To begin to understand this issue and the problems it brings to light - we have to look at the causes of the "legitimization" of such behavior in the eyes of the police - from the eyes of the Courts.
And this is one reason that most of the time no accountability is brought upon offices who kill persons without any reason to justify it - except in the twisting of logic that comes in part from reliance on BAD LAW:
Tennessee v. Garner
Here is the Case: http://supreme.justia.com/...
And here are the Arguments: http://www.oyez.org/...
Here is a footnote from a case that actually does find an officer's shooting unwarranted (the shooting of a homeowner with a shotgun investigating something outside of his house at night):
"To be clear, an armed suspect need not engage in some specific action — such as pointing, aiming, or firing his weapon — to pose a threat. Pursuant to Tennessee v. Garner and its progeny, there are many circumstances under which a police officer could reasonably feel threatened." Cooper v. Sheehan, 4th District Court of Appeals.
The logic of this view derived from this cited case is perverse:
It has two fundamental problems:
1) It detaches the responsibility of the officer to rely on the actual actions of a "suspect" - and allows their own "perception of fear" to be the overriding factor.
2) Corollary to that - it then provides legitimization to the idea that the life of the officer SUPERSEDES the life of the citizen (who is supposed to always be presumed innocent under the law).
This is a very troubling precedent. And I think it would behove those of us who are concerned with these issues to take a long, hard, close look at this case and its uses as precedent.
This is the case that the Chief of APD relied upon to justify the shooting of James Boyd. And that demonstrates just how BAD this law is in practice.
Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:40 AM PT: To clarify some confusion - when I refer to "BAD law" in this brief introduction - what I am not necessarily stating is that the Garner decision is bad law (I'd like people to read it themselves to draw their conclusions on this - mine I have made known in a comment).
But it is the "practical use" of Garner - the fact that it was relied upon by the APD Chief to justify the officers' actions being the most immediate example - is what I am referring to as BAD LAW.
And it behoves us to try and find out just how Garner has become a "tool" in the justification of shootings the decision itself both directly and by logical implication finds to be unconstitutional and not merely unjustified.
And let me add one more thing: My aim in this diary is to get people to begin engaging in a discourse on this topic - to put our heads together - not merely to discuss amongst ourselves - but to contribute to the process currently ongoing in Albuquerque and by doing so to the national issue that I believe it is but only one (even though at its most extreme) part.
Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM PT: Another quick note: Can anyone who is a member of any Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, or Legal group here ask the members of those groups to take a look and chime in. And if they deem it appropriate to even consider Republishing the diary.