RSS Feed
November 11th, 2015 
Awake Goy 
Susanne Posel (OC) : The US Supreme Court has made it easier for police to use excessive force with impunity thanks to an 8-1 vote which tossed out a case of shocking police brutality.
This ruling makes it harder to sue a cop for using deadly force against fleeing suspects; “unless it is ‘beyond debate’ that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable.”
Justices argued that officers must be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a situation that might turn deadly or dangerous; however the fact that the shooting officer was not in actual danger did not apply to this decision.
In the case considered a Texas state trooper named Chadrin Mullenix who ignored his sergeant’s warning when he used a department issued rifle to shoot at an approaching car from an overpass.
According to the cop, he was attempting to stop the vehicle, but shot and killed the driver instead.
Prior to the killing, police officers were involved in the failed apprehension of a man at a drive-thru fast food chain who was believed to be armed with a gun.
Troopers were driving 110 mph during the chase of the suspect, when Mullinex heard about the incidents on his radio and decided to join in the excitement by driving “to a spot where officers were putting a strip of spikes across the highway to puncture the tires of the fleeing car.”
Mullinex disregarded his superior’s orders to stand down because the plan was to “see if the spikes work.”
Instead of following orders, Mullinex fired 6 shots, killing the driver.
In federal court, a judge ruled for the victim’s family because Mullinex’s action were deemed reckless and unreasonable.
And the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the prior court’s decision. Mullinex would not be given immunity in this case.
The court stated in part: “By the time Mullenix fired, [the victim] had led police on a 25-mile chase at extremely high speeds, was reportedly intoxicated, had twice threatened to shoot officers and was racing towards an officer’s location. Ultimately, whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix’s choice, this court’s precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted unreasonably in these circumstances beyond debate.”
The unsigned 21-page opinion claimed that the Supreme Court has “never found the use of deadly force in connection with a dangerous car chase to violate the 4th Amendment.”
And yet, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out that the ruling was “sanctioning a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing.”
Sotomayer wrote “[this Court] renders the protections of the 4th Amendment hollow” by sanctioning the officer’s “rogue conduct” and that Mullinex “had not been trained in shooting a fleeing car and was told not to shoot before the vehicle encountered the spikes across the highway.”
The Justice continued: “When Mullenix confronted his superior officer after the shooting, his first words were, ‘How’s that for proactive?’ The glib comment … seems to me revealing of the culture this court’s decision supports when it calls it reasonable — or even reasonably reasonable — to use deadly force for no discernible gain and over a supervisor’s express order to ‘stand by.’”
Susanne Posel, Occupy Corporatism
Source Article from http://nsnbc.me/2015/11/11/now-u-s-cops-can-legally-use-deadly-force-to-shoot-first-think-later/
Posted in 
Tags: 
