User Panel
Posted: 4/2/2018 2:46:17 PM EDT
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with an Arizona police officer in a case testing the constitutional limits for the use of force, throwing out a lawsuit brought against him by a woman he shot four times in her driveway while she held a large kitchen knife.
Over the dissent of two liberal justices, the court overturned a 2016 lower court ruling that had allowed the civil rights lawsuit seeking at least $150,000 in damages from University of Arizona Police Department Corporal Andrew Kisela to proceed. View Quote In the case decided on Monday, the court ruled in an unsigned opinion that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity protecting him from the litigation because he did not violate any clearly established law.
In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Kisela’s conduct was unreasonable and the court should not shield him from liability. Sotomayor criticized the court’s decision as another example of its “unflinching willingness” to reverse lower courts when they deny officers immunity. Fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sotomayor in the dissent. The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” Sotomayor added. View Quote |
|
Chadwick said in an affidavit that prior to the shooting, Hughes had threatened to kill Chadwick’s dog Bunny with a knife over a $20 magazine subscription. Chadwick went outside to her car to retrieve money from her purse when Hughes followed her outside, still holding the knife, according to court records.
Chadwick said Hughes had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was taking medication, and that she sometimes acted inappropriately but was never actually violent. The three officers arrived at the edge of the metal yard fence and drew their guns. Hughes did not respond to orders to drop the knife as she walked toward Chadwick, and Kisela opened fire, according to court records. Kisela told investigators he saw Hughes raise her knife, but the other officers said they did not. This was the case the progressives on the court decided to whine about? |
|
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
|
|
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. View Quote Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous. |
|
That's why we shouldn't have dumb cunts (or geriatric alzheimers ridden ones) on the SC.......
|
|
You may be able to beat the charges, but you're not going to beat the
|
|
The 9th Circuit ruling stated that a jury might find that Hughes “had a constitutional right to walk down her driveway holding a knife without being shot.” View Quote |
|
So why do cases like this that to a layman seem pretty open and shut go all the way to the USSC.
But in cases like that homeless gun on the hill in New Mexico. Or the cops in Cali that shot up the the 2 Asians in a different make and color truck. While looking for a 280 6'5 black male like 90 times for just driving by them. Never go to court? |
|
... sometimes it seems that Arizona is the last bastion of Conservativism in the Union
|
|
|
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. View Quote Liberal SJW's gonna liberal SJW. |
|
Quoted:
So why do cases like this that to a layman seem pretty open and shut go all the way to the USSC. But in cases like that homeless gun on the hill in New Mexico. Or the cops in Cali that shot up the the 2 Asians in a different make and color truck. While looking for a 280 6'5 black male like 90 times for just driving by them. Never go to court? View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
She and Notorious RBG seem to think that the officer should've been stripped of qualified immunity in this case. Liberal SJW's gonna liberal SJW. View Quote |
|
She advanced on him with a knife, even if a jury thinks the shooting cop was lying about her raising the knife, which the other officers deny, it sounds like a stinker anyway
|
|
Of all the things she could have done to not get shot, she chose not to do all of them.
--- Don't pick up a knife during an altercation. Don't threaten to do harm with that knife. Don't advance at the person you posed the threat to, with the knife. Don't drop the knife upon clear instructions and pleas to do so. --- I don't see how you get to do these four things, and maintain the expectation that others in fear for their safety are obligated to tolerate them. |
|
|
Quoted:
Was the issue because she was on the other side of a fence? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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.
- - Garcia spotted a woman, later identified as Sharon Chadwick, standing next to a car in the driveway of a nearby house. 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 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. Then the officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics, who transported her to a hospital. |
|
Sotomayor's dissenting view:
First, Hughes committed no crime and was not suspected of committing a crime. The officers were responding to a “check welfare” call, which reported no criminal activity, and the officers did not observe any illegal activity while at the scene. The mere fact that Hughes held a kitchen knife down at her side with the blade pointed away from Chadwick hardly elevates the situation to one that justifies deadly force.
Second, a jury could reasonably conclude that Hughes presented no immediate or objective threat to Chadwick or the other officers. It is true that Kisela had received a report that a woman matching Hughes’ description had been acting erratically. But the police officers themselves never witnessed any erratic conduct. Instead, when viewed in the light most favorable to Hughes, the record evidence of what the police encountered paints a calmer picture. It shows that Hughes was several feet from Chadwick and even farther from the officers, she never made any aggressive or threatening movements, and she appeared “composed and content” during the brief encounter. Third, Hughes did not resist or evade arrest. Based on this record, there is significant doubt as to whether she was aware of the officers’ presence at all, and evidence suggests that Hughes did not hear the officers’ swift commands to drop the knife. Finally, the record suggests that Kisela could have, but failed to, use less intrusive means before deploying deadly force. 862 F. 3d, at 781. For instance, Hughes submitted expert testimony concluding that Kisela should have used his Taser and that shooting his gun through the fence was dangerous because a bullet could have fragmented against the fence and hit Chadwick or his fellow officers. Ibid.; see also Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F. 3d 805, 831 (CA9 2010) (noting that “police are required to consider what other tactics if any were available to effect the arrest” and whether there are “clear, reasonable, and less intrusive alternatives” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Consistent with that assessment, the other two officers on the scene declined to fire at Hughes, and one of them explained that he was inclined to use “some of the lesser means” than shooting, including verbal commands, because he believed there was time “[t]o try to talk [Hughes] down.” Record 120–121. That two officers on the scene, presented with the same circumstances as Kisela, did not use deadly force reveals just how unnecessary and unreasonable it was for Kisela to fire four shots at Hughes. - - Taken together, the foregoing facts would permit a jury to conclude that Kisela acted outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment by shooting Hughes four times. |
|
The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote.
“It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” View Quote F*ck You Sotomayor. Jay |
|
Quoted: What do you think the odds are that they'd always rule to strip qualified immunity? The moonbats probably believe the cops shouldn't carry guns. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like a good use of force to me. First, Hughes committed no crime and was not suspected of committing a crime. The officers were responding to a “check welfare” call, which reported no criminal activity, and the officers did not observe any illegal activity while at the scene. The mere fact that Hughes held a kitchen knife down at her side with the blade pointed away from Chadwick hardly elevates the situation to one that justifies deadly force.
Second, a jury could reasonably conclude that Hughes presented no immediate or objective threat to Chadwick or the other officers. It is true that Kisela had received a report that a woman matching Hughes’ description had been acting erratically. But the police officers themselves never witnessed any erratic conduct. Instead, when viewed in the light most favorable to Hughes, the record evidence of what the police encountered paints a calmer picture. It shows that Hughes was several feet from Chadwick and even farther from the officers, she never made any aggressive or threatening movements, and she appeared “composed and content” during the brief encounter. Third, Hughes did not resist or evade arrest. Based on this record, there is significant doubt as to whether she was aware of the officers’ presence at all, and evidence suggests that Hughes did not hear the officers’ swift commands to drop the knife. Finally, the record suggests that Kisela could have, but failed to, use less intrusive means before deploying deadly force. 862 F. 3d, at 781. For instance, Hughes submitted expert testimony concluding that Kisela should have used his Taser and that shooting his gun through the fence was dangerous because a bullet could have fragmented against the fence and hit Chadwick or his fellow officers. Ibid.; see also Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F. 3d 805, 831 (CA9 2010) (noting that “police are required to consider what other tactics if any were available to effect the arrest” and whether there are “clear, reasonable, and less intrusive alternatives” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Consistent with that assessment, the other two officers on the scene declined to fire at Hughes, and one of them explained that he was inclined to use “some of the lesser means” than shooting, including verbal commands, because he believed there was time “[t]o try to talk [Hughes] down.” Record 120–121. That two officers on the scene, presented with the same circumstances as Kisela, did not use deadly force reveals just how unnecessary and unreasonable it was for Kisela to fire four shots at Hughes. - - Taken together, the foregoing facts would permit a jury to conclude that Kisela acted outside the bounds of the Fourth Amendment by shooting Hughes four times. |
|
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. View Quote Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? |
|
Quoted: Yes, they DO need to think about it. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Yes, they DO need to think about it. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? |
|
Quoted: Yes, they DO need to think about it. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
If she seriously doesn't think that Cops who have to pull the trigger are not thinking when they pull the trigger, then she is one seriously stupid bitch. F*ck You Sotomayor. Jay View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote.
“It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” F*ck You Sotomayor. Jay |
|
Quoted:
Sotomayor is an idiot. Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous. |
|
|
Quoted:
Yes, they DO need to think about it. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? Or are you going to say stupid cops should have shot the crazy bitch with a knife while saying they should lose qualified immunity and be sued into the poor house? |
|
Quoted:
What do you think the odds are that they'd always rule to strip qualified immunity? The moonbats probably believe the cops shouldn't carry guns. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
She and Notorious RBG seem to think that the officer should've been stripped of qualified immunity in this case. Liberal SJW's gonna liberal SJW. |
|
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The idiocy of the 9th's finding is actually pretty consistent with the 9th's habit of consistently refusing to assess the totality of the circumstances, which leads them to be overturned on cases like these. Of course you can walk down your driveway holding a knife without being shot, if one were to assume that every action that a person does occurs in a complete vacuum. You can't walk down your driveway with a knife without being shot if you've already threatened someone with the knife and decide to advance on armed officers who have lawfully ordered you to stop and drop the knife. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
The 9th Circuit ruling stated that a jury might find that Hughes “had a constitutional right to walk down her driveway holding a knife without being shot.” |
|
Quoted: Sotomayor is an idiot. Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous. View Quote |
|
|
Both those dusty old bags should be given a gun and tossed into a squad car in Phoenix or Tempe, Mesa, hell any of the greater metro AZ cities and see how long they last. I’d give em 3 calls before they either died or shot someone. That’s if you can get ol’ Ruth to wake up long enough to sit through rollcall. We can hire Live PD to film it and call it some like “Two old Justices.”
|
|
One you understand the police today are not your buddy pal of friend. It’s us against them that’s the way they look at it. If you’re not one of them your the enemy and are treated as such. The police will be the first ones to knock on your door and confiscate your guns.
I’m not anti-police that’s just the way it is today. Two people get pulled over one who’s is husband is a cop or is related to a cop gets a warning and drives away the other guy gets a ticket goes to court pays the fine and points. Is it an extremely dangerous job yes they knew the risks signing up for it. The brainwashing starts at the police academy teaching them not to trust anyone who is not a police officer. I know this sounds like a cop bashing thread but it’s not meant to be it’s just stating the facts the way a lot of people see it. There’s a lot of scumbags out there to deserve what they get and some average citizens that don’t. Again not a cop hater although it may sound like it. Facts just the facts. |
|
Quoted:
You put on a vest that doesn't stop knives and go take some armed person calls. View Quote Crazy people don't respond to normal commands, so you have to "light foot it" & calm the situation the fuck down. Hell, they could've offered to take her for a burger, they didn't even try (allegedly). Can't we at least try something before we shoot them? |
|
|
|
Lets go over this I have a knife and a guy with a gun tells me to drop it ...... I drop it.
A knife at close range is quick and deadly say less than 30 feet. Cops are not going to try to fight you for a knife and get killed for it, they are going to shoot you. I cannot blame them for it. My plan is to do what they tell me even if I don't like it. Now the next day I can get a lawyer or pitch a bitch to the officers superiors but right now I do what they say. |
|
Quoted: Yes, they DO need to think about it. Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort? View Quote Or shut the fuck up when you don't know what you're talking about. :) |
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.