SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the making-it-up-as-they-go-along dept.
The World Socialist Web Site reports
On January 9, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous summary ruling reversing a decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and upholding qualified immunity for a police officer who shot and killed Samuel Pauly in an attempt to investigate a traffic incident near Santa Fe, New Mexico in October 2011.
Prior to the shooting, Samuel's brother Daniel was involved in a non-violent road-rage incident in which he stopped his car and confronted two women who he claimed had been tailgating him. Daniel subsequently drove home, where he lived with Samuel. Samuel was at home playing video games and had not been involved in the confrontation. Meanwhile, the occupants of the other vehicle called the police, who were able to locate the house where the brothers lived.
At that point, no crime had been committed and there was no legal justification to arrest anyone or to enter or search any house. While the frequency of "road-rage" incidents is not a healthy sign, they do constitute a fairly common occurrence in American social life.
According to Daniel, when two police officers arrived at the brothers' house they failed to identify themselves. Not realizing that it was the police, and believing that they were being burglarized, the brothers armed themselves with weapons. The brothers warned, "We have guns!" The encounter escalated and there was an exchange of gunfire in which no one was struck. Then a third officer arrived and, without warning, shot Samuel dead.
The phrase "qualified immunity" refers to a judge-made doctrine that has no basis in the text of the US Constitution, notwithstanding the claims by various Supreme Court justices to be handing down the Constitution's "original" meaning. In recent decades, this doctrine has quietly been built up to huge proportions within the judicial system, largely without significant media commentary or public discussion. It now plays an important role in blocking civil rights cases and encouraging the ongoing epidemic of police brutality.
According to this authoritarian and anti-democratic doctrine, a judge can unilaterally decide a case in favor of a police officer--even if the officer's conduct violated the Constitution--if the judge determines that the police officer acted "reasonably" in light of previous Supreme Court decisions. If qualified immunity is awarded to the police officer, the case can be thrown out of court, never going before a jury, and costs can be imposed against the victim or the victim's survivors.
[...] The Supreme Court held that the officer who killed Samuel "did not violate clearly established law" because "existing precedent" had not "placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate".
[...] In the written opinion, the justices went out of their way to complain that the lower courts were not granting qualified immunity to police officers often enough.
Clearly, having appointments made by Democrat presidents doesn't lessen Authoritarianism in the USA.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Saturday January 21 2017, @05:10AM
Because the courts do not have police of their own, but rely on pitiful door-check security guards who are not armed. Yet the police are allowed in with full regalia and weaponry, and we're supposed to believe that in a judicial world of decorum somehow that doesn't taint the courts' own biases. Not to mention the judges, prosecutors, and police all pal around behind the rope.
Judges have largely stripped away the rights of juries to nullify or enforce the spirit of laws , but only to be deciders of fact. This has long since taken away the safety check against prosecutorial abuse. The juror challenge system, too, ensures anyone who has suffered a conviction or punishment for any similar offense will never sit on a jury where such experience could sway things. So there's little chance anyway of a jury convicting a cop for murder or home invasion or anything else. Hell, the white cop who cowardly shot a black man in the back, killing him, still could not be convicted despite the coverup lies and video tape of the crime.
There was another case, I think in Colorado, where a home-grower was the victim of a pre-dawn assault on his home over plants, and since the Heroic Rambos chose the path of maximum cowardice by taking the same overnight tactics burglars use, were rightfully met with bullets. One cop died, and the man was arrested. Instead of being rightfully let go and pardoned, he was branded a "cop killer" and hung himself before trial.
We have too many police, too many crimes, and not enough Liberty.
It should be possible for any citizen to put any crime before a grand jury, but alas that right too has been taken by the Crown... er, executive branch. They'll say people will abuse it, but that's the point. Then our laws won't be quite as idiotic and our minimum sentences so damn long.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 21 2017, @06:30AM
FIFY.
(Score: 2, Informative) by mmh on Saturday January 21 2017, @04:30PM
Matthew Stewart killed in Ogden, Utah
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865565920/Matthew-Stewart-planned-to-go-out-shooting-if-police-came-ex-girlfriend-testifies.html [deseretnews.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 22 2017, @01:40AM
as he should. pigs who enforce unconstitutional law are traitors and deserve a traitor's death. It is the duty of every real american to fight against those who seek to destroy the country.