Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 4/2/2018 2:46:17 PM EDT
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday sided with an Arizona police officer in a case testing the constitutional limits for the use of force, throwing out a lawsuit brought against him by a woman he shot four times in her driveway while she held a large kitchen knife.

Over the dissent of two liberal justices, the court overturned a 2016 lower court ruling that had allowed the civil rights lawsuit seeking at least $150,000 in damages from University of Arizona Police Department Corporal Andrew Kisela to proceed.
View Quote
In the case decided on Monday, the court ruled in an unsigned opinion that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity protecting him from the litigation because he did not violate any clearly established law.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that Kisela’s conduct was unreasonable and the court should not shield him from liability. Sotomayor criticized the court’s decision as another example of its “unflinching willingness” to reverse lower courts when they deny officers immunity. Fellow liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined Sotomayor in the dissent.

The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote. “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,” Sotomayor added.
View Quote
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-police/supreme-court-backs-arizona-policeman-accused-of-excessive-force-idUSKCN1H9170
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 2:54:03 PM EDT
[#1]
Chadwick said in an affidavit that prior to the shooting, Hughes had threatened to kill Chadwick’s dog Bunny with a knife over a $20 magazine subscription. Chadwick went outside to her car to retrieve money from her purse when Hughes followed her outside, still holding the knife, according to court records.

Chadwick said Hughes had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and was taking medication, and that she sometimes acted inappropriately but was never actually violent.

The three officers arrived at the edge of the metal yard fence and drew their guns. Hughes did not respond to orders to drop the knife as she walked toward Chadwick, and Kisela opened fire, according to court records. Kisela told investigators he saw Hughes raise her knife, but the other officers said they did not.


This was the case the progressives on the court decided to whine about?
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:05:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:10:14 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
View Quote
Sotomayor is an idiot.
Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:12:20 PM EDT
[#4]
That's why we shouldn't have dumb cunts (or geriatric alzheimers ridden ones) on the SC.......
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:16:43 PM EDT
[#5]
You may be able to beat the charges, but you're not going to beat the ride dirt nap.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:17:18 PM EDT
[#6]
The 9th Circuit ruling stated that a jury might find that Hughes “had a constitutional right to walk down her driveway holding a knife without being shot.”
View Quote
The idiocy of the 9th's finding is actually pretty consistent with the 9th's habit of consistently refusing to assess the totality of the circumstances, which leads them to be overturned on cases like these.  Of course you can walk down your driveway holding a knife without being shot, if one were to assume that every action that a person does occurs in a complete vacuum.  You can't walk down your driveway with a knife without being shot if you've already threatened someone with the knife and decide to advance on armed officers who have lawfully ordered you to stop and drop the knife.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:25:09 PM EDT
[#7]
So why do cases like this that to a layman seem pretty open and shut go all the way to the USSC.

But in cases like that homeless gun on the hill in New Mexico. Or the cops in Cali that shot up the the 2 Asians in a different make and color truck. While looking for a 280 6'5 black male like 90 times for just driving by them. Never go to court?
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:28:32 PM EDT
[#8]
... sometimes it seems that Arizona is the last bastion of Conservativism in the Union
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:30:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Was the issue because she was on the other side of a fence?
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:31:32 PM EDT
[#10]
That got two dissenting judges?  
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 3:52:08 PM EDT
[#11]
Sotomayor is a lesbo with beetus.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 4:07:18 PM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 4:09:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
RBG is still alive?
View Quote
RGB circa 2092 on the Supreme Court.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:26:25 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
View Quote
She and Notorious RBG seem to think that the officer should've been stripped of qualified immunity in this case.

Liberal SJW's gonna liberal SJW.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:31:03 PM EDT
[#15]
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:31:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Good reversal
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:32:32 PM EDT
[#17]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So why do cases like this that to a layman seem pretty open and shut go all the way to the USSC.

But in cases like that homeless gun on the hill in New Mexico. Or the cops in Cali that shot up the the 2 Asians in a different make and color truck. While looking for a 280 6'5 black male like 90 times for just driving by them. Never go to court?
View Quote
They got paid to go away.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:34:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Sotomayor is an idiot.
Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous.
View Quote
She is a socialist
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:34:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

She and Notorious RBG seem to think that the officer should've been stripped of qualified immunity in this case.

Liberal SJW's gonna liberal SJW.
View Quote
What do you think the odds are that they'd always rule to strip qualified immunity? The moonbats probably believe the cops shouldn't carry guns.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:37:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Another quality opinion by RBG and La Raza Mayor
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:42:13 PM EDT
[#21]
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:49:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Of all the things she could have done to not get shot, she chose not to do all of them.

---
Don't pick up a knife during an altercation.

Don't threaten to do harm with that knife.

Don't advance at the person you posed the threat to, with the knife.

Don't drop the knife upon clear instructions and pleas to do so.  
---

I don't see how you get to do these four things, and maintain the expectation that others in fear for their safety are obligated to tolerate them.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 5:54:02 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
She advanced on him with a knife, even if a jury thinks the shooting cop was lying about her raising the knife, which the other officers deny, it sounds like a stinker anyway
View Quote
Deny? Or did not see?
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 6:25:48 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Was the issue because she was on the other side of a fence?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Was the issue because she was on the other side of a fence?
Kisela v. Hughes 17-467
A few minutes later the person who had called 911 flagged down the  officers;  gave  them  a  description  of  the woman  with the knife; and told them the woman had been acting erratically.
- -
Garcia  spotted  a  woman,  later  identified  as  Sharon  Chadwick,  standing  next  to  a  car  in  the  driveway  of  a nearby house.  A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated  Chadwick  from  the  officers.    The  officers  then  saw  
another  woman,  Hughes,  emerge  from  the  house  carrying  a large knife at her side. Hughes walked  toward  Chadwick  and  stopped  no  more  than  six  feet from her.

All  three  officers  drew  their  guns.    At  least  twice  they told  Hughes  to  drop  the  knife.   Viewing  the  record  in  the light  most  favorable  to  Hughes,  Chadwick  said  “take  it  easy”  to  both  Hughes  and  the  officers.    Hughes  appeared  calm, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife.  The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s  line  of  fire,  so  he  dropped  to  the  ground  and  shot Hughes  four  times  through  the  fence.    Then  the  officers  jumped  the  fence,  handcuffed  Hughes,  and  called  paramedics, who transported her to a hospital.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 6:34:53 PM EDT
[#25]
Seems like a good use of force to me.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 6:50:00 PM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Seems like a good use of force to me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Seems like a good use of force to me.
Sotomayor's dissenting view:
First, Hughes committed no crime and was not suspected of  committing  a  crime.    The  officers  were  responding  to  a “check  welfare”  call,  which  reported  no  criminal  activity, and  the  officers  did  not  observe  any  illegal  activity  while  at  the  scene.    The  mere  fact  that  Hughes  held  a  kitchen  knife  down  at  her  side  with  the  blade  pointed  away  from Chadwick  hardly  elevates  the  situation  to  one  that  justi­fies deadly force.

Second,  a  jury  could  reasonably  conclude  that  Hughes presented no immediate or objective threat to Chadwick or the  other  officers.    It  is  true  that  Kisela  had  received  a  report  that  a  woman  matching  Hughes’  description  had  been acting erratically.  But the police officers themselves never   witnessed   any   erratic   conduct.

Instead,   when   viewed  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  Hughes,  the  record evidence  of  what  the  police  encountered  paints  a  calmer  picture.    It  shows  that  Hughes  was  several  feet  from  Chadwick  and  even  farther  from  the  officers,  she  never  made  any  aggressive  or  threatening  movements,  and  she  appeared   “composed   and   content”   during   the   brief   encounter.

Third,  Hughes  did  not  resist  or  evade  arrest.    Based  on  this  record,  there  is  significant  doubt  as  to  whether  she  was  aware  of  the  officers’  presence  at  all,  and  evidence suggests that Hughes did not hear the officers’ swift com­mands to drop the knife.

Finally,  the  record  suggests  that  Kisela  could  have,  but failed to, use less intrusive means before deploying deadly force.  862 F. 3d, at 781. For instance, Hughes submitted expert testimony concluding that Kisela should have used his Taser and that shooting his gun through the fence was dangerous because a bullet could have fragmented against the fence and hit Chadwick or his fellow officers.

Ibid.; see also Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F. 3d 805, 831 (CA9 2010)
(noting  that  “police  are  required  to  consider  what  other tactics  if  any  were  available  to  effect  the  arrest”  and whether  there  are  “clear,  reasonable,  and  less  intrusive  alternatives”   (internal   quotation   marks   and   alteration  omitted)).

Consistent with that assessment, the other two officers on the scene declined to fire at Hughes, and one of them  explained  that  he  was  inclined  to  use  “some  of  the lesser  means”  than  shooting,  including  verbal  commands,  
because   he   believed   there   was   time   “[t]o   try   to   talk   [Hughes]  down.”    Record  120–121.    That  two  officers  on  the  scene,  presented  with  the  same  circumstances  as  Kisela, did not use deadly force reveals just how unneces­sary  and  unreasonable  it  was  for  Kisela  to  fire  four  shots at  Hughes.
- -
Taken together, the foregoing facts would permit a jury to  conclude  that  Kisela  acted  outside  the  bounds  of  the Fourth Amendment by shooting Hughes four times.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 6:59:18 PM EDT
[#27]
The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote.
“It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,”
View Quote
If she seriously doesn't think that Cops who have to pull the trigger are not thinking when they pull the trigger, then she is one seriously stupid bitch.
F*ck You Sotomayor.

Jay
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 7:43:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

What do you think the odds are that they'd always rule to strip qualified immunity? The moonbats probably believe the cops shouldn't carry guns.
View Quote
I’m quite sure they’re the sort that believes that no one should be able to shoot in self-defense unless they’re fired upon first.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 8:20:12 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Sotomayor's dissenting view:
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seems like a good use of force to me.
Sotomayor's dissenting view:
First, Hughes committed no crime and was not suspected of  committing  a  crime.    The  officers  were  responding  to  a “check  welfare”  call,  which  reported  no  criminal  activity, and  the  officers  did  not  observe  any  illegal  activity  while  at  the  scene.    The  mere  fact  that  Hughes  held  a  kitchen  knife  down  at  her  side  with  the  blade  pointed  away  from Chadwick  hardly  elevates  the  situation  to  one  that  justi­fies deadly force.

Second,  a  jury  could  reasonably  conclude  that  Hughes presented no immediate or objective threat to Chadwick or the  other  officers.    It  is  true  that  Kisela  had  received  a  report  that  a  woman  matching  Hughes’  description  had  been acting erratically.  But the police officers themselves never   witnessed   any   erratic   conduct.

Instead,   when   viewed  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  Hughes,  the  record evidence  of  what  the  police  encountered  paints  a  calmer  picture.    It  shows  that  Hughes  was  several  feet  from  Chadwick  and  even  farther  from  the  officers,  she  never  made  any  aggressive  or  threatening  movements,  and  she  appeared   “composed   and   content”   during   the   brief   encounter.

Third,  Hughes  did  not  resist  or  evade  arrest.    Based  on  this  record,  there  is  significant  doubt  as  to  whether  she  was  aware  of  the  officers’  presence  at  all,  and  evidence suggests that Hughes did not hear the officers’ swift com­mands to drop the knife.

Finally,  the  record  suggests  that  Kisela  could  have,  but failed to, use less intrusive means before deploying deadly force.  862 F. 3d, at 781. For instance, Hughes submitted expert testimony concluding that Kisela should have used his Taser and that shooting his gun through the fence was dangerous because a bullet could have fragmented against the fence and hit Chadwick or his fellow officers.

Ibid.; see also Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F. 3d 805, 831 (CA9 2010)
(noting  that  “police  are  required  to  consider  what  other tactics  if  any  were  available  to  effect  the  arrest”  and whether  there  are  “clear,  reasonable,  and  less  intrusive  alternatives”   (internal   quotation   marks   and   alteration  omitted)).

Consistent with that assessment, the other two officers on the scene declined to fire at Hughes, and one of them  explained  that  he  was  inclined  to  use  “some  of  the lesser  means”  than  shooting,  including  verbal  commands,  
because   he   believed   there   was   time   “[t]o   try   to   talk   [Hughes]  down.”    Record  120–121.    That  two  officers  on  the  scene,  presented  with  the  same  circumstances  as  Kisela, did not use deadly force reveals just how unneces­sary  and  unreasonable  it  was  for  Kisela  to  fire  four  shots at  Hughes.
- -
Taken together, the foregoing facts would permit a jury to  conclude  that  Kisela  acted  outside  the  bounds  of  the Fourth Amendment by shooting Hughes four times.
Hughes was in the act of assault with a deadly weapon. Hughes, by ignoring the order to drop the knife, was also resisting arrest.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 9:04:14 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
View Quote
Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 9:11:04 PM EDT
[#31]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
View Quote
You put on a vest that doesn't stop knives and go take some armed person calls.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 9:16:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
Knife=deadly force. You don’t counter deadly force with less lethal options. Guess the cops should have let the stupid bitch stab her roommate to death.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 9:17:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
View Quote
A knife is a deadly weapon.  You don’t meet force with lesser force unless you intend to be on the losing side.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 9:22:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If she seriously doesn't think that Cops who have to pull the trigger are not thinking when they pull the trigger, then she is one seriously stupid bitch.
F*ck You Sotomayor.

Jay
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The decision sends the wrong signal to police, Sotomayor wrote.
“It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished,”
If she seriously doesn't think that Cops who have to pull the trigger are not thinking when they pull the trigger, then she is one seriously stupid bitch.
F*ck You Sotomayor.

Jay
Nailed it.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 11:13:02 PM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Sotomayor is an idiot.
Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
Sotomayor is an idiot.
Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous.
Yep, idiot is a correct description.  One of the worst "justices" ever appointed to the court.  Social justice is a better description for her.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 11:20:14 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
View Quote
So much for the "Wise Latina."  She's a fucking idiot.
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 11:40:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
She is with in six feet of an unarmed party.  If taser deployment fails,or while you run back to the car to get the shotgun with the bean bag round and she stabs said party she is six feet away from before a cover officer can stop her, are you going to say well shit happens they did the right thing?  If unarmed bystander happens to be a relative of yours do you still feel that way and won't sue the cops cause they did the right thing?

Or are you going to say stupid cops should have shot the crazy bitch with a knife while saying they should lose qualified immunity and be sued into the poor house?
Link Posted: 4/2/2018 11:47:13 PM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
What do you think the odds are that they'd always rule to strip qualified immunity? The moonbats probably believe the cops shouldn't carry guns.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

She and Notorious RBG seem to think that the officer should've been stripped of qualified immunity in this case.

Liberal SJW's gonna liberal SJW.
What do you think the odds are that they'd always rule to strip qualified immunity? The moonbats probably believe the cops shouldn't carry guns.
Screen names?
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 6:20:17 AM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
View Quote
If Sotomayor is against the decision, that's usually a good sign that they decided wisely.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 6:33:25 AM EDT
[#40]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The idiocy of the 9th's finding is actually pretty consistent with the 9th's habit of consistently refusing to assess the totality of the circumstances, which leads them to be overturned on cases like these.  Of course you can walk down your driveway holding a knife without being shot, if one were to assume that every action that a person does occurs in a complete vacuum.  You can't walk down your driveway with a knife without being shot if you've already threatened someone with the knife and decide to advance on armed officers who have lawfully ordered you to stop and drop the knife.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The 9th Circuit ruling stated that a jury might find that Hughes “had a constitutional right to walk down her driveway holding a knife without being shot.”
The idiocy of the 9th's finding is actually pretty consistent with the 9th's habit of consistently refusing to assess the totality of the circumstances, which leads them to be overturned on cases like these.  Of course you can walk down your driveway holding a knife without being shot, if one were to assume that every action that a person does occurs in a complete vacuum.  You can't walk down your driveway with a knife without being shot if you've already threatened someone with the knife and decide to advance on armed officers who have lawfully ordered you to stop and drop the knife.
It isn't that the progressive judges in the 9th are idiots and can't see the totality of the circumstances. They rule however they want knowing that the supreme Court can't hear and over turn every ruling.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:05:07 AM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Sotomayor is an idiot.
Some of her rulings before SCOTUS were ridiculous.
View Quote
That was the point of putting her on SCOTUS. Get that crazy viewpoint out there and in the news and before you know it normal people stop saying 'wtf is she smoking' and just shrug. Then they stop shrugging and eventually, people start to listen.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:11:18 AM EDT
[#42]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Sotomayor's dissenting view:
View Quote
Is she on drugs or just stupid? Not committing a crime? Mmkay.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:13:58 AM EDT
[#43]
Both those dusty old bags should be given a gun and tossed into a squad car in Phoenix or Tempe, Mesa, hell any of the greater metro AZ cities and see how long they last. I’d give em 3 calls before they either died or shot someone. That’s if you can get ol’ Ruth to wake up long enough to sit through rollcall. We can hire Live PD to film it and call it some like “Two old Justices.”
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:20:42 AM EDT
[#44]
One you understand the police today are not your buddy pal of friend. It’s us against them that’s the way they look at it. If you’re not one of them your the enemy and are treated as such. The police will be the first ones to knock on your door and confiscate your guns.
I’m not anti-police that’s just the way it is today.  Two people get pulled over one who’s is husband is a cop or is related to a cop gets a warning and drives away the other guy gets a ticket goes to court pays the fine and  points.  Is it an extremely dangerous job yes they knew the risks signing up for it. The brainwashing starts at the police academy teaching them not to trust anyone who is not a police officer. I know this sounds like a cop bashing thread but it’s not meant to be it’s just stating the facts the way a lot of people see it. There’s a lot of scumbags out there to deserve what they get and some average citizens that don’t. Again not a cop hater  although it may sound like it. Facts just the facts.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:30:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You put on a vest that doesn't stop knives and go take some armed person calls.
View Quote
A good baton outweighs a knife from more than arms distance. There were THREE cops there & they HAD to shoot her? No one answers my question: why is shooting always the first resort? 3 to 1 odds, mind you.

Crazy people don't respond to normal commands, so you have to "light foot it" & calm the situation the fuck down. Hell, they could've offered to take her for a burger, they didn't even try (allegedly).

Can't we at least try something before we shoot them?
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:36:16 AM EDT
[#46]
good shoot, good ruling.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:37:07 AM EDT
[#47]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So why do cases like this that to a layman seem pretty open and shut go all the way to the USSC.

snip?
View Quote
because of activist judges in lower courts
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:44:51 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Armed person, the subject of the call, approaches another person, refuses orders to disarm while still walking towards the other person... and Justice Sotomeyer says the cops need to think about it... ok.
View Quote
And that right there is a window into the liberal mindset....
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:47:02 AM EDT
[#49]
Lets go over this I have a knife and a guy with a gun tells me to drop it  ......   I drop it.

A knife at close range is quick and deadly say less than 30 feet.

Cops are not going to try to fight you for a knife and get killed for it,  they are going to shoot you.

I cannot blame them for it.

My plan is to do what they tell me even if I don't like it.  Now the next day I can get a lawyer or pitch a bitch to the officers superiors but right now I do what they say.
Link Posted: 4/3/2018 7:50:31 AM EDT
[#50]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Yes, they DO need to think about it.

Did they try to pop her with a Taser before they shot her? Bean bag gun? Hope about a good old fashioned baton? This seems too often to be a "shoot first, sort it out later" situation. Why is shooting someone (whom doesn't have a gun) always the first resort?
View Quote
Man up and show us how its done, cowboy.

Or shut the fuck up when you don't know what you're talking about. :)
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top