Reply to ICE Shooting in Minneapolis

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "ICE Shooting in Minneapolis "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Independent autopsy has been done. Bullet wounds to right chest, right arm, head, and a graze wound (news didn't say where).

Depending on where the shot to her head was, the rest could have been survivable I would think--blood stopping products advanced a ton during the ME wars. [/quote]
The third shot killed her. THIRD! He’ll be tried for murder. Bring back public hangings.[/quote]

[twitter]https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2014211123046973533[/twitter]

Explain how you get around Alito's 9-0 decision in Plumhoff.

Here's a reminder:

"We now consider respondent’s contention that, even if the use of deadly force was permissible, petitioners acted unreasonably in firing a total of 15 shots. We reject that argument. [b]It stands to reason that, if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended. As petitioners noted below, “if lethal force is justified, officers are taught to keep shooting until the threat is over.”
[/b]
9-0.  Including RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.

Take it up with them.[/quote]

Plumhoff was a different situation and easily distinguishable from this case.  As you have pointed out the court was ruling with respect to a "severe threat to public safety". That sever threat was materially different than the facts here.  Just a quick summary of that threat -

"The "severe threat to public safety" refers to a high-speed car chase characterized by outrageously reckless driving.

According to the Court's unanimous 2014 decision, the driver, Donald Rickard, posed a grave risk to the public through the following actions:

Excessive Speeds: The chase lasted over five minutes and reached speeds exceeding 100 miles per hour.

Endangering Others: Rickard wove through traffic and passed more than two dozen other motorists, forcing many off the road or into evasive maneuvers.

Aggressive Driving: Even after being temporarily cornered in a parking lot, Rickard continued to accelerate while his bumper was flush against a police cruiser and later forced an officer to dive out of the way to avoid being hit.

The Supreme Court held that because Rickard’s flight posed a "grave public safety risk," the officers' use of deadly force (firing 15 shots) was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to terminate the threat."

You are obviously one of little legal acumen if you think the two cases are similar.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics