Judge Throws Out Ferguson Rioters’ ‘Excessive Force’ Lawsuit

[rangerrebew]

udge Throws Out Ferguson Rioters’ ‘Excessive Force’ Lawsuit
Photo of Amber Randall
Amber Randall
9:46 AM 10/04/2016
1694
36
 
FERGUSON, MO - AUGUST 11: Demonstrators, marking the one-year anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown, protest along West Florrisant Street on August 11, 2015 in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer on August 9, 2014. His death sparked months of sometimes violent protests in Ferguson and drew nationwide focus on police treatment of black suspects. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)   FERGUSON, MO - AUGUST 11: Demonstrators, marking the one-year anniversary of the shooting of Michael Brown, protest along West Florrisant Street on August 11, 2015 in Ferguson, Missouri. Brown was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer on August 9, 2014. His death sparked months of sometimes violent protests in Ferguson and drew nationwide focus on police treatment of black suspects. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images) ∧

A federal judge dismissed Ferguson, Mo., rioters’ $40 million civil rights that claimed police used excessive force against them Monday.

U.S. District Judge Henry Autrey ruled in favor of the Missouri law enforcement, reports WWMT.

The nine plaintiffs, “have completely failed to present any credible evidence that any of the actions taken by these individuals were taken with malice or were committed in bad faith,” Autrey wrote in his ruling.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/04/judge-throws-out-ferguson-rioters-excessive-force-lawsuit/#ixzz4M9LYtfzz

[mountaineer]

 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Finally some good news.

[Just_Victor]

If I were a business owner in the Ferguson area, I'd be suing the police for insufficient use of force in quelling the riots.

[Smokin Joe]

If I were a business owner in the Ferguson area, I'd be suing the police for insufficient use of force in quelling the riots.

I'd push the legislature for 'you loot, we shoot' laws and civil liability waivers, a sort of castle doctrine for commercial establishments.

[LateForLunch]

I'd push the legislature for 'you loot, we shoot' laws and civil liability waivers, a sort of castle doctrine for commercial establishments.

I hear ya man. But likely that's not going to fly legally. Defending property is not generally considered legitimate grounds for use of deadly force. That's one reason why setting booby traps for burglars is illegal. 

 There are of course ways around that, but there is always a chance that something could go wrong which either costs some innocent person their life or ends up getting someone defending their property from a lowlife a criminal conviction for excessive use of force, murder or attempted-murder.

A lawyer could possibly clarify the parameters of what is permissible but then that meeting in itself would be evidence of intent that could go against the defendant if it came to light in discovery after-the-fact.

In some ways, life before legalism as the overriding power of the land was more just. Prior to roughly the 1850s in the US, law enforcement was largely a local matter and subject purely to the adjudication and judgment of local citizens or authorities. So if the town decided that it was alright to hang people for looting, no other state or federal court would argue with them, as long as the law was enforced consistently and a fair trial was given to the accused (even if it was a provisional trial by a posse while sitting around a campfire).

Sherriff: All those in favor of hangin' this varmint?
Posse: (in unison) Aye!!

[Just_Victor]

I hear ya man. But likely that's not going to fly legally. Defending property is not generally considered legitimate grounds for use of deadly force. That's one reason why setting booby traps for burglars is illegal. 

 There are of course ways around that, but there is always a chance that something could go wrong which either costs some innocent person their life or ends up getting someone defending their property from a lowlife a criminal conviction for excessive use of force, murder or attempted-murder.

A lawyer could possibly clarify the parameters of what is permissible but then that meeting in itself would be evidence of intent that could go against the defendant if it came to light in discovery after-the-fact.

In some ways, life before legalism as the overriding power of the land was more just. Prior to roughly the 1850s in the US, law enforcement was largely a local matter and subject purely to the adjudication and judgment of local citizens or authorities. So if the town decided that it was alright to hang people for looting, no other state or federal court would argue with them, as long as the law was enforced consistently and a fair trial was given to the accused (even if it was a provisional trial by a posse while sitting around a campfire).

Sherriff: All those in favor of hangin' this varmint?
Posse: (in unison) Aye!!

Texas allows the use of deadly force in defense of property.
http://codes.findlaw.com/tx/penal-code/penal-sect-9-42.html

[Smokin Joe]

I hear ya man. But likely that's not going to fly legally. Defending property is not generally considered legitimate grounds for use of deadly force. That's one reason why setting booby traps for burglars is illegal. 

 There are of course ways around that, but there is always a chance that something could go wrong which either costs some innocent person their life or ends up getting someone defending their property from a lowlife a criminal conviction for excessive use of force, murder or attempted-murder.

A lawyer could possibly clarify the parameters of what is permissible but then that meeting in itself would be evidence of intent that could go against the defendant if it came to light in discovery after-the-fact.

In some ways, life before legalism as the overriding power of the land was more just. Prior to roughly the 1850s in the US, law enforcement was largely a local matter and subject purely to the adjudication and judgment of local citizens or authorities. So if the town decided that it was alright to hang people for looting, no other state or federal court would argue with them, as long as the law was enforced consistently and a fair trial was given to the accused (even if it was a provisional trial by a posse while sitting around a campfire).

Sherriff: All those in favor of hangin' this varmint?
Posse: (in unison) Aye!!

It would fly if the States passed such laws. I'd bet that would cut down on burned out and looted businesses, too.

Lethal force laws vary from state to state. Some require you to retreat if faced with a threat (if deemed possible, in retrospect, by the prosecutor or police), before using lethal force in self-defense. Face it, if the legislative environment is that unfriendly to self-defense, the courts are not likely to be sympathetic, either.

Some permit you to stand your ground and deal with a lethal threat when and where threatened.

Neither of those generally permit the use of lethal force to protect property, only against severe injury or death, with rape generally considered 'severe injury'.

Some states have what are known as "Castle Doctrine" laws which permit the use of lethal force on your property to protect life, limb, and property.

Always make sure, if you carry, that you know the laws of every jurisdiction you carry in, otherwise, trying to apply Texas law in Nebraska could land you in prison.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Is deadly force worth it for property?


The thing is, if someone is forcibly taking your property you probably have a good case that you felt threatened by said person. They probably have a crowbar or some weaponry etc.


Would a jury convict you if you shot someone stealing your car in the middle of the night? Somehow I highly doubt it. Would a prosecutor bother prosecuting? I doubt it as well. Everyone has had something stolen at some point in their lives. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't waste time, personally.


The scumbag's family could come after you for damages I guess, but wouldn't a jury be involved as well?

[LateForLunch]

Is deadly force worth it for property?


The thing is, if someone is forcibly taking your property you probably have a good case that you felt threatened by said person. They probably have a crowbar or some weaponry etc.


Would a jury convict you if you shot someone stealing your car in the middle of the night? Somehow I highly doubt it. Would a prosecutor bother prosecuting? I doubt it as well. Everyone has had something stolen at some point in their lives. If I were a prosecutor, I wouldn't waste time, personally.


The scumbag's family could come after you for damages I guess, but wouldn't a jury be involved as well?

Don't misunderstand - one can legally protect one's property but only to a point. If  some moron breaks into your house and you catch him carrying your T.V. out the front door, you have a right to force him to stop by informing him that he is under arrest - then if he resists lawful arrest, you can shoot him and if necessary, kill him if he fights back.

But let's say a bunch of rioters breaks into your store and start running out with things, you can't just start mowing them down with a Browning water-cooled tripod-mounted .45 caliber machine gun. You could announce that they were all under arrest, but unless they all pulled weapons on you, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that you had no choice but to kill every one of them.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Don't misunderstand - one can legally protect one's property but only to a point. If  some moron breaks into your house and you catch him carrying your T.V. out the front door, you have a right to force him to stop by informing him that he is under arrest - then if he resists lawful arrest, you can shoot him and if necessary, kill him if he fights back.

But let's say a bunch of rioters breaks into your store and start running out with things, you can't just start mowing them down with a Browning water-cooled tripod-mounted .45 caliber machine gun. You could announce that they were all under arrest, but unless they all pulled weapons on you, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that you had no choice but to kill every one of them.

Koreans shot a bunch of looters in the LA 1992 riots, were any of them convicted?


I've never seen a single person, not in the last 20 years, convicted of shooting and killing a robber. Not one.


If you can find one, go for it. I'm sure it exists.

[LateForLunch]

Koreans shot a bunch of looters in the LA 1992 riots, were any of them convicted?


I've never seen a single person, not in the last 20 years, convicted of shooting and killing a robber. Not one.


If you can find one, go for it. I'm sure it exists.

Recent case of a home-invasion robbery. I'll try to find the article and post it. Tied up the resident, ransacked the house, loaded everything in the family car and drove away. Unknown to the robber, the resident had gotten loose, retrieved a rifle and gave chase. The resident took aim at the fleeing robber with his rifle and fired as he sped down the driveway, hitting the robber and rendering him DRT.

When the cops showed up, they arrested the resident and he was charged with murder. Because the robber was fleeing and did not present a threat to the resident, the D.A. maintained that the resident had no legal right to shoot the robber. 'Not sure what state it was, but not sure it matters ' cause I'm pretty sure any state in the U.S. has the same law. 

Also, I remember one incident during the Rodney King Riots in 1992, where a store owner in Koreatown tried to defend his store against looters and ended up getting murdered for his trouble. In general, armed operations should be left to professionals or at least people with some experience in close-combat, tactical operations and law enforcement (or criminal law).

[Just_Victor]

Recent case of a home-invasion robbery. I'll try to find the article and post it. Tied up the resident, ransacked the house, loaded everything in the family car and drove away. Unknown to the robber, the resident had gotten loose, retrieved a rifle and gave chase. The resident took aim at the fleeing robber with his rifle and fired as he sped down the driveway, hitting the robber and rendering him DRT.

When the cops showed up, they arrested the resident and he was charged with murder. Because the robber was fleeing and did not present a threat to the resident, the D.A. maintained that the resident had no legal right to shoot the robber. 'Not sure what state it was, but not sure it matters ' cause I'm pretty sure any state in the U.S. has the same law.

Texas allows pursuit and deadly force to stop someone from escaping with stolen property.

[LateForLunch]

Texas allows pursuit and deadly force to stop someone from escaping with stolen property.

That's good to know. I suppose there is some threshold for dollar amount which triggers this entitlement (example:grand larceny)? Or can one be shot in Texas for trying to escape with someone's Schwinn or a package of Chips Ahoy?

[Just_Victor]

That's good to know. I suppose there is some threshold for dollar amount which triggers this entitlement (example:grand larceny)? Or can one be shot in Texas for trying to escape with someone's Schwinn or a package of Chips Ahoy?

I linked to the penal code above, and it doesn't state an amount.  It might be covered earlier in that particular statute.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Recent case of a home-invasion robbery. I'll try to find the article and post it. Tied up the resident, ransacked the house, loaded everything in the family car and drove away. Unknown to the robber, the resident had gotten loose, retrieved a rifle and gave chase. The resident took aim at the fleeing robber with his rifle and fired as he sped down the driveway, hitting the robber and rendering him DRT.

When the cops showed up, they arrested the resident and he was charged with murder. Because the robber was fleeing and did not present a threat to the resident, the D.A. maintained that the resident had no legal right to shoot the robber. 'Not sure what state it was, but not sure it matters ' cause I'm pretty sure any state in the U.S. has the same law. 

Also, I remember one incident during the Rodney King Riots in 1992, where a store owner in Koreatown tried to defend his store against looters and ended up getting murdered for his trouble. In general, armed operations should be left to professionals or at least people with some experience in close-combat, tactical operations and law enforcement (or criminal law).

Interesting case, and it's probably true. Was the guy convicted? I will be surprised if he was.

[chae]

Some good news out of Missouri :)

Also, as of January 1, 2017, in Missouri you can legally carry concealed without a permit or any kind of liscense being required.

[Smokin Joe]

Don't misunderstand - one can legally protect one's property but only to a point. If  some moron breaks into your house and you catch him carrying your T.V. out the front door, you have a right to force him to stop by informing him that he is under arrest - then if he resists lawful arrest, you can shoot him and if necessary, kill him if he fights back.

But let's say a bunch of rioters breaks into your store and start running out with things, you can't just start mowing them down with a Browning water-cooled tripod-mounted .45 caliber machine gun. You could announce that they were all under arrest, but unless they all pulled weapons on you, it would be difficult to convince a judge or jury that you had no choice but to kill every one of them.

A group that large is a lethal weapon. Hands and feet are the weapons in homicides more often than rifles and shotguns combined. http://volokh.com/2013/01/03/are-blunt-objects-more-common-homicide-weapons-than-rifles/

[Smokin Joe]

Recent case of a home-invasion robbery. I'll try to find the article and post it. Tied up the resident, ransacked the house, loaded everything in the family car and drove away. Unknown to the robber, the resident had gotten loose, retrieved a rifle and gave chase. The resident took aim at the fleeing robber with his rifle and fired as he sped down the driveway, hitting the robber and rendering him DRT.

When the cops showed up, they arrested the resident and he was charged with murder. Because the robber was fleeing and did not present a threat to the resident, the D.A. maintained that the resident had no legal right to shoot the robber. 'Not sure what state it was, but not sure it matters ' cause I'm pretty sure any state in the U.S. has the same law. 

Also, I remember one incident during the Rodney King Riots in 1992, where a store owner in Koreatown tried to defend his store against looters and ended up getting murdered for his trouble. In general, armed operations should be left to professionals or at least people with some experience in close-combat, tactical operations and law enforcement (or criminal law).

You fight with what you have. In that situation, best to have multiple defenders, and shotguns are far more intimidating. In a pinch, ballistics are a nevermind, too. At close range, the shot package in a birdshot round hits like a frangible bullet, and will make a large, nasty, and very possibly lethal hole. Birdshot can be skipped off pavement or a hard (concrete) floor to disperse it, too, especially older lead shot.

In most situations, in most states, there has to be an imminent threat of severe bodily injury or death. Severe bodily injury includes rape. A disparity in size may not be enough to convince a jury without evidence of violence directed toward you, but a weapon is generally considered evidence of malicious intent.

[LateForLunch]

Interesting case, and it's probably true. Was the guy convicted? I will be surprised if he was.

David Hillis 22, of Akron Ohio pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter about two weeks ago related to the incident which occurred roughly one year ago, and coincidentally is scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow October 7th. He shot the robber in the head at a distance of about 70 yards (nice shot, Dave)!

 http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2016/08/akron_man_pleads_guilty_to_fat_5.html

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

David Hillis 22, of Akron Ohio pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter about two weeks ago related to the incident which occurred roughly one year ago, and coincidentally is scheduled to be sentenced tomorrow October 7th. He shot the robber in the head at a distance of about 70 yards (nice shot, Dave)!

 http://www.cleveland.com/akron/index.ssf/2016/08/akron_man_pleads_guilty_to_fat_5.html

Plead guilty? Still not convicted.

[LateForLunch]

Plead guilty? Still not convicted.

Unfortunately for Mr. Hillis, a guilty plea is a conviction. The only way it would not be is if the charges were reduced to a violation, not a misdemeanor or felony. NOTE: The sentencing has apparently been delayed until November 16th.   

Meanwhile, there is the following article on the way the deceased's family behaved in court when Hillis was released on bail. The proclivity to violence apparently runs in the family as the deceased's father stated, "I feel that we all should take out guns and start killing out here.” Gee, what a surprise. The father of a home invasion robber with a criminal record as long as your arm thinks wonton violence is a good idea. Knock me over with a feather.
 
http://www.ohio.com/news/local/shouting-match-erupts-between-families-after-plea-in-fatal-shooting-that-followed-robbery-attempt-1.705322

Look for more rioting uh, (non-peaceful protesting, as the president refers to it) after a sentence which does not include prison time (I'm betting on probation with maybe a month in jail maximum).

To the issue of law, clearly the law is concerned with evidence of intention in all actions. The strongest evidence is that the dominant intention of the robber at the time he was shot was to flee (albeit with a bunch of ill-gotten loot, after committing numerous violent felonies) - he did not pose any more immediate threat to the resident from seventy yards distant, speeding away from him. The law observes that the resident could himself have fled at that point. If the robber had chased him or brought a weapon to bear on him from seventy yards away (even if he pointed a gun over his shoulder without looking as he drove away) he could have been killed legally. 

Had I been the resident, when the cops showed up I would have told them; "Hey, I shouted 'STOP!' and saw the barrel of a gun appear over his shoulder  - that's why I shot him", then arguably he was still a threat and could have been legally shot and the resident might not have been convicted. 

Clearly to the law, life is a more series of discrete scenes than a confluence of strongly-linked events. Each separate scene has a configuration of factors which establish legality. 

Bottom line is that whether people are evil or not, our laws will not allow them to be shot just for being evil - you may legally shoot evil people ONLY if they are an IMMEDIATE THREAT! Is that just? Clearly not in this case, but there it is. The law is even under the best of circumstances, a GUIDELINE for justice, never a guarantee. The law isn't concerned with moral appraisals generally - it doesn't add or subtract points for bravery or cowardice.

We'll see what sort of sentence the resident gets - the surviving robber was convicted of involuntary manslaughter (even though he didn't directly contribute to the death of the other, because he was part of the original crime) and got a minuscule sentence of 1 year of probation - but he also got a ton of other convictions for crimes not related to the death of his partner and will be in prison for a long time.