It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: searching411
a reply to: amazing
I am sick of people immediately trashing people who put their lives on the line for the safety of others. I believe the majority of police officers and soldiers are moral and honorable. Dedication to their chosen career is proven time and again. Can you say the same?
Because the immunity involved offe rs the officer relief not just from civil liability, but also from the burdens of litigation, a trial court’s denial of a defendant officer’s motion for qualified immunity is, with some exceptions, subject to immediate appeal. See Anderson v. Creighton , #85-1520, 483 U.S. 635 (1987) and Mitchell v. Forsyth , #84-335, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) In circumstances where the defens e of qualified immunity is upheld, an officer will not be found liable, even if their conduc t, such as the use of deadly force, actually could be said to have violated the plaintiff’s federal civil rights, so long as an objectively reasonable officer could ha ve believed, under the circumstances, that the conduct was lawful. A U.S. Supreme Court decision, Brosseau v. Haugen , No. 03-1261, 543 U.S. 194 (2004), illustrates the application of this principle in the context of the use of deadly force, and ruled that an officer who shot a fleeing felon motorist in the back was entitled to qualified immunity, when prior case law did not clearly establish that her conduct violated his Fourth Amendment rights. In this case, an officer learned that a man was wanted on a felony no-bail warrant for drugs and other offenses, a nd heard a report of a "ruckus" at his mother's house. The suspect attempted to fl ee in a vehicle, getting into a Jeep and trying to start it. The officer ran to th e Jeep with her handgun drawn and ordered him to stop. As the suspect fumbled with his keys, she hit the driver's side window several times with her handgun and, on the third or fourth try, broke the window. She had mace and a baton, but allegedly di d not use them, instead trying to grab the car keys.
originally posted by: thesmokingman
As far as how does a 6'4" man get shot on the top of the head? Well that is also consistent with a struggle. The suspect comes at the officer, his head is shoved down and the bullet is fired from a downward position. So how could him being shot on the top of the head have happened while he was "running away" or just had his arms in the air? Sorry, but this does not support the "family attorney" very well in my opinion.
originally posted by: FlySolo
They ran after the first shot, then Brown was shot again at which time he turned around, placed his hands in the air and got to his knees. The officer then approached Brown and shot him point blank in the head.
originally posted by: FlySolo
Who said he was shot in the back?
But he was shot in the head, was he not? Clearly, that's a kill shot away from the car and the 'struggle' so it would be impossible to shoot him in the head before they ran.