think we've been given a full picture of events. Kind of like the narrative of "shooting a 12 year old black kid playing in the park". They didn't tell us that "playing" meant pointing a very realistic replica firearm in people's faces.
She was not in public. She was in her front yard, a yard which was fenced in with a chain link fence. Nobody claimed her behavior was erratic, not even the cops. The cop shot her because she did not obey them. No charges where filed against her, not even charges designed to justify the cops shooting her. All the data is in the court records, both the "supreme" court and lower court, all on the web.
Yeah I don't know all the details, but what we can probably assume is that the media never presents an accurate story. All I can say is that walking towards the police with a large knife while ignoring commands seems pretty erratic to me, not to mention hacking at trees. Like I said, my guess is she was three sheets to the wind high on something.
She was not walking towards the cops, in fact she did not even acknowledge the cops. The cops were not in her yard, but on the other side of a chain link fence. The cop who shot her shot through the chain link fence. The case is fully documented in the court records, all sides can be read in those records. While you are in your yard, can you carry a knife? Other than the fact that cops are trigger happy, is there a reason that every person in every location must obey a cop no matter what the cop orders them to do?
Great lets take a look at some facts from the actual court documents: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-467_bqm1.pdf Kisela and two other officers had arrived on the scene after hearing a police radio report that a woman was engaging in erratic behavior with a knife. Kinda sets the stage, doesn't it? In May 2010, somebody in Hughes’ neighborhood called 911 to report that a woman was hacking a tree with a kitchen knife. Kisela and an- other police officer, Alex Garcia, heard about the report over the radio in their patrol car and responded. A few minutes later the person who had called 911 flagged down the officers; gave them a description of the woman with the knife; and told them the woman had been acting erratically. 911 calls, erratic behavior. After the shooting, the officers discovered that Chadwick and Hughes were roommates, that Hughes had a history of mental illness, and that Hughes had been upset with Chadwick over a $20 debt. History of mental illness. In an affidavit produced during discovery, Chadwick said that a few minutes before the shooting her boyfriend had told her Hughes was threatening to kill Chadwick’s dog, named Bunny. Chadwick “came home to find” Hughes “somewhat distressed,” and Hughes was in the house holding Bunny “in one hand and a kitchen knife in the other.” Threats of killing her dog. A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated Chadwick from the officers. The officers then saw another woman, Hughes, emerge from the house carrying a large knife at her side. Hughes matched the description of the woman who had been seen hacking a tree. Hughes walked toward Chadwick and stopped no more than six feet from her. 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. So what do we have here that the 3 police officers, after receiving 911 calls of a woman with a knife, had to figure out in about 60 seconds? Woman armed with a large knife reported as acting erratically enough that someone felt compelled to call 911 exits the house and advances on an unarmed person, closing to within 6 feet of her, is told multiple times to drop the weapon, and ignores those commands. So it brings me to the following question. Should the police (who were on the other side of a locked fence) waited to see what happened?
To determine if the shooting was justified, you must only apply the data known to the cops at the time of the shooting. The cops did not know anything about Hughes history, they (as they admitted the court documents) knew nothing about Hughes mental health history, about Hughes threats to the dog, and they did not see Hughes acting erratically. The cops were not told which house to check on the erratic woman. When Hughes came out, she was not erratic, the roommate was not concerned and did not try to flee, and did not look worried. She even told the comes to "take it easy". They saw that Hughes fit the description provided by the neighbor of the person chopping a tree, I have not been able to find the description (was it vague or precise? Was it "white woman with brown hair" or much more detailed? I don't know). This is what the cops encountered: a woman came out of her house, she who matched a description of an erratic person, but she was calm and was not acting erratically. She had a knife in her hand but at her side, she was not threatening anyone with it. Another woman in the yard was not concerned, and told the cops to take it easy thereby communicating her lack of concern to the cops. The cops were outside the chain linked yard, cops were not in danger. Hughes ignored the cops. When Hughes started walking towards the other woman, one of the cops shot Hughes, clearly intending to kill Hughes. Was that justified? To me and many others, its completely unjustified. Why does a person have to obey cops, or even recognize their presence? Why do cops think they have the right to intrude into any persons life? There is no all encompassing law requiring an innocent person in their own home to obey a cop, or even recognize the cop. And the real question, why are cops so quick on the trigger? And the "supreme" court just made it harder to hold cops accountable (as if they were being held accountable to begin with).
The cops were there because they received a 911 call on a woman behaving erratically with a large knife. People don't call 911 unless they feel it's kinda important. If someone was walking towards you with a large knife would you wait to see what happens next? Which brings me back to the original question: Should the cops have stood behind the locked gate and waited to see what she would do, or should they have charged the knife wielding woman to disarm her? What should they have done?
True. But that does not give cops the right to intrude on any person they want to intrude upon. And it does not give them the authority to simply shoot someone. They should not have shot her. The cop should have waited, he could have opened the gate, he could have asked the roommate to come outside the yard. The cop could have entered the yard - yes that's exposing the cop to danger, but that's the cops job, that's what cops are supposed to do. If the priority of a cop is to not be exposed to danger, to put his life above others, then he should not be a cop. And you seem to forget that Hughes was not menacing anyone with the knife, and the person who Hughes was approaching knew the women well, was not concerned and told that to the cops.
No...it was murder. The cop shot her in cold blood, just to watch someone die...I expect he shot off in his pants when he did.
