In movies, people always move from car to car.
Not allowed in DC either.
Either way it is clearly a justified shoot. :rolleyes:
My God! What if that guy had boarded another subway and <gasp> went from car to car on that one?? Thank God for Chicago’s finest!
I think it’s disallowed in NYC, too, or at least strongly discouraged, but people do it all the time. On the PATH train between NY and NJ, I don’t think there’s a prohibition.
Lethbridge, Alberta: the Fourth wasn’t with her.
Video of violent LAPD arrest in Boyle Heights sparks outrage, internal review
Asshole’s Lawyer says what???
So remember, the secret phrase you must utter to stop getting beat is ‘I give up’.
In LA, at least. YMMV.
From another article:
"The LAPD officer recorded on cellphone video repeatedly punching a man during an arrest in Boyle Heights previously shot three people in three separate incidents, including the 2010 killing of a day laborer near downtown LA that prompted three days of public demonstrations and unrest.
Officer Frank A. Hernandez was named in lawsuits as a result of at least two of those shootings, both alleging civil rights violations and excessive force."
In a disturbing story from yesterday, police in Indianapolis shot a man, Sean Reed, after a chase that apparently live-streamed to Facebook. The video shows the police chasing a man for serious traffic violations resulting in a brief high-speed chase. The man left his car; at this point what happened is partly unclear, but it does not look very good for the police. It appears they tazed the man, then shot him after he was already on the ground.
The officers claim that Reed fired at them first, but that… still wouldn’t allow them to empty their firearms into him after he was down? Second, a gun was found at the scene, but I don’t think any part of the video shows that Mr. Reed had a firearm. Yeah. Because I want to think the best of the police I hope the officers had video of their own and that it shows a better picture for their sake, but… well, it does not look good. At all. Additionally, it looks very much as though the officers immediately turned off the livestream. I am not an expert, but would that not be a violation in and of itself?
Finally, it should be pointed out that it does look as though Reed was driving erratically and dangerously. The officers appear to have been correct to follow and arrest him. However, there is no excuse for killing the man, and unless considerable evidence that he attempted to fire back is found, justice demands that the officers face real punishment.
CBS news link: Police fatally shoot man in Indianapolis after high-speed pursuit - YouTube
Before that part, the story says that the suspect refused to be [del]groped[/del] searched and “struck the officer in the chest, knocking his body camera to the ground”.
Of course, in blue-talk, “struck” is used for any type of physical contact, and if the officer was crowding the suspect, hey, he absolutely must allow that and cannot push him back, even lightly. You must comply.
Also, how convenient is it that the body cam was the thing that fell off?
A large group of white people, some of them armed, including a city cop in uniform, terrorized a black family demanding they be allowed in the house to look for a missing girl. They were looking for a boy who had lived next door, and thought that the family’s teen aged son was the boy they were looking for. Even though there was a sign on the lawn congratulating the boy who actually lived in the house for graduating high school, with his name in big letters on the sign.
The family called the sheriffs, who didn’t take any names or follow up.
Yeah, and there was no likelihood that those vigilantes would have harmed the teenage boy in the house, right? God, I hate racists and vigilantes with a purple passion, especially because so damn many of those vigilantes are racists.
Reuters has a whole section today on qualified immunity and cops who kill.
For cops who kill, special Supreme Court protection
Taking the measure of qualified immunity: How Reuters analyzed the data
When cops kill, redress is rare - except in famous cases
Before the court: A united front takes aim at qualified immunity
Six takeaways from Reuters investigation of police violence and ‘qualified immunity’
Two, one of them a former sheriff’s deputy, have been arrested.
The missing 15-year-old girl has been found safe.
Louisville police went into a woman’s house while she was asleep. It was the wrong house. And then they shot and killed her.
The controversy is over whether the police announced their presence and whether the woman’s boyfriend fired at them thinking the house was being invaded.
“The officers were looking for a suspect who lived in a different part of the city and was already in police custody after he was arrested earlier.”
Only the best…
ETA: I think this story has already come up. If not, there’s multiple instances of police busting into residences looking for people already in police custody and killing innocent people. Of course, the officers involved get desk duty and no punishment.
Yeah, that’s an excellent piece. I’ve actually been disappointed, over the past ten years, at how little attention the mainstream press pays to the issue, especially considering how much attention has been devoted to police misconduct more generally, and how often bad police are protected by this doctrine, which has no basis in the Constitution, and which the Supreme Court created out of whole cloth.
This Friday’s conference at the Supreme Court will actually see the justices consider almost a dozen cases related to qualified immunity, and observers think that there’s a pretty good chance that at least some members of the court are ready to consider significantly reducing the scope of qualified immunity, even if they’re not willing to eliminate the doctrine altogether.
I think it’s pretty likely, if they take up any or all of these cases, and if they end up setting stricter limits to qualified immunity, that it will involve an alliance of liberal and conservative members of the court. If I had to guess, I would think that the most likely votes to take up the cases would come from Sotomayor, Thomas, and Gorsuch. The most likely justices to pass on the cases, or to maintain the current system if the cases are considered, might be Alito and Roberts, and it could be that Elena Kagan’s recent decisions affirming the importance of stare decisis might also predispose her to leave precedent intact. As for the others, I’m really not deeply enough into their judicial philosophies to make any sort of educated guess.
It only takes four justices to take up a case, so I’m reasonably hopeful that this issue will end up on the docket. And if it does, I really hope that they make some radical changes to this terrible policy.
It seems strange to me that in situations like this, the police don’t immediately release body-cam footage showing that the police did, in fact, announce their presence.
Gee, ya think maybe such footage doesn’t exist?
Probably not, but don’t they realize how bad that looks after all these incidents?