Supreme Court Makes It Tougher To Sue Police

[Lady Effingbroke]

~snip~

WASHINGTON — In a pair of victories for law enforcement, the Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to sue police for a questionable shooting of a fleeing suspect or for arresting a motorist on false charges.

In both instances, the justices said the courts should give police officers the benefit of the doubt and not allow them to be sued for doing their jobs.

Monday's decisions reversed rulings of the San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the police violated the rights of the suspects by subjecting them to an "unreasonable seizure."

Nearly 20 years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that police may not use "deadly force" to stop a fleeing felon, except when the officer has good reason to believe "the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others." Applying that rule has proven to be difficult for police and courts.

~snip~

more from yahoo

[ixion]

1. so it's okay for them to ruin innocent people's lives, in the name of

doing their jobs?

How about letting people live their lives in peace?

[Lady Effingbroke]

2. To me, these are the key paragraphs in the article, though I just posted

the first four, as per DU rules:

~snip~

In an unsigned opinion Monday, the Supreme Court justices threw out Haugen's suit and said the officer deserved to be shielded, even if her actions may have been incorrect.


"Qualified immunity shields an officer from suit when she makes a decision that, even if constitutionally deficient, reasonably misapprehends the law governing the circumstances she confronted," the court wrote. Brosseau saw Haugen as "a disturbed felon, set on avoiding capture" who may have plowed his car into others in his path, the court said.

~snip~

[ixion]

4. exactly, so in essence, this 'officer' arrested someone for something

they MIGHT have done in the future, not what they did do.

That seem to me to be unconstitutional on soooo many levels.

[Lady Effingbroke]

7. Yes, and it appears to forgive officers their "misapprehensions", while

allowing them free reign to project "alleged" criminal behavior upon those who would disagree or dissent.

[sandnsea]

3. "threat of serious physical harm"

What is so hard to understand about that? A petty drug dealer is hardly the kind of criminal this ruling applied to. I can't believe they upheld this shooting 8-1. Not surprised Stevens was the dissenter, he's old enough to remember the real moral values of this country.

[neweurope]

5. Scary.

"the Supreme Court on Monday made it harder to sue police for a questionable shooting of a fleeing suspect"

Right. Once the prisons are overcrowded they'll just shoot you in the streets? It's the police that has to be protected.

Boy, but they're moving fast.

[ixion]

6. gee, really makes you wonder who's side they're on

certainly, it's not the side of We, the People. :grr:

[Zorra]

8. We can call this the "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out ruling." n/t