Archive for the 'Police' Category

KXAN.com:

ROUND ROCK, Texas (KXAN) — A Texas Ranger stationed in Austin exercised “poor judgment” in an incident where he pulled over and pointed his gun at a driver who flipped him off in traffic according to the Texas Department of Public Safety.

During the incident Round Rock police rushed to an intersection along Interstate 35 after a call for help from the driver who was on the phone with a 911 operator saying someone is trying to pull him over in an unmarked vehicle.

“It’s a white pickup truck and the guys wearing a suit. And he brake checked me and I went around him on the right side, gave him the finger, and he turned all these lights and sirens on”, said the motorist to the 911 dispatcher.

Moments later, before officers arrive, the man following the driver points a gun at him after they stop at the red light.

Eventually, Round Rock police show up and discovered the man who pulled the gun is Texas Ranger Michael Smith, driving an unmarked DPS pickup truck.

The driver, David Vancuran, was fuming and told officers he wanted to talk to the Ranger’s boss, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. “I want the director of DPS down here to talk to this guy, he doesn’t deserve to be doing that. And then when I ask him who he is, all I see is a gun, said Vancuran.

Ranger Smith claims Vancuran almost crashed into his truck as traffic in front of him slowed. “He goes around me real fast, shoots me the bird, then side swipes my truck”, said Smith.

Ranger Smith tells the investigating officer that he only got out of his truck to talk to the driver, but had to pull out his gun after he fears for his safety. “I get out of the truck, I demand he get out. He puts the car in reverse. I draw my gun.”

The state issued pickup truck is not equipped with a dash camera, so it’s the Ranger’s word against the driver in this incident last February.

But KXAN has also obtained evidence Ranger Smith was not exactly telling the truth about when he pulled his pistol according to a crucial part of the 911 call in which Smith is heard screaming and banging on the car.

In a written statement sent via email, the agency contradicts Smith’s own version of exactly when he pulled out his gun. “While exiting the vehicle, the Ranger placed his weapon in a low, ready position, due to a perceived threat, ” said the agency in a statement emailed to KXAN.

DPS also wrote: “Our employee acted inconsistent with policy, exercised poor judgement, and conducted himself in an unprofessional and discourteous manner – all of which are unacceptable…The department has taken corrective action with this employee regarding the policy infractions.

The agency also did not respond to questions about the differing versions of when Ranger Smith drew his weapon during the stop.

Texas Department of Public Safety responds:

The traffic stop initiated by the Ranger was lawful; however, his actions failed to reflect the high standards expected of our employees.

On February 7, a Texas Ranger attempted to stop an individual who was driving aggressively, including nearly sideswiping the Ranger’s vehicle on I-35 in the Georgetown area. The Ranger was driving an unmarked police unit and attempted to make the traffic stop by activating his emergency lights, and subsequently contacted DPS Communications to request Highway Patrol assistance. The driver ultimately pulled over on the I-35 frontage road in Round Rock. While exiting the vehicle, the Ranger placed his weapon in a low, ready position, due to a perceived threat, namely believing the car was being placed in reverse. Round Rock Police Department subsequently arrived on scene, and the driver was ultimately released with no additional enforcement action taken. The Ranger immediately reported the incident to his supervisor.

It’s morphed from sideswiped my car to nearly sideswiped my car.  So let me get this straight.  You (Texas Ranger) were apparently tailgating somebody, they didn’t like it, brake checked you, and you unholstered your weapon and stopped him in a rage.

And the stop was “lawful” according to your superiors.  And I would have been charged with brandishing a deadly weapon, disturbing the peace, reckless driving, and probably assault with a deadly weapon had I done that.

Okay.  Got it.  Because LEOs are better and have more rights than me.

NY Post:

A Minneapolis homeowner demanded to know why a cop responding to a burglary call shot her two dogs at point-blank range — after one approached wagging his tail.

Surveillance video shows the unidentified officer with the Minneapolis Police Department walking backwards in a back yard with his gun drawn when a Staffordshire terrier — named Ciroc — walks toward him wagging his tail Saturday night. The cop suddenly fires his pistol, hitting the dog in the jaw before the animal runs off.

“He was wagging his tail,” the dogs’ owner, Jennifer LeMay, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “My dog wasn’t even moving, lunging toward him or anything.”

Just as Ciroc is shot, a second Staffordshire terrier named Rocko darts into the frame, prompting the cop to fire again, striking the dog in the side, face and shoulder before the officer calmly hops a 7-foot wooden fence out of the yard.

The dogs survived, but LeMay says the family is suddenly overwhelmed by the vet bills after the shooting. Ciroc is back home after a $900 vet bill, but still needs up to $7,000 in surgeries at the University of Minnesota. Rocko, meanwhile, returned home late Sunday. Both dogs are emotional support animals prescribed by a doctor for LeMay’s sons, who have severe anxiety, she said.

“My dogs were doing their job on my property,” she told the Star Tribune. “We have a right to be safe in our yard.”

I’ve watched the video.  I’ll embed it below (sometimes that slows page loading).

I know dogs.  This dog was only moderately interested in the goings-on, and was absolutely no danger to anyone.  The cop should be arrested and charged with cruelty to animals and spend time in prison.  I feel compelled to repeat the counsel I’ve given before concerning LEOs and dogs.  First, as to general rules.

Turning now to the dog, there is no moral or legal requirement for expecting me to own beasts that roll over and play dead when a cop comes around. That isn’t what good dogs do. People have dogs in part for self defense. I strongly suspect that the dog wasn’t a danger to the neighbors, and like most dogs, they know the neighbors and are gentle with them, or at least not a mortal danger.

My own 90 pound Doberman can jump a six foot fence, and when threatened (I’ve witnessed it before), she never backs down, but goes after the threat, trips the threat from behind with her gigantic paws, gets underneath the threat, and bites for the neck / thoracic region to choke air. Fortunately when it has been other animals uncommon to the area I stop her since she obey my voice commands immediately.

She is also such a “lovey” dog she wants to climb up in the lap of any neighbor who comes by. Cops are not neighbors. Cops are foreign to the area. Dogs interpret cops as a threat, and sometimes they are right. There is no way to distinguish between cops and anyone else. Dogs don’t do calculus.

Turning now to the cops, they had no intrinsic right to be on another man’s property. Judges may say so, or state regulation may say so, but it just isn’t justifiable morally. No one was being killed or kidnapped. This was a call for loud music.

I have had two exchanges with cops over the last decade that I can recall. Once they wanted to enter my home (not for me, but to discuss someone else), and I mentioned that they were welcome but I should restrain my dog. They said, “great idea – we’ve had some instances of bad interactions and the chief wants us to retreat and let people restrain their dogs.” The second time, a cop wanted my help with someone and Heidi – my dog – happened to be loose and in the driveway. He approached on the road, but didn’t venture too far and stayed 20 or 30 yards away and called for me. I put Heidi up and obliged.

If I had to list a few pointers for cops the list would go something like this:

1. Do not approach another man’s property assuming you have a right to be there. Ask permission first. Get people to restrain their beasts.
2. Assume every man is armed.
3. Assume every home has a big dog.
4. Unholster your weapon only as a last resort.
5. Do not waste your time making stupid stops. Stopping someone for a broken running light is a stupid stop when you can be shutting down gang activity. There is another regulatory scheme to ensure that the broken running light gets fixed, i.e., car inspection. Be loath to interact with men when they are in a confined space such as a car or truck. You can’t tell what they are doing, and they can’t tell what you are doing. Unless you are an outstanding communicator, your commands are likely to be misunderstood or misinterpreted, or worse yet, incomplete and unclear or even contradictory like in the case of Castile (show me your ID but don’t move).
6. Most dogs are not “pure bred killers.” Most dogs take on the personality of their owner and only want to protect their owner. Understand this. Work with it, not against it. Use it to your advantage. Learn to work with animals, farm animals included. Train animals if you need to in order to gain this experience.

Next, I’ll turn to animals themselves and what LEOs should know.  I only have to do this because men won’t be men and train their sons to handle animals.  Sadly, in the main this is missing from American culture today, and America treats animals more and more like Muslims treat animals.  I consider Muslim treatment of dogs and other animals to be cowardly and immoral, backward and even barbaric.

I have fallen off, been thrown off, bitten, run over, kicked, and just about anything that can happen on or around a horse.  I have ridden horses all day long, and I do mean all … day … long, and gotten on to do it again the next day.  And the next day.  And the next day.  I have fed them, herded them, doctored them, and assisted them to mate.  If you’ve never witnessed horses mating first hand (and I’m not talking about watching the Discovery Channel), it can be a violent affair.  I’ve ridden with saddles and then also (in my much younger years) bareback over mountain tops along narrow trails while running the herd).  The hardest ride was bareback and (on a dare) without a bridle, only the halter.

From the age of fourteen and beyond into my early twenties, I worked weekends and summers at a Christian camp above Marietta, South Carolina named Awanita Valley (and Awanita Ranch in Traveler’s Rest).  We trained and trail rode horses, fed them and cared for them, hiked the trails and cleared them of snakes and yellow jacket nests (have you ever been on a horse when it came up on a yellow jacket nest?).

When we weren’t doing that, we were cutting wood, hauling supplies, digging ditches, and baling hay.  My boys did the same thing, and Daniel later (before the Marine Corps) worked for Joey Macrae in Anderson, South Carolina, an extraordinary professional horseman, breaking and training horses.  I have ridden in the rain, blazing sun, and snow.  I have seen my son Joshua and his horse buried up to his thighs in snow, and watched him ride the horse up from sinking in the drift and stay on him while keeping the horse and him safe.

Why is all (or any) of this important?  Because as I tried to convey in my earlier post, it is critical to have an understanding and mastery over animals, especially if what we think will happen in America really happens.  And Mountain Guerrilla is right about logistics too.  But I’m not so sure that the Army was the first to field this idea.  See my article on Marines and Mules.  The Small Wars Journal had discussion on the importance of animals to logistics long ago.

The problem is that the Marine Corps has forgotten the lessons, and I’m afraid that the Army will never really take them to heart.  The modern U.S. military is techno-weighted down, with gadgetry, doohickeys, and reliance on constant logistics.  The so-called big dog is a symptom of this sickness, as is the huge budget for DARPA every year.  Truthfully, I think this is all related to the effete pressure for gender neutrality in the military.

But don’t you forget these lessons.  Plan ahead.  Learn how to make fire, how to purify water, how to fight, how to make your way around terrain, and how to navigate with maps and a compass (rather than using GPS like the liar Marine Corps officer candidates who were found out during officer’s school).

And learn animals.  Your life will be better for it.  This goes for cops too.

For LEOs (and all other men), learn to doctor animals.  Learn their anatomy.  Learn the necessity of voice inflection and timbre.  Learn voice commands.  Learn how the movement of a shoulder one way or the other can communicate things to animals.  Learn what to do with your eyes.

If you are a LEO and your father was a putz and didn’t teach you any of these things, then go to a farm and volunteer your time in order to learn animals.  They are much more predictable than men and sometimes much better company.  Your life will be enriched for it.

Not that any LEOs will take this to heart.  Then again, from the cowardly pussies like you witnessed in the video above, we can move to the criminally pathological like we have seen in Buffalo and now in Detroit.

Two Detroit residents filed a civil rights lawsuit against the Detroit Police Department Wednesday, alleging that several police officers needlessly and maliciously shot their three dogs during a marijuana raid.

Kenneth Savage and Ashley Franklin say that on July 22, 2016, Detroit police raided their house and found the dogs in a back yard bounded by an eight-foot-tall fence. The officers refused to let Savage and Franklin retrieve the dogs and, instead, shot them.

The reason? Officers found several potted marijuana plants in the backyard Savage and Franklin contend were there legally.

The suit is now the third active civil rights action against the Detroit Police Department for killing dogs during marijuana raids. A Reason investigation last year found that the Detroit Police Department’s Major Violators Unit, which conducts hundreds of drug raids a year in the city, had a nasty habit of leaving dead dogs in its wake. One officer had killed 69 dogs over the course of his career, public records obtained by Reason showed.

According to a search warrant affidavit, a Detroit police officer, while investigating an unrelated matter, observed several marijuana plants outdoors at the home of Savage, Franklin, and their son.

Two days later, eight Detroit police officers arrived at the house. Police were aware Savage and Franklin had a permit to grow medical marijuana, but the plants were in violation because they were visible outside, the search warrant affidavit said.

When Franklin showed police her marijuana paperwork and demanded to see a search warrant, an officer responded, “If you keep asking for a warrant, we are gonna kill those dogs and call child protective services to pick up your kid,” the lawsuit says.

Officers detained Franklin and searched the house, but could not get to the marijuana plants because of the dogs. They initially called animal control but decided to destroy the animals, the lawsuit says. Officers shot and killed one dog through the fence, broke into the backyard enclosure, and fatally shot the other two. Animal control arrived ten minutes later.

There is only one solution to the criminally pathological like this, and retraining isn’t it.

News from L.A.:

Amber Alcantar woke early Thursday morning to a knock at the door.

Before her stood a friend of her nephew, 17-year-old Armando Garcia-Muro. The young man was frantically searching for Garcia-Muro’s mother, Alcantar told the Los Angeles Times. In his hands were bloody shoes.

“Obviously something was wrong,” Alcantar said.

What had just unfolded outside an apartment complex in Palmdale, Calif., would later be described by authorities as an “extremely, extremely unfortunate incident” and by his family as the tragic loss of an animal-loving teen. While trying to shoot a dog that had attacked an officer, deputies from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office instead struck Garcia-Muro.

Their bullets ricocheted off the driveway, authorities said, and one hit the teen’s chest. He later died at a hospital.

[ … ]

According to the police account, deputies were called to an apartment in Palmdale, a city 60 miles north of Los Angeles, just before 4 a.m. Thursday to investigate a report of “loud music.” They approached the apartment in question and were “aggressively charged” by a 60 to 65-pound pit bull, authorities said. The dog bit one of the deputies on the knee.

At that time, a “male Hispanic juvenile” emerged from behind the apartment, restrained the dog and took him back to the rear of the complex. Deputies “retreated back onto the street for safety,” treated the injured officer and called paramedics.

As they waited for help to arrive, the dog returned and charged the deputies again, authorities said. Two officers shot at the dog from a distance of five to seven feet and it returned to a carport area behind the complex.

Deputies followed the dog to trap it and “prevent additional victims” but in the carport area, they found the young teen bleeding on the ground from “what appeared to be a gunshot wound to the chest.” Deputies provided medical attention until paramedics transported the boy to a local hospital, where he died.

Now, let’s play a little thought experiment, boys and girls.  What if I was walking down the sidewalk and a dog lunged after me, and I shot at the dog, and ended up killing a human.  What do you think the reaction would be?  Would it all be just a big mistake, or would I go to prison for a very long time?

In another city, cops just couldn’t stand being proven wrong.

A Florida man spent 90 days in jail after police officers who stopped him for driving without headlights said white powder found in his car was cocaine.

But Karlos Cashe walked out of jail last week after lab results determined the powder in the handyman’s car was actually drywall.

Cashe tells WFTV he repeatedly told officers in Oviedo the substance was drywall. But after running a check they found he was on probation for marijuana and cocaine charges in 2015. Cashe says a K-9 alerted on his vehicle and an officer’s field test was positive for cocaine.

[ … ]

It took nearly three months for lab test results, which were negative for cocaine.

In the first instance, it never occurred to the LEOs to use OC spray and get the dog’s owner to restrain the dog.  In the second instance, they left the man in prison for three months before they got the lab results back.  Three months.

This is two more for the annals of “Cops are just like us, only smarter and better.”

HuffPo:

The city’s Metropolitan Police Department said in a statement that officers were responding to a possible car theft after a recognition software flagged a license plate. Suspects shot at the police officers after the car was stopped with spike strips and the off-duty officer, an 11-year department veteran who lives nearby, came out with his firearm to offer assistance, according to the statement.

The on-duty officers had asked the 38-year-old to get on the ground and he complied, but then they recognized him and told him to stand up and walk toward him.

“At this time, a responding officer (36-year old white male with over 8 years of service) just arriving in the area observed this and fearing for his safety and apparently not recognizing the off-duty officer, discharged a shot, striking the off-duty officer in the arm,” the statement says.

Oh, now trigger happy police are a problem, when one of their own gets shot.  I see.  I doubt this has anything to do with the color of his skin, but everything to do with the fact that the police are rarely held accountable for discharging their weapons like I would be.

It’s a problem when it’s one of their own.  It all depends on whose Ox is gored.

The Charlotte Observer:

Police in Knoxville, Tenn., have ruled that an off-duty officer acted appropriately when he pulled a gun on a Charlotte woman who was picking up a used SUV she bought there in May.

An Internal Affairs review ruled Officer Matthew Janish believed he saw suspicious behavior May 3 when he observed Tonya Jameson attempting to retrieve the SUV, according to the Knoxville Mercury.

Jameson worked as a reporter and columnist for the Observer from 1994 to 2009.

She was attempting to place a license plate on the SUV she purchased from Janish’s mother-in-law, who lives across the street from Janish. The mother-in-law wasn’t home.

Jameson arrived to the home in an unmarked taxi that drove away, and Janish said he thought she was attempting to steal the vehicle, according to the Mercury. Janish had known the SUV was for sale, but wasn’t aware it had been sold, the Mercury reported.

He pulled a gun on Jameson for five minutes while a sheriff’s sergeant arrived. Jameson was allowed to go once they made contact with Janish’s mother-in-law, who confirmed Jameson had bought the vehicle, the Mercury reported.

Jameson filed a complaint with Knoxville Police a week after the incident. She posted about the exchange on social media and said racism was a factor, claiming Janish had racially profiled her.

Knoxville Police Chief David Rausch went to Charlotte to tell Jameson the news in person. She wasn’t happy to hear Janish wouldn’t be punished.

“I can’t say I’m surprised, but I am disappointed,” Jameson said in a blog. “I’m not sure why. After all, time and time again, we’ve seen police officers cleared of any wrongdoing after they have shot and killed unarmed citizens. Why did I think my incident would be any different? At least, I’m still alive.”

This is really very easy and simple, and there is no complexity whatsoever in events like this, despite jury difficulty in dealing with these things.

Tennessee v. Garner says that LEOs can unholster service weapons and shoot only when we can, i.e., when their life is in danger.  “Stop or I’ll shoot” is a denial of due process rights, and LEOs cannot do it.

There was no justification for unholstering the weapon and pointing the muzzle at someone in this circumstance.  The LEOs life wasn’t in danger.  It’s really just that simple.  I would have been in prison for unholstering a weapon and pointing it at this woman, and there is absolutely nothing in the body of American law that makes it okay for LEOs to do it.

The fact that procedures, police departments, judges and juries let them get away with it shows the low esteem in which they all hold our God-given rights.  There is no more constitution.  It is a thing of the past, an artifact of better men and a better time, a time when men kept covenant with one another and fulfilled their promises.

Dean Weingarten on a recent Eighth Circuit decision:

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in August reversed that decision and ruled Officers Nathan Kaiser, Tobias Hite and Shane Jensen violated his Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The judges took issue with the reason for the stop, saying a report of a person with a handgun isn’t enough to create a reasonable suspicion of a crime, and in Nebraska and Lincoln people can openly carry handguns.

[ … ]

Officer Kaiser relied on an incident report that did not contain information sufficient to create reasonable suspicion that Duffie had already, was, or was about to commit a crime. See United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 227 (1985) (extending Terry to the investigation of completed crimes). Nebraska law permits individuals who are at least 18 years old to open carry handguns in public. See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 28-1202, 28-1204 (2009). The City of Lincoln does not restrict an individual’s right to open carry except in certain locations. See Lincoln, Neb., Mun. Ordinances § 9.36.130. Moreover, the mere report of a person with a handgun is insufficient to create reasonable suspicion. See Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272 (2000)

I thought I found all of the articles on and instances of open carry, but I missed this one.  I’m glad that Dean wrote on this.  It adds to our collected wisdom and information concerning what the courts think of this kind of behavior by the police – at least, some courts, even if they refuse to do anything about it.

For God’s sake.  The 58-year-old black pastor is a double amputee.  He fell all over the place trying to comply with the idiot’s command.  He injured himself and under other circumstances I can see death resulting from his fall (if he had landed differently).

The only disappointing thing about this judgment is that the cops weren’t fired and put in prison.  The circumstances are not necessarily similar to but dovetail with the decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, where they found that the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police violated the rights of Nathaniel Black, even though Black was apparently a criminal and did indeed break the law.

Nathaniel Black was part of a group of men in Charlotte, North Carolina who local police officers suspected might be engaged in criminal activity. In particular, Officers suspected that after seeing one of the men openly carrying a firearm – which was legal in North Carolina – that there was most likely another firearm present. When police began frisking the men one by one, Mr. Black wished to leave, but was told he was not free to leave. Officers chased Mr. Black and discovered that he possessed a firearm; it was later discovered that he was a previously convicted felon. Mr. Black was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. Before the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Mr. Black moved to suppress the evidence against him. His suppression motion was denied, he entered a guilty plea preserving a right to appeal the denial of the suppression motion, and he was sentenced to fifteen (15) years imprisonment. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, however, determined that the officers had improperly seized Mr. Black, suppressed the evidence against him, and vacated his sentence.

This was the right decision.  Open carry is legal in North Carolina, and without this being a “Terry Stop” – and it most certainly wasn’t – Mr. Black should not even have been detained.

If you are a CLEO or a Chief of Police reading this, listen to me well.  If open carry is legal in your state, you cannot stop someone for open carry.  I know it sounds so obvious and common-sense that this shouldn’t have to be said.  But apparently with the police it does indeed have to be pointed out – again, and again, and again.

Only an idiot doesn’t understand this, or if you understand and refuse to implement and comply, you’re just a criminal with a badge.

News from Bowling Green:

Wearing a Class B uniform – the type of uniform with a badge embroidered on a polo-style shirt – Robinson entered the theater with friends, including some children who were looking forward to seeing the show. He was met by an employee who told him company policy forbids off-duty law enforcement officers from wearing guns into the theater.

He explained he was on his lunch break until 4:30 p.m. The employee responded by saying he could stand in the lobby until that time but still had to remove his gun before going into the theater.

“I got refused service at a movie theater,” Robinson said. He said he was “flabbergasted.”

I couldn’t care less that you’re a LEO.  I fully support the idea that you’re just like us, not better.  I fully support their right to tell you not to carry, as well and your and my right to boycott their theater because of their policy.  What I don’t support is your right to carry in that establishment if they don’t recognize mine.

By the way, as for this fear you have of attacks for which you’re unprepared?  How does it feel?  You see, wearing a uniform is only one of the things that could get you attacked.  The list is long, including color of your skin, length of your hair, whether you’re wearing head covering if you’re a woman (if you live in Dearborn, Michigan), or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This problem you have with being unarmed and unable to respond to attack is the very same problem we face if we can’t carry.  Join the club.  But don’t expect sympathy from these quarters.

David Codrea:

“Michael Weinman, director of governmental affairs with the Fraternal Order of Police, said the organization opposes the legislation,” The Canton Repository reports.

“Weinman said firearms training, currently necessitated by the licensing process, should be required of concealed-carry holders,” the report elaborates. “The police union opposes the bill.

“We’re very leery of … what crimes you’d be allowed to carry with,” Weinman is quoted. “Does it open it up for people who assaulted police officers to be able to now carry?”

“The sky is falling,” screamed chicken little.  But it never happens.  It hasn’t happened that way in any state where constitutional carry is part of the fabric of state statutes.

And he is lying partly because they want control, and partly because it’s all about the money.  But I repeat myself.

Guns.com:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously agreed that sheriff’s deputies used reasonable force when in a 2010 shooting that left two wounded.

Falling back on a longstanding objective reasonableness argument in use-of-force case law, the high court overturned a previous ruling in the case of Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia, between them shot 15 times by Los Angeles County deputies conducting a search.

Two deputies, Christopher Conley and Jennifer Pederson, were part of a larger force of officers looking for a dangerous parolee when they came across the couple living inside a primitive shack behind the property being searched. Without a warrant or announcing their presence, the officers opened the door to the shack which prompted a napping Mendez, who had a BB gun on his futon that he used to kill rats with, to stand. Conely yelled, “Gun!” and the deputies opened fire, hitting both individuals. Mendez, shot 14 times, had to have a leg amputated while Garcia, pregnant at the time of the shooting and hit once in the back, feared to lose her child.

Citing excessive force and civil rights allegations, the couple sued the county in 2011 in federal court, with U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald in August 2013 granting over $4 million in damages to Mendez and Garcia. The ruling, upheld by the U.S. 9th Circuit on appeal last year, was overturned by the Supreme Court this week.

The deputies, previously cleared after the shooting by the LASD’s Office of Independent Review, used reasonable force as noted by the Supreme Court in an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito for the eight-jurist panel that did not include newly added Justice Neil Gorsuch, who was not part of the court when the case was argued.

The court fell back on the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling which held that objective reasonableness must be used when determining if excessive force was used by police, with courts basing their decisions on the information the officers had at the time.

What Alito took exception to was the 9th Circuit’s use of the so-called provocation rule to find the deputies liable for $4 million in damages, pinning it on a “murky” connection to a Fourth Amendment violation of search and seizure rights to label it excessive force. The logic of the 9th Circuit’s decision in citing the provocation rule was that the deputies lost their immunity from damages after they entered the shack without a warrant.

While I’m not a legal scholar, with all due respect to the writeup at Guns.com, this is a complex ruling and the Supreme Court is famous for deciding cases within a very limited framework.

The decision can be found here.  Alito had a problem with invoking a Ninth Circuit rule that he believed didn’t apply and could be used for nefarious reasons in the future.  Here is the money quote.

The rule’s fundamental flaw is that it uses another constitutional violation to manufacture an exces­sive force claim where one would not otherwise exist.

But if Alito has destroyed the Ninth Circuit “provocation” rule, in one and the same sentence he has destroyed the notion that there can ever be such a thing as excessive force.  He takes aim at the provocation rule, but in the process he runs roughshod over the specifics of the case where LEOs shot up two people who posed no danger to them because of “information they had at the time.”

Whether they should have had better information is left unaddressed, as it always will be.  Whether the safety of the innocents should be as important (or more important) than safety of the officers is left unaddressed.  Moreover, while the Supreme Court is protected by their own security, Alito doesn’t address the fact that we – the ordinary peasants – simply cannot wait for alleged LEOs to finish their business while we lie around unmoved as I’ve observed before concerning a case of armed men dressed in SWAT uniforms who invaded a home.

In addition to your felt need to “go home safely at the end of your shift,” we have an equivalent need to be safe in our own homes, to prevent flash-bang grenades from being thrown into our toddler’s cribs, to prevent your reflexively shooting our family dogs, and to prevent street thugs like this from raiding our homes under the guise of being police officers.

You see, we can’t just lay down and let people screaming “police, police, get the fuck on the floor, police, police” … come into our homes without countering those efforts with close quarters battle.  Because they may not be police.”

But in fact the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did just this, i.e., the gave LEOs a pass for shooting an innocent man on bad information because they invaded his home and he resisted, not knowing who the invaders were.  So while the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals beclowned themselves with an idiotic ruling that could make the founders turn in their graves, the U.S. Supreme Court played one-upmanship in the parade of the ridiculous.

For LEOs, it’s okay to shoot a man who poses you no danger if he has a BB gun, as long as the information you have at the time, correct or incorrect, makes you believe you are in danger.  Warrant or no warrant.  It makes no difference.  Alito found that there was no excessive force.  Nothing else matters, and there will never be any recollection of the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation” rule or what Alito said about it.  This is all that matters.

If you were ever waiting on the Supreme Court to come to your aid regarding overbearing and dangerous police actions, you can disavow yourselves of the notion that there will be any aid forthcoming.  You’ve been taken.

U.S. News:

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — The sheriff in a rural southeastern Utah county was charged Friday with threatening an employee in 2015 with a rifle, failing to properly carry out an investigation of the incident and then firing the staffer in retaliation. Two of his deputies were also charged.

San Juan County Sheriff Richard Eldredge was charged with one count of felony witness retaliation and three misdemeanors: official misconduct, reckless endangerment and obstruction of justice, the Utah Attorney General’s Office said in a news release.

Chief Deputy Alan Freestone, who ran an internal investigation state prosecutors allege was fraught with missteps, is charged with one count of felony witness retaliation and two misdemeanors: obstruction of justice and official misconduct.

Gosh, I hate it when that happens to me.  I like to point rifles at people all the time and pull the trigger just to see the reaction on their faces.  Most of the time the rifle is unloaded and not cocked.

Hahahahaha … it’s really funny.  Just being boys, they were.  Too bad the dude had to take it so seriously, losing his job over something silly like this.  Hey, just be cool and let boys be boys.  Why do you have a problem with rifles being pointed at you, dude?