The case posed the question of whether the officer was acting in self-defense or shooting a man who was no longer armed

Sylville Smith case verdict: Dominique Heaggan-Brown not guilty – CBS News

Nah, the case posed the question of whether or not the police have the right to murder at will and without consequences. Apparently they do. Once can only hope the family sues the city, the police force, and Heaggan-Brown past bankruptcy all the way to Kingdom Come.

The case of Ziglar v. Abbasi began the week following the Sept. 11 attacks, when the FBI received more than 96,000 terrorism-related tips from the public—some based in fact, many based on nothing more than fear of Arabs and Muslims. A group of high-ranking Department of Justice officials, including Attorney General John Ashcroft, then–FBI Director (now Special Counsel) Robert Mueller, and Immigration and Naturalization Service Commissioner James Ziglar, developed and implemented a policy by which undocumented Arab and Muslim men encountered while investigating these tips would be arrested and held in custody under highly restrictive conditions until they could be cleared of suspicion; once they were cleared, they were then deported. Many of the men were detained in a high-security unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where they were held for months and subject to brutal conditions, even after federal law enforcement officials knew of their innocence. The DOJ’s Office of the Inspector General conducted an extensive and detailed investigation into the conditions at the detention center, finding they included “inadequate access to counsel,” “sporadic and mistaken information to detainees’ families and attorneys about where they were being detained,” “lockdown for at least 23 hours a day,” and “detainees placed in heavy restraints whenever they were moved outside their cells,” in addition to a catalog of physical and verbal abuses.

…The modern doctrine of qualified immunity prevents government officials from being subject to personal liability for damages unless the official can be shown to have violated “clearly established law”—that is, some closely analogous precedent that would’ve put an officer on notice that his conduct was illegal. The qualified immunity defense is available to officials in all federal civil rights cases, and courts have required plaintiffs to show “clearly established law” with increasing (and sometimes absurd) degrees of specificity in recent years. Qualified immunity has become an impossibly difficult hurdle for plaintiffs to clear and has drawn widespread criticism, including from Kennedy and Thomas. But this week’s concurrence from Thomas is the most direct call for change to date.

…Thomas cites a forthcoming paper by University of Chicago law professor Will Baude, which argues that qualified immunity has expanded well beyond its historical scope to protect modern officers from liability for claims to which no immunity would have been applicable in the past.

In Ziglar v. Abbasi, Clarence Thomas signals his support for civil rights plaintiffs.

hmmm

Seattle Police released dashcam video and audio of the fatal shooting of Charleena Lyles in Magnuson Park. Officers can be heard shouting “Get back! Get back!” before gunfire breaks out. Also, details from a June 5 call to her home bear striking similarity to Sunday’s incident.

‘Get back! Get back!’: Seattle police release recordings of fatal shooting of Charleena Lyles | The Seattle Times

hmmmm

Protests large and small were mounted Friday night after a jury found a police officer not guilty in the fatal shooting of Philando Castile.

Philando Castile shooting: 18 arrested as thousands protest verdict – CNN.com

the only people the police protect are themselves and the courts have their backs.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected a legal rule that gave victims of police brutality in one part of the country a better chance of holding officers accountable in court over civil rights violations.

Known as the “provocation rule,” it was confined to the nine states covered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which last year upheld a $4 million verdict against a pair of Los Angeles officers who broke into the shack of a homeless couple without a warrant and nearly killed them.

The Supreme Court Just Nixed A Rule That Made It Easier To Hold Cops Liable | HuffPost

If officers of the law are not beholden to the law, law and order is dead and gone. If police officers do not face consequences for their violent crime then there is no reason to value, respect, or even acknowledge them because they have become just another violent gang terrorizing the good citizens of this country. A cop without consequences is an affront to the American way of life.

PErhaps this is the goal? Making American facist?

Yanez told his partner that he thought the driver fit the description of a suspect in a convenience store robbery that happened down the road just a few days earlier. He told the driver and passenger that he was pulling them over for a broken brake light.

Seventy-four seconds after Yanez activated his squad lights, he fired the last of seven shots into the car, fatally injuring the 32-year-old driver, Philando Castile. As Castile slumped over, dying, his girlfriend, Diamond Reynolds, began live-streaming on Facebook. Her 4-year-old daughter watched from the back seat.

Now, Yanez faces manslaughter and weapons charges tied to the shooting. Jury selection begins Tuesday in what’s believed to be the first time a Minnesota police officer has been indicted for shooting a civilian while on duty.

…Castile, who worked for years as a school cafeteria supervisor, had a handgun he was licensed to carry in his pocket the night he was pulled over.

…According to the criminal complaint, Castile’s last words were: “I wasn’t reaching for it.”

…”The mere mention or presence of a firearm alone cannot justify the use of deadly force,” Choi says.

Trial Nears For Minnesota Police Officer Who Shot Philando Castile : NPR

There isn’t enough jail-time in the world for this lawless murderer but a conviction and incarceration in general population would go a long way in making example of what is not acceptable behavior for an officer of the law. It would probably also make him a corpse. In this case, that seems like something that more than resembles a fair and equitable outcome. Do unto others after all….