Supreme Court case to shape Ferguson investigation

[Tom Joad]

Holy shit!

No wonder the cops can get away with all kinds of shit these days.

This 1989 Supreme Court case gave them Carte Blanche.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...082510707.html

To most people, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer's perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged after the fact, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 opinion.

The Supreme Court case, decided at a time when violence against police was on the rise, has shaped the national legal standards that govern when police officers are justified in using force. The key question about Wilson's killing on Aug. 9 is whether a reasonable officer with a similar background would have responded the same way.

read the rest

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Holy shit!

No wonder the cops can get away with all kinds of shit these days.

This 1989 Supreme Court case gave them Carte Blanche.

http://news.yahoo.com/supreme-court-...082510707.html

To most people, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer's perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged after the fact, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 opinion.

The Supreme Court case, decided at a time when violence against police was on the rise, has shaped the national legal standards that govern when police officers are justified in using force. The key question about Wilson's killing on Aug. 9 is whether a reasonable officer with a similar background would have responded the same way.

read the rest

The "reasonable man" standard has been a bedrock element in our system of jurisprudence for many decades.

http://lsolum.typepad.com/legal_theo...eory_le_3.html

In other words, the crux of this case is whether it was reasonable for the police officer to have used deadly force or not. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, it's exactly as it should be, as opposed to letting local pressure drive a conviction without supporting evidence.

[donquixote99]

First of all, the case leading to the Supreme Court ruling wasn't a deadly force case, it was just a 'slam a guy around and treat him like worthless shit' case.

Secondly, the court didn't create a 'reasonable man' standard, they created a 'reasonable police officer' standard. If 'reasonable men' wouldn't buy it, that's OK. The police are special.

Third, even if the police think, reasonably, given their special expert knowledge as police, that a man is a beligerent drunk, why is it then OK to:

1. Disregard without any apparent consideration anything he may say.
2. Treat him brutally and with no concern for his welfare?
3. Leave him unconscious and uncared-for on the ground?

As a society, we have decided that certain categories of people do not rate the respect and consideration we would expect for ourselves. I think this sort of disregard does us great discredit.

I also wonder if the Supreme Court would have found it quite so easy to lodge such special discretion with the police, if this had been a case in which a person was killed, or died of neglect (as could easily have happened here).

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

First of all, the case leading to the Supreme Court ruling wasn't a deadly force case, it was just a 'slam a guy around and treat him like worthless shit' case.

Secondly, the court didn't create a 'reasonable man' standard, they created a 'reasonable police officer' standard. If 'reasonable men' wouldn't buy it, that's OK. The police are special.

That's a distinction without a difference (i.e., if you were in the place of the cop, would it have been reasonable to have acted as he did?).

[donquixote99]

Police discretion:

I happened across a newspaper report of an interesting case.

After reports that a man was suicidal, drunk, agitated, and armed, police officers from Skowhegan Maine found him by his truck on a rural road. The truck was stuck in a ditch, and that man was observed making frustrated and unsuccessful attempts to free it. He was also observed to be armed, and at one point he fired a shot, though it is not known at what. The pistol was afterwards observed in the man's front pants pocket. The police had the man surrounded, but it was night, they were not showing lights and the man was apparently unaware of them.

How might the officers handle this situation? Given the extreme danger posed by such an individual armed with a pistol, might we expect they would keep their distance, order him to assume a 'safe submission posture,' perhaps on knees with hands behind head, approach him only after he complied, and shoot until he was 'neutralized' if he did not? Have we not heard of cases like this that ended in a hail of bullets? Does anyone doubt that under rules based on the Graham vs. Conner case, referred to in the OP, this would constitute justifiable procedure?

I'm glad to say this case ended much better. While other officers covered the man with their weapons, two officers approached from behind, and succeeded in evading detection before one grabbed him and began wrestling with him to control the weapon. The other then aided by shooting the subject with a stun gun. They succeeded in wrestling the man to the ground and handcuffing him.

I don't think it can be denied that the officers took avoidable risks in handling the situation as they did. I think concern for the subject's safety was in fact given great weight in their approach. I think they acted with much more consideration for this subject that the police in Carolina showed, in the case of Dethorne Graham, the plaintiff in Graham v. Connor.

And I think the category into which they placed the subject in this case has a lot to do with that. This subject was known to them, he was the Chief of Police of the nearby town of Fairfield.

In the news story, Chuck Drago, an individual identified as a professional consultant and expert witness in police cases, discusses the officer's choice of approach.

“I don’t know if they would have done that with a stranger, but there is certainly nothing wrong with considering all the factors when you make these decisions that includes what you know about the person with the gun,” Drago said. “Is this person mentally ill? Has this person just robbed a bank and shot three people? Is this the police chief who’s never been violent before? Everything has to be taken into consideration and certainly the fact that you know this man for so many years, that’s an important part of it. I would fault the police if they didn’t at least consider that before they used force on the chief.”

I disagree completely. Not with the officer's discretion in this case, but with the failure to use similar consideration in so many others. Drago's rationale seems to me to boil down to 'a stranger's life wouldn't be so valuable.'

All men are not equal in our great country, these days. Who you are matters, a lot.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by finnbow

That's a distinction without a difference (i.e., if you were in the place of the cop, would it have been reasonable to have acted as he did?).

From the AP story linked in the OP:

To most people, an 18-year-old unarmed man may not appear to pose a deadly threat. But a police officer's perspective is different. And that is how an officer should be judged after the fact, Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the 1989 opinion.

If the reporting is accurate, the distinction between 'reasonable man' and 'reasonable police officer' makes a great difference. And it has important implications at trial. A jury member can consult their own understanding when a 'reasonable man' standard in invoked. But to know what a 'reasonable police officer' might think, they must rely on the judgement of others.

[icenine]

If Brown were white, wearing an Izod shirt, and from the good part of town he is not going to be left dead in the street for 5 hours.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

From the AP story linked in the OP:

If the reporting is accurate, the distinction between 'reasonable man' and 'reasonable police officer' makes a great difference. And it has important implications at trial. A jury member can consult their own understanding when a 'reasonable man' standard in invoked. But to know what a 'reasonable police officer' might think, they must rely on the judgement of others.

I think the legal standard is a reasonable man in the same position. In this instance, that distills down to a reasonable policeman (which is all that can be expected of the cop in question), as should be the case. As in all cases, we have to rely on the judgment of others (i.e., the jury).

[djv8ga]

Another case coming to an appropriate end.
http://www.wfla.com/story/26334374/l...uld-learn-fate

[donquixote99]

And just what are you so fucking happy about. As if I didn't know.