• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme court ruling on police

S

Simpletruther

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
19,332
Reaction score
3,653
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The ruling overturns a decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously found Barnes’s constitutional rights were not violated under its “moment of the threat” precedent.

Circuit Judge Patrick Higginbotham, who authored the 5th Circuit’s majority opinion, had urged the Supreme Court to reverse course. He wrote that Felix’s actions, including drawing his weapon and jumping onto a moving vehicle, contributed to the deadly outcome and should be evaluated in a broader context.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good.
 
Kagan acknowledged that the officer’s perception during the split-second encounter remains critical, but emphasized that events leading up to it can show whether an officer’s response was reasonable.
Click to expand...
terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
 
anatta said:
terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Click to expand...
No one in the US should have immunity for their actions. Consideration should be given based on circumstances, but no, no immunity.
 
The unanimous 9-0 decision stems from the 2016 fatal shooting of 24-year-old Ashtian Barnes during a traffic stop in Texas. Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.

Lower courts had ruled that Felix was protected under the “moment of the threat” doctrine, which focuses only on the instant an officer uses force. But the Supreme Court rejected that approach, instead directing courts to examine the “totality of the circumstances.”
Click to expand...
www.police1.com

Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police

“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion stated
www.police1.com www.police1.com
My thoughts?
The Supremes got it right. However, this may be ONE time the conservatives on the court will get negative responses from that crowd who believe cops have a right to execute black people every time they perceive a danger.

1754947555793.webp
 
The solution is simple. Don't have cops make traffic stops.
 
anatta said:
terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Click to expand...
They have qualified immunity already. And the courts essentially make the "qualified" part a joke.
 
j brown's body said:
The solution is simple. Don't have cops make traffic stops.
Click to expand...
Not just traffic stops: why are there still police chases in 2025? Who is bering served and protected by 2-20 lunatics tearing through neighborhoods and freeways?
 
roberthughey said:
No.

Reckless driving should be stopped.
Click to expand...
Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.
www.police1.com

Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police

“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion stated
www.police1.com www.police1.com

Are you making an assumption that because a black guy was behind the wheel his motion to move the vehicle forward was
"reckless driving" worthy of being shot dead???

Tell me THAT is NOT your assumption.
 
anatta said:
terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Click to expand...
Well they can just not escalate like jumping on a car and shooting
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.
www.police1.com

Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police

“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion stated
www.police1.com www.police1.com

Are you making an assumption that because a black guy was behind the wheel his motion to move the vehicle forward was
"reckless driving" worthy of being shot dead???

Tell me THAT is NOT your assumption.
Click to expand...

Race baiting as usual. He was referring to traffic stops in general. Not this specific incident.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Race baiting as usual. He was referring to traffic stops in general. Not this specific incident.
Click to expand...
Since THIS story is about some black guy moving forward in his vehicle, the guy you are defending suggested he was "reckless driving" and YOUR defence is he was NOT talking about this incident? Who exactly are you trying to fool?
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Since THIS story is about some black guy moving forward in his vehicle, the guy you are defending suggested he was "reckless driving" and YOUR defence is he was NOT talking about this incident? Who exactly are you trying to fool?
Click to expand...

This was in context to cops making traffic stops. It’s not about your attempt to race bait.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
This was in context to cops making traffic stops. It’s not about your attempt to race bait.
Click to expand...
I guess my question about who exactly you are trying to fool was rhetorical.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Barnes was driving a rental car linked to unpaid tolls when he was pulled over by Officer Roberto Felix Jr. After Barnes began moving the vehicle forward, Felix jumped onto the car’s doorsill and shot Barnes twice, killing him.
www.police1.com

Supreme Court unanimously expands scope for excessive force claims against police

“To assess whether an officer acted reasonably in using force, a court must consider all … facts and events leading up to the climactic moment,” the majority opinion stated
www.police1.com www.police1.com

Are you making an assumption that because a black guy was behind the wheel his motion to move the vehicle forward was
"reckless driving" worthy of being shot dead???

Tell me THAT is NOT your assumption.
Click to expand...

Race card.

You can keep that shit.
 
Moon said:
Qualified immunity applies to civil suits, not criminal prosecutions.
Click to expand...
Civil liabilities are severe too, but the threat from criminal prosecution is real. I can't see the reasoning where a police officer is liable for "events leading up to" but the decision is made in a split second
 
iliveonramen said:
No one in the US should have immunity for their actions. Consideration should be given based on circumstances, but no, no immunity.
Click to expand...
well SCOTUS gave POTUS immunity for anything done in the course of presidential duties - cops should get the same treatment in that they really can't be thinking of liability in an imminent threat situation
 
roberthughey said:
Race card.

You can keep that shit.
Click to expand...
Is moving a vehicle forward considered reckless driving, yes or no?
Is moving a vehicle forward an act worthy of being shot to death, yes or no?

If you don't want to answer, that is fine, because a non-answer IS an answer. Anyone can see that.
 
anatta said:
terrible decision in terms of the blizzard of lawsuits likely over "events leading upto" . street cops have to make split second decisions.
Cops are gonna need immunity then, or they will be frozen trying to process "events leading upto" evaluations in real time
Click to expand...

I love how often right wingers describe good things as if they are bad things.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Is moving a vehicle forward considered reckless driving, yes or no?
Is moving a vehicle forward an act worthy of being shot to death, yes or no?

If you don't want to answer, that is fine, because a non-answer IS an answer. Anyone can see that.
Click to expand...

You played race card.

Bye.
 
SNOWFLAKE said:
Since THIS story is about some black guy moving forward in his vehicle, the guy you are defending suggested he was "reckless driving" and YOUR defence is he was NOT talking about this incident? Who exactly are you trying to fool?
Click to expand...
If a police is citing you and you move forward it is reckless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom