HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The 4th Amendment, Police... » Reply #5

Response to CBGLuthier (Reply #1)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:50 PM

5. Indeed it did limit operation of the overbroad TN statute


So amid the wailing about how "police these days" can go crazy, it is interesting to observe that this decision, which clearly spells out that the use of deadly force to prevent escape where there is probable cause the suspect has committed a dangerous felony, and has been warned to surrender, actually does say that it can't be used in situations such as, say, burglary as in the facts at hand.

The police CAN shoot you for running away from them if you have shot at the police or others, however, and this decision endorsed by the entire liberal wing of the court at that time, makes that clear.

Under the operative TN statute at hand, the police could kill you for running away from being arrested for shoplifting. That law was struck down in its application to situations other than probable cause for violent felonies. And it is more than "running away" but "to prevent escape".

Where there is probable cause to believe that someone has fatally shot four others, engaged in kidnapping of two others, is actively trading fire with the police, has been evading arrest for several days, has broken into another house and holed up with weapons, and has claimed to be in possession of anti-aircraft devices, we are very well out of the "merely running away" territory, and I would submit you would be unlikely to find any federal circuit judge or Supreme Court justice that would find the limitations in Garner to apply.

Part of accepting what one's Constitutional rights are, is to further accept that the mechanism for determining those rights is, in the final instance, the Supreme Court. You don't have to agree with it, and there are certainly a long and proud tradition of legal advocacy groups that find and carry forward with cases selected for the purpose of changing, modifying, clarifying or even reversing standing precedent in favor of a proposed alternate understanding.

But to say something like "his Constitutional rights were violated, and I don't give a shit what relevant Supreme Court precedent is", is a position that contradicts itself. You can't rely on the Constitution for an assertion of your rights, while denying that the Supreme Court is the body which interprets those rights under the same Constitution.

It's fine to say, "the law should be something other than what it is", and that goes on all of the time. It's what the appellate courts are for.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 7 replies Author Time Post
jberryhill Feb 2013 OP
CBGLuthier Feb 2013 #1
loli phabay Feb 2013 #3
LineLineNew Reply Indeed it did limit operation of the overbroad TN statute
jberryhill Feb 2013 #5
justiceischeap Feb 2013 #2
loli phabay Feb 2013 #4
jberryhill Feb 2013 #6
cbdo2007 Feb 2013 #7
Please login to view edit histories.