The Supreme Court Case, Kisela v. Hughes established that the Tuscon police officer, Andrew Kisela, did not break any laws due to his actions of shooting Amy Hughes. When I first read the introduction to this case, I was not surprised with the outcome. I trust that when I hear a policeman has been given the authority to carry a gun and protect the community, they will have the proper training to make the right decisions in the few moments they have to make life-and-death decisions. Police officers should be trained to make decisions (like shooting someone) very fast, but sometimes we forget that they are people too. I think that Officer Kisela made the decision that he thought was the right one in the moment. This woman was not responding to the officer that was giving her clear directions, had a dangerous knife, and appeared to be a threat to other people. Even though the other woman claimed she didn’t feel threatened, the officer had only the …show more content…
He believed that the woman was a danger to other people, and after using the force continuum, decided that the right choice of action was to stop the woman from causing any harm.
I believe that the court granting this officer immunity for his actions was the correct move, by law and morally. Officers sometimes make mistakes, but this was not a mistake in my opinion. We, as citizens, should rely on the police to keep us safe, and should trust that they can determine whether a situation is dangerous to innocent citizens. In the Stoneman Douglas shootings in Florida, the policemen that were supposed to be doing their job were not. When a person becomes an officer, they are saying that they will do anything to keep people safe and enforce the
Facts: On October 3, 1974, Memphis Police Officers Hymon and Wright were dispatched to answer a “prowler inside call.” When the police arrived at the scene, a neighbor gestured to the house where she had heard glass breaking and that someone was breaking into the house. While one of the officer radioed that they were on the scene, the other officer went to the rear of the house hearing a door slam and saw someone run across the backyard. The suspect, Edward Garner stopped at a 6-feet-high fence at the edge of the yard and proceeded to climb the fence as the police officer called out “police, halt.” The police officer figured that if Garner made it over the fence he would get away and also “figured” that Garner was unarmed. Officer Hymon then shot him, hitting him in the back of the head. In using deadly force to prevent the escape of Garner, Hymon used the argument that actions were made under the authority of the Tennessee statute and pursuant to Police Department policy. Although the department’s policy was slightly more restrictive than the statute it still allowed the use of deadly force in cases of burglary. Garner’s fathers’ argument was made that his son was shot unconstitutionally because he was captured and shot possessing ten dollars that he had stolen and being unarmed showing no threat of danger to the officer. The incident was then reviewed by the Memphis Police Firearm’s Revie...
The Tennessee v. Garner case impacted law enforcement agencies today by utilizing the Fourth Amendment right of not using deadly force to prevent a suspect from fleeing unless the officer is in imminent danger of their life. Consequently, before this was set into place, an officer had the right to use deadly force on a fleeing suspect by all means.” The first time the Court dealt with the use of force was in Tennessee v. Garner, in Garner, a police officer used deadly force despite being "reasonably sure" that the suspect was an unarmed teenager "of slight build" who was running away from him” (Gross,2016). Whereas, with Graham v. Conner case was surrounded around excessive force which also has an impact on law enforcement agencies in today’s society as well. “All claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force deadly or not in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other “seizure” of s free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its “reasonableness” standard” (Doerner,2016).
Chief Justice John Marshall was an intelligent man who served in the United States Supreme Court from 1801 until the year 1835. During this time, Marshall heard over 1,000 cases and wrote 519 decisions (Fox). One of the cases he heard took place in 1824, and it’s known as Gibbons v. Ogden. This case is a rather simple one, but an important one nonetheless. A problem arose when two men, named Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden, found out that they were both operating steamboat ferries along the same route. These men had both received permission to operate their steamboats from two different places. Gibbons received permission from the Federal Government, while Ogden had received his from a state government. When the case reached the Supreme Court,
On October 20, 2014 a young male teen was fatally shot in Chicago, Illinois. The shooting occurred in the middle of the road and the suspect that was fatally shot was named Laquan McDonald. McDonald was just 17 years old and was the suspect after initial reports placed him in the scene of a possible car jacking. It was reported that Laquan McDonald had a knife and was also seen slashing tires of a police cruiser. When police had finally had him surrounded in the middle of the road, one officer opened fire and released 16 shots into his body. Another deputy on hand said the use of force was not needed because Laquan was not in any way trying to attack the officers present. The officer who fired the 16 shots into Laquan is named Jason D. Van
... addition waiting to punish the officer if the police department chose to do so would be the best course of action because if they do it before the cases are dismissed they may give the lawsuits merit to go to court. This would waste a lot of money and the officer and police department would be win but they could avoid wasting time and money by just delaying the decision on the punishment until after the lawsuits has been taken care of. Legally the officer and police station are not liable but ethically and morally they have a duty and responsibility to help both families in anyway they can without incriminating themselves. The final recommendation would be to get the lawsuits and legal liable dismissed with the Statute mentioned previously and then using good morals and ethics help both families and the officer in any way that can after this traumatic incident.
The one good thing that I believe comes from this case is that it educated America on the mistakes being made by a law enforcement entity. The attitudes portrayed by these officers are terrible and, regretfully, most likely common. What it did was wake us up by showing us how biased criminal investigations can be and that bigotry has no place in the criminal justice system.
Over the years, this country has witnessed many cases of police brutality. It has become a controversial topic among communities that have seen police brutality take place in front of their homes. Officers are faced with many threatening situations everyday forcing them to make split second decisions and to expect the worst and hope for the best. Police officers are given the power to take any citizens rights away and even their lives. With that kind of power comes responsibility, that’s one major concern with the amount of discretion officers have is when to use force or when to use lethal force. The use of excessive force may or not be a large predicament but should be viewed by both the police and the community.
He was pulled over and asked if he had his license on him. Samuel didn’t have his license on him. The officer Ray Tinsing asked him several times for his license. Then the officer tugged on the door handle. These events then led to Samuel Dubose being shot in the head. The officer Ray Tensing then tried to lie about the about the events leading up to Samuel being shot and killed. Ray Tensing was wearing a body camera, which showed the truth of the events that happened that day. This police officer didn’t use discretion. He did not take into consideration how minor the situation was that lead to the death of Samuel Dubose. Uncontrolled discretion is what caused this cop to shoot this unarmed citizen. If this officer would have took a second to think about what actions he was going to take next rather then just acting out of anger because the man didn’t answer if his license was suspended or if he even had a license. The law enforcement officers are supposed to be trained and taught how to go about certain
In the case of the Michael Brown shooting the officer stated that he was in fear of his life because the offender attacked by reaching into his patrol car window punching him in his face and trying to retrieve his service firearm during their physical altercation, but The officer gained control to reach his firearm and then fired two rounds, one hitting the hand of Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown then tried to flee the scene by foot only to turn around and approach the officer in a threatening manner, therefore officer at the time of the incident stated that he feared for his life discharge his weapon for the second time discharging about ten rounds striking brown multiple times ending with a fatal shot to the head of Mr. Brown. The court decision of
Was the intrusion based on a lawful objective, such as a valid arrest, detention, search, frisk, community warden guardian of mentally ill, defense of an officer or a citizen, or to prevent escape? If these answer yes then an officer may have legal ability to use the levels of force listed below to apprehend the suspect. Another list of things to consider when determining if it was a lawful use of force is; was the use of force relative to the person’s confrontation? Was there a crucial need to terminate the condition? Even though there is no duty to retreat, could the officer have used lesser force and still safely accomplish the lawful objective? These are the questions that the jury need to answer to determine if they should side with or against the officer in any court case brought to them that deals with such a controversial topic as this.
After three years, Moseley got a reduced sentence because the Court of Appeals found an error in the way that the court handled evidence about his mental health (Kaufman). He was not prosecuted in the cases of the other women he had claimed to have murdered (Kaufman).
Logically would a police officer have shot to kill simply to commit murder in broad daylight with witnesses? Without all of these questions being answered with facts and being quick to judge is not only ridiculous, but it leads to more issues such as rioting and looting. It will also lead to more shootings. More innocent people will continue to be hurt. Either physically or by the loss of their business and cars, etc.
In 2013 a man named Russell Rico stole $50 dollars worth of items from walmart. The police officer Sgt Jason Blackwelder, responded and chased Rios on foot to a wooded area. Blackwelder left the woods, Rios did not. Once Sgt. Jason caught Rios and got into a struggle. Rios got onto Sgt. Jason and started to choke him out, Sgt. Jason started to become unconscious so Sgt. Jason fired his weapon and killed Rios. Sgt. Jason claimed self defense but the jury and judge did not believe Sgt. Jason and they decided that Sgt. Jason was not telling the truth and sentenced to jail. People that throw police officers in jail for a crime that they did not commit is wrong.
Police officers are forced to make decisions every day from deciding whether or not to pull someone over for speeding to whether or not to use lethal force on a threat. My opinion on the officers in shootings is that these officers may take more shots than needed or miss a lot of their shots but it’s going to happen. Most of the police forces do not record such stats and I think they should. However people don’t know how stressful it must be to be in a situation where a police officer is in danger and must protect himself and others from a threat and it is his duty to make these shoot don’t shoot decisions. I also think that police officers should be more cautious and make sure they do every thing right.
Throughout history injustice and inequality have thrived in our justice system. Prejudice, stereotypes, racism, and discrimination have allowed the mistreatment of minorities to continue to exist. This is giving officers the right to violate human rights. What ever happen to the phrase "innocent until proven guilty", it seems to be nonexistent nowadays. Police officers have decided to take matter into their own hands, becoming the judge, jury, and executioner.