The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[DGuller]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/02/dallas-texas-police-shooting-jordan-edwards-moving-car

Jordan was in the passenger seat of a car authorities say was being driven backwards in an "aggressive manner" when a Balch Springs, Texas, officer opened fire. In a Sunday press conference, the police chief said officers were responding to reports of "drunken teenagers" and heard gunshots when they arrived on the scene.

This is probably a bit pedantic, but actually the car was actually moving forward away from the officers when it was fired upon.

[Syt]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-police-shoot-20170530-story.html

U.S. Supreme Court makes it harder to sue police for barging into homes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder to sue police for barging into a home and provoking a shooting, setting aside a $4-million verdict against two Los Angeles County deputies.

The money was awarded to a homeless couple who were startled and then shot when the two sheriff's deputies entered the shack where they were sleeping.

The unanimous ruling rejected the so-called provocation rule that some lower courts have used. Under that rule, police can be sued for violating a victim's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches if they provoked a confrontation that resulted in violence.

"The basic problem with the provocation rule," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote in the 8-0 decision, is that it "provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable."

A federal judge decided the two deputies responded reasonably when they saw Angel Mendez, the sleeping man, reach for a weapon, which turned out to be a BB gun.

The deputies were liable for the injuries they caused, the judge ruled, because they had provoked the incident by going on to private property and barging into the shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence.

In Tuesday's opinion in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, the justices said the judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong to rely on the provocation rule. But they sent the case back to the 9th Circuit to reconsider whether the verdict can be upheld on the grounds the deputies violated the 4th Amendment when they searched without a warrant.

The Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs welcomed the court's rejection of the provocation rule.

"This invented rule put the lives of deputies into danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability," the group said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union had urged the court to uphold the verdict. But David Cole, the ACLU's national legal director, said the court's opinion makes clear officers can be held liable in such cases.

"In my view, the decision does not give police a blank check to provoke violence. It holds that where the police act unconstitutionally, they are responsible for the reasonable consequences of their conduct," Cole said.

The case began in 2010 when deputies were searching for a parole violator who was believed to be armed and dangerous. Based on a tip, a dozen deputies went to a house in Lancaster. They did not have a search warrant. Several deputies banged on the front door and pressed to enter, and two others went around to the back where they saw three metal storage sheds and a wooden shack.

When one of them opened the door of the shack and pulled back a blue blanket, he startled a man and a woman who were napping. When the man reached for a BB gun, one deputy yelled "Gun!" and the two officers fired 15 shots.

Mendez was hit several times and lost his leg. His wife, Jennifer Garcia Mendez, who was pregnant, was hit in the back. The deputies did not find the fugitive they were looking for.

Both shooting victims survived and sued Los Angeles County for their injuries.

After a trial, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald handed down the $4-million verdict.

The 9th Circuit Court upheld the decision and agreed the officers had recklessly and intentionally provoked the confrontation.

Last year, lawyers for Los Angeles County appealed and argued that the 9th Circuit was the only appeals court to use the provocation rule as a separate basis for upholding excessive force claims against the police.

The eight justices heard arguments in the case in late March while Justice Neil M. Gorsuch's confirmation was pending in the Senate, and they sounded evenly split. Tuesday's opinion looks to be a compromise of sorts that rejects one approach but leaves open the prospect that victims of police shootings may recover damages if the officers undertook an unreasonable search.

So if you have intruders barging into your home when you sleep you better not defend yourself, it could be the police who have the wrong address, and they have a good chance of getting off the hook.

[garbon]

Sorry but I don't really see how the provocation rule would be beneficial.

[The Brain]

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-police-shoot-20170530-story.html

U.S. Supreme Court makes it harder to sue police for barging into homes

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder to sue police for barging into a home and provoking a shooting, setting aside a $4-million verdict against two Los Angeles County deputies.

The money was awarded to a homeless couple who were startled and then shot when the two sheriff's deputies entered the shack where they were sleeping.

The unanimous ruling rejected the so-called provocation rule that some lower courts have used. Under that rule, police can be sued for violating a victim's constitutional rights against unreasonable searches if they provoked a confrontation that resulted in violence.

"The basic problem with the provocation rule," Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., wrote in the 8-0 decision, is that it "provides a novel and unsupported path to liability in cases in which the use of force was reasonable."

A federal judge decided the two deputies responded reasonably when they saw Angel Mendez, the sleeping man, reach for a weapon, which turned out to be a BB gun.

The deputies were liable for the injuries they caused, the judge ruled, because they had provoked the incident by going on to private property and barging into the shack without a search warrant and without announcing their presence.

In Tuesday's opinion in County of Los Angeles vs. Mendez, the justices said the judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were wrong to rely on the provocation rule. But they sent the case back to the 9th Circuit to reconsider whether the verdict can be upheld on the grounds the deputies violated the 4th Amendment when they searched without a warrant.

The Assn. for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs welcomed the court's rejection of the provocation rule.

"This invented rule put the lives of deputies into danger by causing them to hesitate in using reasonable force to defend themselves for fear of later civil liability," the group said in a statement.

The American Civil Liberties Union had urged the court to uphold the verdict. But David Cole, the ACLU's national legal director, said the court's opinion makes clear officers can be held liable in such cases.

"In my view, the decision does not give police a blank check to provoke violence. It holds that where the police act unconstitutionally, they are responsible for the reasonable consequences of their conduct," Cole said.

The case began in 2010 when deputies were searching for a parole violator who was believed to be armed and dangerous. Based on a tip, a dozen deputies went to a house in Lancaster. They did not have a search warrant. Several deputies banged on the front door and pressed to enter, and two others went around to the back where they saw three metal storage sheds and a wooden shack.

When one of them opened the door of the shack and pulled back a blue blanket, he startled a man and a woman who were napping. When the man reached for a BB gun, one deputy yelled "Gun!" and the two officers fired 15 shots.

Mendez was hit several times and lost his leg. His wife, Jennifer Garcia Mendez, who was pregnant, was hit in the back. The deputies did not find the fugitive they were looking for.

Both shooting victims survived and sued Los Angeles County for their injuries.

After a trial, U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald handed down the $4-million verdict.

The 9th Circuit Court upheld the decision and agreed the officers had recklessly and intentionally provoked the confrontation.

Last year, lawyers for Los Angeles County appealed and argued that the 9th Circuit was the only appeals court to use the provocation rule as a separate basis for upholding excessive force claims against the police.

The eight justices heard arguments in the case in late March while Justice Neil M. Gorsuch's confirmation was pending in the Senate, and they sounded evenly split. Tuesday's opinion looks to be a compromise of sorts that rejects one approach but leaves open the prospect that victims of police shootings may recover damages if the officers undertook an unreasonable search.

So if you have intruders barging into your home when you sleep you better not defend yourself, it could be the police who have the wrong address, and they have a good chance of getting off the hook.

We don't know in this case. They were homeless and by definition weren't at home.

[Valmy]

So if you have intruders barging into your home when you sleep you better not defend yourself, it could be the police who have the wrong address, and they have a good chance of getting off the hook.

That is a distressingly familiar story in the war on drugs. Cops burst into the wrong house, home owner grabs his gun, cops see gun and shoot the homeowner.

[garbon]

The American Civil Liberties Union had urged the court to uphold the verdict. But David Cole, the ACLU's national legal director, said the court's opinion makes clear officers can be held liable in such cases.

"In my view, the decision does not give police a blank check to provoke violence. It holds that where the police act unconstitutionally, they are responsible for the reasonable consequences of their conduct," Cole said.

[CountDeMoney]

The wheels of justice may not have turned, but the wheels of human resources are.

Cleveland Police Officer Who Shot Tamir Rice Is Fired

The Cleveland police officer who fatally shot 12-year-old Tamir Rice in 2014 as he held a pellet gun, setting off national protests, was fired Tuesday, officials said.

At a news conference, officials said that the officer, Timothy Loehmann, would be terminated immediately and that Frank Garmback, an officer who was driving the patrol car, would be suspended for 10 days beginning Wednesday. They also said Officer Garmback would be required to take an additional tactical training course.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/30/us/cleveland-police-tamir-rice.html

Five Baltimore officers from Freddie Gray case face internal discipline; three could be fired

Five Baltimore police officers involved in the 2015 arrest and death of Freddie Gray have been charged with violating department rules, with three of them facing termination, The Baltimore Sun has learned.

The three who face firing are Officer Caesar Goodson, who was driving the van where an autopsy determined Gray suffered fatal injuries; and supervisors Lt. Brian Rice and Sgt. Alicia White, according to sources with knowledge of the case.

Officers Edward Nero and Garrett Miller, who made the initial arrest of Gray, face five days suspension without pay.

Meanwhile, Officer William Porter, who was criminally charged with manslaughter, is not facing any internal discipline.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/freddie-gray/bs-md-ci-freddie-gray-internal-charges-20170522-story.html

[Ed Anger]

There is some good bounty hunter action on the news this morning. Impersonating federal officials to the guy's employer and then blasting away.

HOT

[CountDeMoney]

Figured I'd post this here, since more police violence is what it's going to lead to anyway.

Trump signs legislation to aid law enforcement
John Fritze
The Baltimore Sun

President Donald J. Trump signed legislation Friday to prioritize the hiring of veterans as police officers, as well as a second measure to speed benefit claims for survivors of officers killed in the line of duty.

The signing, which took place in the Diplomatic Reception Room, was attended by several Maryland law enforcement officials, including from Anne Arundel and Prince George's counties as well as Baltimore City.

"We are here today to reaffirm our unbreakable support for the American heroes who keep our streets, our homes, and our citizens safe," the president said. "And they've been doing an amazing job under very adverse conditions."

One of the measures allows a popular Department of Justice grant program used to expand the size of local police forces to hire and train veterans. The other measure would streamline the process by which families of officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty can receive financial support.

As of last April, nearly six in ten applications had been pending for more than a year, according to the White House. The legislation would allow families to apply online and would let the Department of Justice give additional weight to determinations of disability made by state, local and other agencies.

"For too long injured officers have suffered and the children of fallen officers have put their dreams of college on hold while bureaucracy delayed crucial benefits, made it impossible for their families," Trump said at the signing. "No longer. It's unacceptable and it's going to end today."

Trump repeatedly raised what he viewed as the plight of police officers during his presidential campaign last year. Both bills received unanimous support in Congress, and had the backing of groups such as the national Fraternal Order of Police.

"This is very important to law enforcement and the wider public safety community because it provides our members peace of mind knowing that their families will be taken care of in the event they are killed or disabled in the line of duty," national FOP president Chuck Canterbury said in a statement.

Among the participants from Maryland was Sgt. Clyde Boatwright of the Baltimore City Public Schools Police Department. Boatwright is also a vice president in the Maryland FOP.

Yay, more combat vets on the streets.

[Valmy]

I don't like local police forces answering to the Feds and not to the local community. I feel like this has been a huge reason for the problems going between the cops and the locals over the past 30 years or so. Is Trump right? Do the Feds provide benefits for fallen officers and their families? They are not federal employees so why would that be?

I really hope when it says training it really means it. Soldiers need to have a radically different mentality to do police work than they had in the service.

[dps]

I don't like local police forces answering to the Feds and not to the local community.

I agree, and feel the same way about schools.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't like local police forces answering to the Feds and not to the local community. I feel like this has been a huge reason for the problems going between the cops and the locals over the past 30 years or so. Is Trump right? Do the Feds provide benefits for fallen officers and their families? They are not federal employees so why would that be?

The legislation would allow families to apply online and would let the Department of Justice give additional weight to determinations of disability made by state, local and other agencies.

I can understand how the red tape can screw things up: unlike retirement which you can plan ahead for, your husband's LOD death isn't, and when he's dead, the checks stop and you have to apply for death benefits, pension, etc., and that can cause severe financial distress in the meantime.  What exactly the DOJ's role is here, in what is technically labor law, I dunno.

[DGuller]

I don't like local police forces answering to the Feds and not to the local community.

I agree, and feel the same way about schools.

I disagree about both.  When it comes to police in US, it seems like both the level of training and the culture of professionalism go up as you move up from county to federal level.  And letting local communities decide what to teach will just serve to entrench the deep pockets of ignorance that will be the death of this country.

[Valmy]

The militarization of the cops was and is a result of federal drug policies. The locals may be yokels but that is ultimately who the cops should be accountable.

[DGuller]

The militarization of the cops was and is a result of federal drug policies. The locals may be yokels but that is ultimately who the cops should be accountable.

It's true that militarization of police was a mistake.  However, ultimately it's not about the toys you get, but about what training you get on how and when to use these toys, and the accountability there is on you when you misuse your toys.  That's squarely on locals.