Court revives victim lawsuit in mistaken shooting

[DonViejo]

Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has reinstated the lawsuit filed by a former major league baseball player’s son who was shot on the porch of his family home by a Houston-area police officer.

The justices on Monday ordered a lower court to reconsider the case of Robert Tolan, son of former major leaguer Bobby Tolan. The son was shot in the chest after police mistakenly believed he was armed and had stolen a vehicle.

A Houston-area jury acquitted Bellaire police Sgt. Jeffrey Cotton of criminal charges in the shooting, which happened on New Year’s Eve in 2008. A federal appeals court dismissed Tolan’s civil lawsuit claiming that Cotton used excessive force.

The high court said the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals acted too hastily. The case is Tolan v. Cotton, 13-551.

###

Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/05/court_revives_victim_lawsuit_in_mistaken_shooting/

[randys1]

1. When will the criminals on the SC release their democracy ending decision on Hobby Lobby?

[FreakinDJ]

2. When will they grant the citizens relief from the murderous police

[happyslug]

3. Here is the Actual Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-551_ihdk.pdf

Oh, this is a slam down on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, it basically is saying that the Court used the wrong legal test and that the correct test is so well known the Court should have reversed the decision of the trial court.

In a Motion For Summary Judgement, the Trial court MUST accept all facts in favor of the non-moving party. i.e. of they are any facts in dispute, they MUST assume the facts as stated by, in this case, the Victims NOT the Police. The "Fact" that the Porch was "Lightly Lighten", as claimed by the Police could NOT be stated as a fact in this motion for Summary Judgement, when the victim said it was well lighten. The Judge MUST assume in a Motion for Summary Judgement that is was "Well Lighten" as claimed by the victim. The Judge also had to accept as fact that the action of the Mother was NOT disruptive as claimed by the Victim, NOT that the actions were disruptive as claimed by the Police.

This is legal practice 101, why did it get as far as the Supreme Court (and that is why it is a 9-0 decision).