zoogs Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Libertarian outlet Reason.com with coverage: http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/30/supreme-court-rules-8-0-for-police-in-ma Of course, if the police had not violated the Constitution to begin with in this case, the police would not have had the opportunity to use any sort of force at all. The indisputable fact is that Angel Mendez would still have the use of his right leg if the detectives had not disobeyed the Fourth Amendment, illegally entered his home, and shot him. The Supreme Court's opinion in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez is available here. The question in this case is whether qualified immunity exists for a police officer in a situation illegally he or she created illegally. With this decisive "yes" to that question, we now live in an era of curtailing the 4th amendment even as we fight so hard to expand and preserve the 2nd. Because peoples rights? [To be clear, I have many, many disagreements with the kind of stuff Reason puts out. This happens to be a topic where I think were more aligned. Theres a valuable place for limited government advocacy after all, and I appreciate when I see it put forth.] Additional coverage from Mimesis Law: http://mimesislaw.com/fault-lines/will-the-provocation-doctrine-survive/14628 It's not clear that the Supreme Court made the wrong call, either -- their job is to interpret the law as it is, not to create it anew. There's a decent argument I think that the burden for change rests upon the legislative, which in turn means us, the electorate, who chooses our executive and legislative branches. 1 Link to comment
TGHusker Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 Sounds like a legislative fix is needed. I would agree wt the 9th in their reasoning. It seems unjust and a overreach by the police involved - excessive force. But, as Zoogs mentioned the SC it appears ruled on the strict interpretation of the law. Link to comment
TGHusker Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 SC related: Gorsuch makes his 1st ruling on the bench. I see this ruling as encouraging. 1. Strict view of the judges role on the bench 2. He didn't fold to corporate interests. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/neil-gorsuch-ruling-supreme-court-debt-collectors/2017/06/12/id/795556/ 1 Link to comment
Recommended Posts