USSC says 'government better than you serfs'

In an 8-0 unanimous ruling the Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez. For a little background on the issue, Angel Mendez brought the suit in 2010 after two LA County sheriff’s deputies mistakenly entered the wrong house without a search warrant and encountered Mendez and a woman. The situation quickly escalated because Mendez had a BB gun, and police shot both individuals. Both survived, but Mendez lost a leg.

The Ninth Circuit Court had ruled in Mendez’s favor based on what has become known as the “provocation doctrine,” meaning law enforcement can be held accountable for an escalation into violence if they “provoked the incident by acting in an unlawful manner prior to an encounter.” The Ninth Circuit tied its ruling to concerns over violations of the Fourth Amendment. In short, because the police violated the Fourth Amendment, they were not justified in using force after having created the situation illegally.

The Supreme Court disagreed with this decision, stating that the issue was no longer a Fourth Amendment one because the officers have a legitimate right to use lethal force when the situation demands they do so for their own protection. Justice Samuel Alito stated that the provocation doctrine “is incompatible with our excessive force jurisprudence,” adding, “The rule’s fundamental flaw is that it uses another constitutional violation to manufacture and excessive force where one would not otherwise exist.”

SCOTUS says that law enforcement officers are justified in protecting and defending themselves with lethal force in any given situation irrespective of how legitimately or illegitimately they may have arrived at said situation. In other words, the Supreme Court has ruled that this is a self-defense issue, not a Fourth Amendment issue.

so, as i've posted hundreds of times on this forum, and hundreds of times you badge blowing statists have said it's only a few bad apples, the highest court in the land has just stated that you have NO RIGHT TO RESIST RAPE!!!!!!!!!!!

https://patriotpost.us/posts/49389
 
do you have anything to comment about the case or decision? or are you stuck on not knowing the many acronyms for branches and agencies of government?
 
Don't expect to be able to fairly adjudicate your case with the police. Do it in a court of law.
 
Don't expect to be able to fairly adjudicate your case with the police. Do it in a court of law.

another case of someone not reading the issue. the cops entered illegally without announcing, therefore startling the resident making him fear for his life. up until this case, it used to be settled law that when cops are operating outside the law, they aren't cops, they are criminals. now, that is no longer the case. this opinion now makes it such that it doesn't matter if cops are acting outside the law or not, they are entitled to defend themselves by killing you if you make them fear for their lives.
 
do you have anything to comment about the case or decision? or are you stuck on not knowing the many acronyms for branches and agencies of government?

I know a lot about government acronyms. You, obviously do not. Show the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) their due respect.

another case of someone not reading the issue. the cops entered illegally without announcing, therefore startling the resident making him fear for his life. up until this case, it used to be settled law that when cops are operating outside the law, they aren't cops, they are criminals. now, that is no longer the case. this opinion now makes it such that it doesn't matter if cops are acting outside the law or not, they are entitled to defend themselves by killing you if you make them fear for their lives.

While I may or may not agree with the SCOTUS decision, it appears to be a well-thought out and weighed ruling. Even to the point of convincing a doubting Elena Kagan, who voted with every other SCOTUS making the decision 8-0.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/county-of-los-angeles-v-mendez/

A more detailed and less-biased explanation from someone else.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...20_story.html?utm_term=.6d507f43be32#comments
 
I know a lot about government acronyms. You, obviously do not. Show the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) their due respect.
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/United+States+Supreme+Court

USSC United States Sentencing Commission
USSC United States Supreme Court
USSC United States Sanitary Commission (Civil War era forerunner of the Red Cross)
USSC United States Sugar Corporation (Clewiston, Florida)
USSC United States Space Command
USSC US Satellite Corporation (Murray, UT)

While I may or may not agree with the SCOTUS decision, it appears to be a well-thought out and weighed ruling. Even to the point of convincing a doubting Elena Kagan, who voted with every other SCOTUS making the decision 8-0.
i'm certainly interested in hearing YOUR opinion on why you think it is a well-thought out and weighed ruling. care to enlighten?



I don't see how your 'less biased' article changes anything I said about it before hand, that the circumstances leading up to the shooting of an innocent person is irrelevant, therefore a cop can actually assault someone illegally, but defending ones self against that assault can make said cop fearful and you can die, no consequences to said cop.......care to try to change my mind?
 
another case of someone not reading the issue. the cops entered illegally without announcing, therefore startling the resident making him fear for his life. up until this case, it used to be settled law that when cops are operating outside the law, they aren't cops, they are criminals. now, that is no longer the case. this opinion now makes it such that it doesn't matter if cops are acting outside the law or not, they are entitled to defend themselves by killing you if you make them fear for their lives.

Another case of a poster not wishing to actually read my response.

If you want to question the legality of a cop's actions, do it in court.
 
Another case of a poster not wishing to actually read my response.

If you want to question the legality of a cop's actions, do it in court.

Right. I have no idea why this is such a hard concept for people to understand.
 
sure, so when the cop rapes your daughter, tell her to just submit and question it in court. hows that work for you?

1. If she has a gun to her head, she should do whatever it takes to survive, ... wouldn't you agree?

2. The ruling does not give cops the right to rape anyone's daughter.

"officers have a legitimate right to use lethal force when the situation demands they do so for their own protection"
 
1. If she has a gun to her head, she should do whatever it takes to survive, ... wouldn't you agree?

2. The ruling does not give cops the right to rape anyone's daughter.

"officers have a legitimate right to use lethal force when the situation demands they do so for their own protection"

and as I stated previously, this ruling wouldn't prohibit a charge of the rape, but it authorizes the cop defending himself if the victim fights back
 
Back
Top