SCOTUS 5-27-14 Unanmious Decision Licenses Police To Shoot-To-Kill In Car Chases - Says It Is "Reasonable"

SCOTUS: "...force used was reasonable"
US Supreme Court Backs Cops Who Shoot Motorists

[Excerpted] US Supreme Court unanimous in granting immunity to police officers who shot and killed a motorist and passenger over a high-speed chase.

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday [5-27-14] unanimously approved of the actions of police officers who gunned down the driver and passenger in a car that committed a minor traffic infraction and kicked off a brief chase.

Near midnight on July 18, 2004, Officer Joseph Forthman of the West Memphis, Arkansas Police Department decided to stop a white Honda Accord because it had a burnt-out headlight. On the side of the road, Officer Forthman became suspicious after asking the driver, Donald Rickard, several questions. Rickard was ordered to step out of the vehicle. Instead, Rickard drove off. Five police cruisers chased the Honda on Interstate 40 for about five minutes.

After Rickard took a freeway exit, one of the officers rammed the Honda, causing it to spin out into a parking lot. Rickard was cornered. As he attempted to back the Honda up, the officers opened fire at point-blank range, killing Rickard and passenger Kelly Allen...Rickard's family filed a lawsuit against the officers, and both a trial judge and the Sixth Circuit US Court of Appeals found they were not entitled to immunity for their actions because of the excessive force used. The Supreme Court justices reversed, arguing the force used was reasonable from the perspective of a police officer on the scene as the events unfolded.

The justices found that firing fifteen rounds into the car was not excessive because Rickard continued to flee, even after he had been shot. The court refused to consider whether the family of passenger Kelly Allen would have a claim, noting only that a prior decision suggests Allen's family would have to prove "a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest."

John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute, said this decision would encourage an escalation of force by police against citizens because the officers would know they will not be held to account, no matter what they do.

"This lawlessness on the part of government officials, an unmistakable characteristic of a police state, is made possible in large part by the courts, which increasingly defer to law enforcement and prioritize security over civil liberties," Rutherford said in a statement. "In so doing, the government gives itself free rein to abuse the law, immune from reproach, and we are all the worse off for it."


5-1-24 SCOTUS Systematically Stripping Freedom: Decision On Warrantless Cell Phone Searches Due In June "Permitting police officers to search a mobile phone, or any digital storage device, essentially gives them access to someone's entire life; allowing them to do so without a warrant renders the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures meaningless."

4-22-14 SCOTUS Systematically Stripping Freedom: Decision Gives Police Gestapo Power To Act On "Anonymous Tips" "The Supreme Court says an anonymous tip can be sufficient to justify a decision by police to pull a car over on suspicion of reckless or drunken driving..."

6-3-13 SCOTUS Rules 'Police State' Has More Right To Your DNA Than You Do - "The Supreme Court has ruled criminal suspects can be subjected to a police DNA test after arrest -- before trial and conviction..."

4-12-12 NWO Update: SCOTUS Strips Americans Naked - "The Supreme Court ruled Monday that those arrested for even minor violations may be strip-searched before being admitted to jail, saying safety concerns outweigh personal privacy rights..."

The explanation for all of this is actually very simple, as taken up in this post from last year - there is no other possible way to see it:

Brennan Takes CIA Oath On Pre-Legal 1787 Constitution Without Bill Of Rights; Teddy Roosevelt Symbolism 3-9-13 "That a sublime message was intended here is not difficult to discern. How else can it be possibly taken? Are "We The People" thought to be so mindless as to believe that swearing in on an orginal draft of the U.S. Constitution that had not yet been ratified by the states, without the "Bill of Rights", is to signify the upholding of the "rule of law"? Is not exactly the opposite the message conferred?"...There is a name for government that does not recognize any "rule of law" other than a 'big stick'. It is called totalitarianism..." [see post]

This was a ten year-old case. Is it possible that this decision was purposely delayed until now, when 'the time would be right'? Regardless, shoot to kill for running from the 'gestapo' now legalized as "reasonable" by SCOTUS 5-27-14. That's how they roll in the ZWO;  see: 3-5-13 'Assassinate Americans In America'.

Recommend making a mental note - another one.
 Rev. 18:4
Gen. 3:4-5 'And the serpent said...ye shall be as gods'

No comments :