Supremes unanimously side with police, throw out so-called 'provocation doctrine'

[Revmitchell]

In a unanimous decision written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Supreme Court rejected the provocation doctrine as “incompatible with our excessive force jurisprudence,” including the Graham case, which for decades has set a high bar for holding law officers civilly liable in court.

The provocation rule’s “fundamental flaw is that it uses another constitutional violation to manufacture an excessive force claim where one would not otherwise exist,” wrote Alito. He added that the rule “permits excessive force claims that cannot succeed on their own terms.”

Alito disputed the lower courts’ conclusion that the deputies’ failure to obtain a warrant and their later intrusion into the Mendezes’ home without announcing themselves “in some sense set the table” for the confrontation that almost killed them. (Angel Mendez’s right leg was amputated below the knee as a result of the incident.)

“That is wrong,” Alito wrote in the 11-page decision, which was joined by every member of the court except Neil Gorsuch, who didn’t participate in the case because he wasn’t yet a justice when his colleagues heard it in March. “The framework for analyzing excessive force claims is set out in Graham. If there is no excessive force claim under Graham, there is no excessive force claim at all.”

Supremes unanimously side with police, throw out so-called 'provocation doctrine'

 

[Happy]

Supreme Court....Fine line!

It is NOT a secret Police Officers have been lawfully authorized to DIRECT the public via their commands.
And when the Public does not obey, the Police have been lawfully authorized to use FORCE to effect compliance.

The police busting into a person's private home, without warning, No. Wrong!

 

[Reynolds]

Supreme Court....Fine line!

It is NOT a secret Police Officers have been lawfully authorized to DIRECT the public via their commands.
And when the Public does not obey, the Police have been lawfully authorized to use FORCE to effect compliance.

The police busting into a person's private home, without warning, No. Wrong!

If certain circumstances exist, no knock is a valuable tool for officers safety and preservation of evidence.

 

[Happy]

If certain circumstances exist, no knock is a valuable tool for officers safety and preservation of evidence.

While that may be a "valuable tool" for officers....Perpetuating action under of "color of law", because it is a useful tool is WRONG.

Are there two sets of LAWS? Those circumstances MAY ALSO be a useful tool for a thief, a burglar, a enemy, who wants to enter a persons private home, (unannounced, un-invited) and deprive them of their life, liberty or property.

Due Process of Law is NOT "suspicion".

Amendment "V" = "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

I do not agree with TWO sets of LAW.
One LAW for those who are OF the PEOPLE...
and
One LAW for those who are BY the PEOPLE....

They are all the SAME PEOPLE.....OF, BY, FOR.....supposed to be SUBJECT TO the SAME ONE LAW, regardless of their position of "OF, BY, FOR".

Perpetuating or Agreeing that ONE LAW applies to ALL, but that SOME are NOT required to adhere to the LAW...
IS IMO, more like a Pharisee view of the LAW.....ie of YOU do as I say, but NOT as I do...

Matt 23
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

PROBLEM;
"THEY" (authorities) have escalated, to SAYING NOTHING, but rather BUSTING IN private homes.
"THEY" (authorities) ALSO, at times, give a "knock knock", and within seconds BUST the door down.
(Really? It is reasonable to believe at 3 AM, someone sleeping in their bed will hear and answer the door within a few seconds?)

No. I do not "care" their (authorities) "reasoning", (their safety), for violating a persons right to be secure in their homes.

"VI" "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

 

[Reynolds]

While that may be a "valuable tool" for officers....Perpetuating action under of "color of law", because it is a useful tool is WRONG.

Are there two sets of LAWS? Those circumstances MAY ALSO be a useful tool for a thief, a burglar, a enemy, who wants to enter a persons private home, (unannounced, un-invited) and deprive them of their life, liberty or property.

Due Process of Law is NOT "suspicion".

Amendment "V" = "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

I do not agree with TWO sets of LAW.
One LAW for those who are OF the PEOPLE...
and
One LAW for those who are BY the PEOPLE....

They are all the SAME PEOPLE.....OF, BY, FOR.....supposed to be SUBJECT TO the SAME ONE LAW, regardless of their position of "OF, BY, FOR".

Perpetuating or Agreeing that ONE LAW applies to ALL, but that SOME are NOT required to adhere to the LAW...
IS IMO, more like a Pharisee view of the LAW.....ie of YOU do as I say, but NOT as I do...

Matt 23
[3] All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

PROBLEM;
"THEY" (authorities) have escalated, to SAYING NOTHING, but rather BUSTING IN private homes.
"THEY" (authorities) ALSO, at times, give a "knock knock", and within seconds BUST the door down.
(Really? It is reasonable to believe at 3 AM, someone sleeping in their bed will hear and answer the door within a few seconds?)

No. I do not "care" their (authorities) "reasoning", (their safety), for violating a persons right to be secure in their homes.

"VI" "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated".

Tell it to someone who has not executed almost 1,700 no Nick warrants. It makes a lot of sense to be going into the abode of an armed criminal with a violent record and knock on the door and say "This is the police, get ready to ambush and shoot me." We got a new supervisor one time who said " I don't think these no Nick warrants are necessary." I told him. "Ok. You are the entry teams new point man." That was the last I ever heard about stopping using no knock.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Tell it to someone who has not executed almost 1,700 no Nick warrants. It makes a lot of sense to be going into the abode of an armed criminal with a violent record and knock on the door and say "This is the police, get ready to ambush and shoot me." We got a new supervisor one time who said " I don't think these no Nick warrants are necessary." I told him. "Ok. You are the entry teams new point man." That was the last I ever heard about stopping using no knock.

So what happens when someone defends themselves against unknown intruders? They get shot? They shot an officer and get tried for murder (if they survive)?

I have a friend formerly with the FBI who did a lot of child porn investigations. There were a few times when they knocked down the wrong door and arrested the wrong people. Why did that happen? They left their wireless network unprotected or lightly protected and their neighbor used their internet account to conduct illegal activity.

If someone knocked down my door without warning, I would tend to draw my pistol to shoot (if I were near the door), or grab my trusty 12 gauge if I were back in the master bedroom.

Its bad enough we had some home invasion robbers in North Texas a few years ago pounding on the door, claiming to be police. They got a few people before they were caught.

 

[Happy]

Tell it to someone who has not executed almost 1,700 no Nick warrants. It makes a lot of sense to be going into the abode of an armed criminal with a violent record and knock on the door and say "This is the police, get ready to ambush and shoot me." We got a new supervisor one time who said " I don't think these no Nick warrants are necessary." I told him. "Ok. You are the entry teams new point man." That was the last I ever heard about stopping using no knock.

Tell me that the people, "suspected of armed criminal behavior" situated "in" their private homes NEVER come out in PUBLIC and can ONLY be "ambushed" in their private homes. (Tell the people who survived the Waco massacre that.)

"VIOLENT record" ? I find "THAT"; "the RECORD", the LONG Rap sheet, reflects the crux of Problem, which has become a JOKE and subject of appeasement to "pacify" rather than to "effect justice".

(Bait Car) the TV show. I have NO Problem with the Officers Intent. What is disturbing, is thieves revealing, they have stolen vehicles before, and been caught!

IMO ~ When there is a "RECORD" (via stats of repetitiveness of specific crimes), the punishment for each specific crime, is NOT severe enough to deter repetitiveness. (And the very "add" on "punishments", ie, serving time as burden of the taxpayers, quashing voting rights, big court fines, blah, blah and reparations TO the victim often missing) does NOTHING to deter repetitiveness or secure the Public.

Don't get me wrong. I fully favor Police Authority, to be suspicious, to give the Public orders, (IN the PUBLIC) to halt, to reveal identity, to be escorted and questioned at the precinct, and to use force INCLUDING deadly force when the Officer is physically threaten or the person disobeys and flees.

But I do not favor, (the cover up) of Dirty Public Officials; Separate Laws for OF and BY the People; Pseudo Laws/ Policies/Rules that are Unconstitutional (effected under Color of Law); or Lenient Consequences that have been proved a Failure.

 

[Happy]

So what happens when someone defends themselves against unknown intruders? They get shot? They shot an officer and get tried for murder (if they survive)?

I have a friend formerly with the FBI who did a lot of child porn investigations. There were a few times when they knocked down the wrong door and arrested the wrong people. Why did that happen? They left their wireless network unprotected or lightly protected and their neighbor used their internet account to conduct illegal activity.

If someone knocked down my door without warning, I would tend to draw my pistol to shoot (if I were near the door), or grab my trusty 12 gauge if I were back in the master bedroom.

Its bad enough we had some home invasion robbers in North Texas a few years ago pounding on the door, claiming to be police. They got a few people before they were caught.

While I disagree with you on most points ~

"If someone knocked down my door without warning, I would tend to draw my pistol to shoot (if I were near the door), or grab my trusty 12 gauge if I were back in the master bedroom."

"There were a few times when they knocked down the wrong door and arrested the wrong people."

I agree with you on those points.

And would add; the "governments" "remedies" to addressing those points, IS A FAIL.

 

[Revmitchell]

So what happens when someone defends themselves against unknown intruders? They get shot? They shot an officer and get tried for murder (if they survive)?

On another note what happens when cops announce themselves and get shot and killed because the criminal knew they were coming.

We can do this all day, have nay more?

 

[Happy]

On another note what happens when cops announce themselves and get shot and killed because the criminal knew they were coming.

We can do this all day, have nay more?

What is wrong with PATIENCE? How long can a person hold up in their home without life sustaining provisions?

 

[Reynolds]

Tell me that the people, "suspected of armed criminal behavior" situated "in" their private homes NEVER come out in PUBLIC and can ONLY be "ambushed" in their private homes. (Tell the people who survived the Waco massacre that.)

"VIOLENT record" ? I find "THAT"; "the RECORD", the LONG Rap sheet, reflects the crux of Problem, which has become a JOKE and subject of appeasement to "pacify" rather than to "effect justice".

(Bait Car) the TV show. I have NO Problem with the Officers Intent. What is disturbing, is thieves revealing, they have stolen vehicles before, and been caught!

IMO ~ When there is a "RECORD" (via stats of repetitiveness of specific crimes), the punishment for each specific crime, is NOT severe enough to deter repetitiveness. (And the very "add" on "punishments", ie, serving time as burden of the taxpayers, quashing voting rights, big court fines, blah, blah and reparations TO the victim often missing) does NOTHING to deter repetitiveness or secure the Public.

Don't get me wrong. I fully favor Police Authority, to be suspicious, to give the Public orders, (IN the PUBLIC) to halt, to reveal identity, to be escorted and questioned at the precinct, and to use force INCLUDING deadly force when the Officer is physically threaten or the person disobeys and flees.

But I do not favor, (the cover up) of Dirty Public Officials; Separate Laws for OF and BY the People; Pseudo Laws/ Policies/Rules that are Unconstitutional (effected under Color of Law); or Lenient Consequences that have been proved a Failure.

The founders respected the privacy of the home. They also recognized that the home could harbor criminal activity. That is why they allowed the warrant provision.

 

[Baptist Believer]

On another note what happens when cops announce themselves and get shot and killed because the criminal knew they were coming. (emphasis added)

We can do this all day, have any more?

The difference here is that you have assumed the person whom the police are invading is already a "criminal" and not a suspect. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in our judical system. I pointed out real life cases where the people invaded and arrested were only guilty of not knowing how to properly secure their wireless network - something that my mother and countless other people don't know how to do. That's not a crime.

I don't want police officers injured, nor do I want innocent citizens harmed. I also don't want to throw away presumption of innocence in criminal matters. There is a delicate balance here.

 

[Reynolds]

The difference here is that you have assumed the person whom the police are invading is already a "criminal" and not a suspect. There is supposed to be a presumption of innocence in our judical system. I pointed out real life cases where the people invaded and arrested were only guilty of not knowing how to properly secure their wireless network - something that my mother and countless other people don't know how to do. That's not a crime.

I don't want police officers injured, nor do I want innocent citizens harmed. I also don't want to throw away presumption of innocence in criminal matters. There is a delicate balance here.

You obviously fail to understand the judicial system. Probable cause is the requirement in law for a search or seizure. Innocent until proven guilty has nothing to do with search and seizure law.
The courts have remained consistent that one has a reasonable duty to insure criminal activity does not take place on their property.it is a legal duty of ownership.

 

[Baptist Believer]

You obviously fail to understand the judicial system.

Where did that come from?

Are you saying that "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law is not a Constitutional standard, or that our current judicial system no longer abides by that standard?

Or are you saying that innocent people never get arrested as suspects?

Or are you saying that innocent citizens should be harmed?

 

[Reynolds]

Where did that come from?

Are you saying that "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law is not a Constitutional standard, or that our current judicial system no longer abides by that standard?

Or are you saying that innocent people never get arrested as suspects?

Or are you saying that innocent citizens should be harmed?

I am saying innocent until proven guilty is the standard applied in the court room. During the investigation and arrest the much lower standard of probable cause is the applicable standard. That is not new. That is the way the process has worked for well over 200 years.

 

[Revmitchell]

The difference here is that you have assumed the person whom the police are invading is already a "criminal" and not a suspect.

No I assumed there is a possible danger in telegraphing to criminals the police coming after them.

 

[Baptist Believer]

I am saying innocent until proven guilty is the standard applied in the court room.

Sure.

During the investigation and arrest the much lower standard of probable cause is the applicable standard. That is not new. That is the way the process has worked for well over 200 years.

Yes, that is of necessity.

But here's the issue... When the police knock down a door and barge in unannounced:

(1) Should those inside the home be shot and killed if they defend themselves, not knowing it is the police?
(2) Should those inside the home be charged with endangering the lives of police officers for attempting to defend themselves against unknown intruders?

And the situation gets even worse if the police raid the wrong home, or if persons inside the home are innocent. The presumption of innocence in the court room doesn't do one any good if they have been murdered by the police.

Until you can GUARANTEE that:

(1) Police will NEVER make mistakes and enter the wrong home; AND (2) innocent persons who are unaware of the criminal activity of another person in the home will not attempt to defend themselves during unannounced police entry, then judges need to be EXTREMELY cautious about authorizing "knockless" warrants.

Remember, police make mistakes from time to time. I could fill this post with examples, but I will post only two to make the point.

Man Dies in Police Raid on Wrong House

Police execute search warrant on wrong home

 

[Baptist Believer]

No I assumed there is a possible danger in telegraphing to criminals the police coming after them.

You identified the hypothetical persons in your previous post and even THIS post as "criminals."

You have given NO consideration to the possibility that the persons inside the home may not actually be guilty.

 

[Revmitchell]

You identified the hypothetical persons in your previous post and even THIS post as "criminals."

You have given NO consideration to the possibility that the persons inside the home may not actually be guilty.

You have this wrong. What I have done is not expressed to you the possibility that the persons inside the home may not actually be guilty. Here is why, when police go to homes in this manner they almost always know the violent history of these criminals. The few times that they are wrong is insignificant to the danger posed by exposing their intents far to early.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

I am saying innocent until proven guilty is the standard applied in the court room. During the investigation and arrest the much lower standard of probable cause is the applicable standard. That is not new. That is the way the process has worked for well over 200 years.

Probable cause is what must be demonstrated to obtain a search warrant from a judge. When executing that warrant, no-knock is a legitimate part of the toolbox. I'm neither a lawyer nor in law enforcement, but I think that LEOs can even go in warrantless if they have good cause to believe people are in imminent danger. Of course, that "good cause" is subject to review, and must be used with great caution. There can be tension between constitutional guarantees and the earlier guarantee of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."