| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
10,000 Cops Couldn’t Bring Ferguson Under Control (Picture–NSFWV)
THE SITUATION IN fURGUSON IS SO TOXIC THAT ONE POLICE OFFICIA SAID, HE COULD’TN BRING ORDER TO THE CITY WITH 10000 COPS
pROTEST SIGN DOUBLES A SHIELD
Ferguson has become a flaming monster that the top cops of the region believe can’t be brought under cintrol, without a massive police and military presence. And, many believe the grand jury was the wrong tool to use The in this case:
The judui`cial system as we’ve constructed it just isn’t equipped — or even willing — to hold officers accountable for shootings and other offenses.
The truth is that the law gives wide berth to the police’s use of deadly force. Just two months before Brown was killed, the Supreme Court gave its ruling in Plumhoff v. Rickard, where the plaintiffs were suing after police officers ended a high speed chase by shooting 15 rounds into the car, killing the driver and a passenger. The court held that this wasn’t “excessive force” in violation of the Constitution, affirming years of deference to police departments. “It stands to reason,” wrote the justices in a 9-0 opinion, “that if police officers are justified in firing at a suspect in order to end a severe threat to public safety, the officers need not stop shooting until the threat has ended.”
Beyond this, there are the general standards for use of deadly force by police, which give wide latitude to officers who use their weapons. The Supreme Court allows police to use their weapons in two circumstances: To defend their lives and to stop an escaped felon. If Wilson believed that Brown was a felon — or committed a felonious offense — then he was justified under existing law. And if Wilson believed he was in danger of losing his life — a belief that only has to be “objectively reasonable,” not likely or even possible — then, again, he was justified under existing law. MOREHERE
.
