terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.Kagan acknowledged that the officer’s perception during the split-second encounter remains critical, but emphasized that events leading up to it can show whether an officer’s response was reasonable.
No one in the US should have immunity for their actions. Consideration should be given based on circumstances, but no, no immunity.terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
The unanimous 9-0 decision stems from the 2016 fatal shooting of 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop in Texas. Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.
Lower courts had ruled that Felix was protected under the “moment of the threat” doctrine, which focuses only on the instant an officer uses force. But the Supreme Court rejected that approach, instead directing courts to examine the “totality of the circumstances.”
They have qualified immunity already. And the courts essentially make the "qualified" part a joke.terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Not just traffic stops: why are there still police chases in 2025? Who is bering served and protected by 2-20 lunatics tearing through neighborhoods and freeways?The solution is simple. Don't have cops make traffic stops.
The solution is simple. Don't have cops make traffic stops.
Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.No.
Reckless driving should be stopped.
Well they can just not escalate like jumping on a car and shootingterrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Qualified immunity applies to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions.They have qualified immunity already. And the courts essentially make the "qualified" part a joke.
As I understand the ruling, this is good for good cops and bad for bad cops.Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion statedwww.police1.com
A unanimous decision that hopefully we all can get behind.
Thoughts?
Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.
Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion statedwww.police1.com
Are you making an assumption that because a black guy was behind the wheel his motion to move the vehicle forward was
"reckless driving" worthy of being shot dead???
Tell me THAT is NOT your assumption.
Since THIS story is about some black guy moving forward in his vehicle, the guy you are defending suggested he was "reckless driving" and YOUR defence is he was NOT talking about this incident? Who exactly are you trying to fool?Race baiting as usual. He was referring to traffic stops in general. Not this specific incident.
Since THIS story is about some black guy moving forward in his vehicle, the guy you are defending suggested he was "reckless driving" and YOUR defence is he was NOT talking about this incident? Who exactly are you trying to fool?
I guess my question about who exactly you are trying to fool was rhetorical.This was in context to cops making traffic stops. It’s not about your attempt to race bait.
Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.
Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police
“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion statedwww.police1.com
Are you making an assumption that because a black guy was behind the wheel his motion to move the vehicle forward was
"reckless driving" worthy of being shot dead???
Tell me THAT is NOT your assumption.
Civil liabilities are severe too, but the threat from criminal prosecution is real. I can't see the reasoning where a police officer is liable for "events leading up to" but the decision is made in a split secondQualified immunity applies to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions.
well SCOTUS gave POTUS immunity for anything done in the course of presidential duties - cops should get the same treatment in that they really can't be thinking of liability in an imminent threat situationNo one in the US should have immunity for their actions. Consideration should be given based on circumstances, but no, no immunity.
Is moving a vehicle forward considered reckless driving, yes or no?Race card.
You can keep that shit.
terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Is moving a vehicle forward considered reckless driving, yes or no?
Is moving a vehicle forward an act worthy of being shot to death, yes or no?
If you don't want to answer, that is fine, because a non-answer IS an answer. Anyone can see that.
If a police is citing you and you move forward it is reckless.Since THIS story is about some black guy moving forward in his vehicle, the guy you are defending suggested he was "reckless driving" and YOUR defence is he was NOT talking about this incident? Who exactly are you trying to fool?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?