In conclusion, we hold that Vickers is entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the incident giving rise to this appeal, there was no clearly established law making it apparent to any reasonable officer in Vickers’s shoes that his actions in firing at the dog and accidentally shooting SDC would violate the Fourth Amendment. [More]Read the thread here. The "extensive history of using unnecessary, excessive force" is not unexpected.
Neither is this.
[Via Chris Knox]
UPDATE: David French writes something I agree with.
[Via Mack H]
3 comments:
"Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me Lucifer
Cause I'm in need of some restraint"
Are we there yet?
I don't mind 'qualified' immunity.
What has happened it that it has morphed into de-facto total immunity.
Not acceptable.
It turns your stomach doesn't it?
Worthless fat Thugs like Vickers should be assigned the reading of Unintended Consequences. In fact, it should be required reading in EVERY Department and Agency in the USA where thugs presume to wield the power of the State over their neighbors
There would be no end to my fury if that happened to my little girl.
Saying, "Hey, I'm sorry, but I meant well when I shot your kid..." Would not even come close.
Post a Comment