After LE has been sufficiently neutered, on deck iscthe private citizen CCW in a self defense shooting. Body worn cameras might be the next big thing for the "EDC LOADOUT" crowd. Just sayin'...
After LE has been sufficiently neutered, on deck iscthe private citizen CCW in a self defense shooting. Body worn cameras might be the next big thing for the "EDC LOADOUT" crowd. Just sayin'...
From my morning news feed - https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/25/u...-of-force.html
Talks about split second decisions and the court precedents. Just FYI, folks.
That's an amazing article. It manages to completely misrepresent the entire point of Graham V. Connor, how it affected police use of force training, and historical trends in Law Enforcement use of Deadly Force.....all in a single article! To everyone still in the 'isolationist' camp.....you're not gonna be allowed to be 'isolationist' in the new order they're creating.
I found the story elsewhere, the link was behind a paywall.
The article confuses what Garner and Graham accomplished in law enforcement use of force training.
Garner is important because it links police use of force to arrest (versus protect the officer or another) to a seizure under the 4th Amendment's reasonableness standard, this was the first big deal.
They then set out to give guidance on when it would be reasonable to shoot a fleeing suspect to effect his arrest - essentially when there was probable cause to believe the suspect poses a threat of death or great bodily harm unless arrested w/o delay and there are no other reasonable means to effect the arrest.
Ultimately Garner's seizure under the reasonableness standard has been applied to police pursuits, roadblocks, as well as the use of lethal force.
While Garner is often considered the fleeing felon rule/case, Graham deals with judging the reasonableness of an officer's action in a wider view.
Graham, to my feeble mind, further refines the reasonableness standard in excessive use of force claims to one of objective reasonableness. Prior to Graham the persuasive case in excessive force cases was Johnson v. Glick. In Johnson, one of the elements of reasonableness was somewhat subjective:
was the force was applied in good faith or maliciously and sadistically, or, was the force used in a punitive or tortuous manner; did the use of force stop after the resistance had ceased; was the use of force professional and in response to the criminal violations or was the force motivated by emotions of revenge, vindication or prejudice.
The Court, in Graham, moved us out of that foolishness by holding:
The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional.
(Remember, the Court was ruling on a case where a diabetic man's arm was broken as he resisted because of low blood sugar.)
They further held:
The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. And its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
Note that the court didn't say 'must be giving a free pass in cases regarding split-second decisions' rather they said the calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation.
The test of reasonableness is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application. Its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including: 1) The severity of the crime at issue; 2) Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and 3) Whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
So, yeah, the article is pretty much worthless, except for stirring the masses.
Last edited by DDTSGM; 04-27-2021 at 12:06 AM.
Homily on the police by a Priest with wisdom.
https://www.nbc4i.com/news/makhia-br...hreats-i-team/
Police video this week showed a Columbus officer shot a 16-year-old girl as she was about to stab a woman. That woman went to stay with a relative in Cleveland. Then she called police to report her life is in danger. She told police Friday someone posted her current and former addresses, phone number and picture on social media. That led others to share it on social media.
#RESIST
Thanks for the update, LL.
Nothing but class.
But...let's re-imagine the police.
While defunding them.
Because they're the problem.
Right.
Because you know, every life matters.
What horseshit.
There's nothing civil about this war.