US Supreme Court approves DEADLY FORCE in Routine Traffic Stop Case

1 Lawyer

#1 Lawyer Network

1 Legal - 1 Lawyers - 1 Attorneys

Injury Lawyer - Criminal - Foreclosure - Divorce

 

Plumhoff v. Rickard

Opinion by the Hon. Dr. Rabbi Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

Chief Judge  The Supreme Counsel of the Temple of Hayah

Chief Judge Supreme Court of the Nation of ONE.

The gross decision of the US Supreme Court in Plumhoff v. Rickard is a travesty of justice for all US Citizens. It is a further erosion of creating a Gestapo Police state in the United States where policemen have the right to be prosecutor, jury and judge as well as executioner. The United States Supreme Court once again used the bad precedent of ‘qualified immunity’ in letting police use deadly force to kill not only a driver in a high speed chase but the passenger in the car that committed no crime other than being in a vehicle trying to elude police.

The facts of this case emanated from a minor police stop for a headlight that was out, a minor traffic violation and it resulted in the deaths of two people with no justice. A serious travesty of civil rights violations. (see https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/high-court-sides-police-fatal-chase-23881255)

Police, prosecutors, judges and government agencies wrap themselves around the banner of Qualified Immunity in all tort related actions now when VICTIMS of abuse and even deadly force claims try to use the Federal Courts to seek remedy where a police chase ends with 15 rounds fired at a fleeing car under the assumption the car poised a great danger to the community.
While a car does in fact create a dangerous situation in which the public can be greatly harmed, a greater harm is police firing at such a vehicle 15 times and any of those bullets could have harmed or killed an innocent bystander.

Many jurisdictions now impose a no chase rule in populated urban areas where such a chase is now called off unless it’s a hot pursuit of a felony like a chase involving police and say a bank robber, etc.
Normal fleeing vehicles in traffic related situations should not become a paramount chase for local police departments since the chase is more dangerous than letting a person who may even be a wanted felon elude police for the moment.

The public was not protected by the US Supreme Court deciding firing 15 rounds in a car chase by police is justified behavior. It is not.
The police could have employed tactics such as putting tire strips on the road before he car, or having a helicopter follow the vehicle.
Police should BACK OFF such vehicles and use real police work to capture such a suspect, not 15 rounds of bullets at the vehicle and their passenger.

Then to claim the police are just doing their job is a gross violation of civil rights of all involved. But as the United States desires to become more and more of a POLICE STATE such wholesale gross violations of human and civil rights to kill people just for fleeing police is an assault upon civil rights and the right to a jury and a trial.
Fleeing police in a vehicle should not become a crime punishable by INSTANT DEATH. It is wrong and for the Supreme Court to back up the gross violations of the police in the matter is a shocking further erosion of civil liberties in the United States.

If a police officer now considers you a threat to the public safety they can literally execute you on the spot and then say QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. What about the right to be arrested, get bail, have a hearing, have a trial, be judged by a jury of your peers? Who was the prosecutor, jury and judge as well as executioner in this case? The police were.

There are more humane ways to end a police chase than to fire 15 bullets at a speeding car, such actions put in jeopardy the public at large, more than a fast moving car.

Police officers have a dangerous job, they put their lives on the line daily, and if a person wants to kill a police officer, there’s really not much a police officer can do to stop it, a bullet proof vest won’t stop a close range head shot as was committed recently in the Las Vegas Revolution shooting event.

The courts action in this matter has given a green light to police departments to shoot first and kill and ask questions later. This is not justice, it is equal to rob rule of a lynch mob where a person got no trial, no jury and no justice. The job of police should to make the public safe and pursuit of a speedy car imperils the public at large and the act of firing 15 rounds to end a police chase is obscene.
Of course the justices on the court didn’t mention the real FACTS that this whole thing emanated from a traffic stop over a busted headlight! That FACT was left out by the court in their evil decision in this matter.

This case also personifies how 1983 Actions do not exist anymore in the Federal Courts. If the lawyer for the family of the victims had sued the municipality and not the officers and alleged a conspiracy in how their procedures for such police chases violate civil rights and used 1986 instead of 1983, the case may have been properly grounded and not subject to a summary dismissale for qualified immunity. In civil rights actions you attack the policies of governmental agencies like police departments and not the individual officers who just cry qualified immunity.

The Hon. Dr. Rabbi Sollog Immanuel Adonai-Adoni

Temple Hayah

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1117_1bn5.pdf

1 Lawyer

#1 Lawyer Network

1 Legal - 1 Lawyers - 1 Attorneys

Injury Lawyer - Criminal - Foreclosure - Divorce