The Associated Press reports tonight that the Congressional Black Caucus is set to oppose the nomination of Judge Alito. (HatTip to Howard Bashman)
Of course they didn’t ask me, but I find CBC’s reasons for opposing Alito, as reported here, both odd and disappointing.
First, odd:
“The members of the CBC are concerned about Judge Alito’s opinions, many in dissent, in race cases where his decisions have disproportionately affected African-Americans,” said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the caucus chairman.
Not that he’s a racist or that his legal views are wrong or that he doesn’t believe minorities deserve preferences or that his understanding of civil rights is mistaken but his opinions have a “disparate impact” on us. Odd.
Next, disappointing:
“We are troubled by what appears to be a very conservative judicial philosophy that seems greatly at odds with much of 20th century constitutional jurisprudence,” Watt said.
So, according to the Congressional Black Caucus, conservatives, no matter how qualified according to the usual indices of quality, are not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.
The effect of such blanket opposition, of course, is that there is no reason to pay any attention to whatever the CBC says about any Republican, or at least any conservative, nominee because it has announced in advance that a conservative legal philosophy automatically disqualifies anyone.
“The effect of such blanket opposition, of course, is that there is no reason to pay any attention to whatever the CBC says about any Republican, or at least any conservative, nominee because it has announced in advance that a conservative legal philosophy automatically disqualifies anyone.”
Because usually we pay so much attention to hte CBC.
“The members of the CBC are concerned about Judge Alito’s opinions, many in dissent, in race cases where his decisions have disproportionately affected African-Americans,” said Rep. Mel Watt, D-N.C., the caucus chairman.
That’s bizarre on its face. Alito’s opinions “in dissent” can’t have affected anyone. Dissents haven’t any legal force.
actus – my point wasn’t that the CBC, by its a priori opposition to all conservative nominees, had removed itself from our consideration, but from the consideration of any reasonable people.
Michelle – nice catch. Takes “disparate impact” to a whole new level: would have had a disparate impact, if it had any impact at all….
I guess their point about the dissent is (1) if he’s elevated to the SC, his views may one day not be in the minority, and they won’t like them then any more than they do now; and (2) the fact that many of them are in dissent seems to indicate that he is out of the mainstream.
I can see that, but his being conservative certainly doesn’t put him out of the mainstream. It’s so easy to have circular reasoning, though. I suppose almost everyone sees his own position as the rational, middle-of-the-road one, and where others differ they have left the path.
Why would an African American support a Supreme Court nominee who has repeatedly sided against the interests of African Americans in case after case?
Like this one:
>>>”Alito wrote that he saw no constitutional problem with a police officer shooting and killing an unarmed teenager who was fleeing after a $10 home burglary.
“I think the shooting [in this case] can be justified as reasonable,” Alito wrote in a 1984 memo to Justice Department officials.
Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing, the courts should not set a rule forbidding the use of deadly force, he said.
“I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer’s dilemma,” Alito advised.
A year later, however, the Supreme Court used the same case to set a firm national rule against the routine use of “deadly force” against fleeing suspects who pose no danger.”
Alito backs killer cops
Of course, the subject who was shot in the head and killed was black. His stance on Affirmative Action is also the opposite of what the stance of the majority of African Americans are. I don’t understand why this is hard to fathom by those on the right.
–Cobra
Cobra, you are assuming that Alito’s decision was swayed by the race of the fleeing thief. Do you have anything to back up that assumption with, other than your usual readiness to believe the worst of white people?
What would the “White Congressional Caucus” be called?
Racist.
There is not reason, other than racism, for a Black Congressional Caucus to exist. They should disband out of shame.
“I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer’s dilemma,” Alito advised.
This is against the interests of blacks or any other people why? If the suspect was white would it have been OK?
The issue in a home burglary is not how much money is stolen.
Have you ever had your home invaded, Cobra?
Breaking into a person’s home is a vicious attack on the property and security of that person. What difference does it make if he netted only ten bucks?
A man who invades another person’s home deserves to be shot. One would hope that the homeowner had armed himself so that he could do the job.
Cobra,
Slate‘s article fortunately links to a scan of the memo in question, so I was able to read it. The question was whether shooting at a fleeing suspect constitutes an “unreasonable seizure” under the Fourth Amendment as incorporated under the Fourteenth against the states. Alito’s opinion for the DOJ was that it doesn’t, but that no amicus brief should be filed.
Your own link, helpfully titled “Alito Backs Killer Cops,” has a different tone.
Can’t you see the difference between supporting Tennessee’s policy and declaring it unconstitutional on specific grounds?
I happen to think that extreme attempts to apprehend people suspected of relatively minor crimes are counterproductive; I don’t think we should be shooting at fleeing burglars or doing mad high-speed car chases on crowded freeways. But it does not follow that such things are unconstitutional. As you say, SCOTUS ruled the other way in this same case, but that doesn’t make the argument absurd or implausible.
I should add that, while you and many others mention the race of the man shot, I have not been able to find the race of the family whose house was violently broken into in any news account. Does that matter to you?
Stephen,
Quite right. We once had our home ransacked in broad daylight (I was at work, and my fiancé went out for little more than an hour, so we suspect that there were two people involved, one doing the actual ransacking and another keeping watch). Gone were my fiancé’s pocket watch and my laptop computer; a determined effort had been made to steal an electronic keyboard, but it had too many cords attached to it for the thief’s patience; and one of my suitcases had been dumped out, apparently in order to stuff it with some of my CD collection. The thief had grabbed a bunch of CDs off the shelf to stuff in the suitcase, but left them after (we suspect) noticing that they were all classical.
Anyway, Cobra, stuff like this feels very nasty. If I had arrived home while this despoilation was going on, you’d better believe there’d have been some serious bodily harm done. (Probably done to me, of course; I’m not prudent.) I would not want to kill the people who did it, but if one dashed out into the street and got run over, I wouldn’t wear black.
“Michelle – nice catch. Takes “disparate impact” to a whole new level: would have had a disparate impact, if it had any impact at all….”
The point is pretty clearly that it would have an impact if we elevate him to replace the swing vote on the court.
If dissents don’t matter, why write them?
Cobra 1
Why would an African American support a Supreme Court nominee who has repeatedly sided against the interests of African Americans in case after case?
Cobra2
His stance on Affirmative Action is also the opposite of what the stance of the majority of African Americans are.
Re Cobra1: So, all African Americans have the same interests? Usually people who say this are called racists, or in polite social science circles, racialist.
Re Cobra2: So, on “affirmative action” all African Amerians don’t have the same interest. Only a majority supports it. Actually, even this isn’t true. It is true that on polls a majority of blacks say they support “affirmative action,” but is also true that on other, more carefully and accurately worded polls, most blacks do not support special privileges for themselves based on their race.
actus,
The point is pretty clearly that it would have an impact if we elevate him to replace the swing vote on the court.
If dissents don’t matter, why write them?
I didn’t say that dissents “don’t matter”; I said that they have no legal force, and that therefore anything Alito said in dissent cannot have been a “decision” that “disproportionately affected African-Americans” [note tense].
But, in any case, can’t we dispense with the “swing vote” nonsense? The grain of truth in it is that O’Connor votes with the majority in 5-4 decisions much more often than anyone currently on the court (well, I don’t know about Roberts; there’s been no time). And she’s been described by clerks and court-watchers often as someone very adept at cobbling together a coalition for a majority vote.
But that description itself makes clear that she’s not a “swing vote.” If you’re putting together a coalition, you are not joining a pre-existing camp. I fear that many people’s idea of the Supreme Court is of four “liberals,” four “conservatives,” and one person on whom everything hinges. It isn’t like that. If you look at the 5-4 decisions in which O’Connor is in the majority, you will see that the other four of the “5” and the losing “4” are not reliably the same two groups of people. It’s just like the old assumption that Thomas always votes with Scalia. Actually, there are several other pairs of justices that vote together more often.
“I said that they have no legal force, and that therefore anything Alito said in dissent cannot have been a “decision” that “disproportionately affected African-Americans” [note tense].”
Ok. Its something that would if enacted. So we keep people like him from getting more power. No problem.
“f you look at the 5-4 decisions in which O’Connor is in the majority, you will see that the other four of the “5” and the losing “4” are not reliably the same two groups of people.”
The thing that makes the the swing is that she is reliably the one in the 5 of the 5-4’s. Would those 5-4’s also be there under Alito’s jurisprudence or not?
actus, my point was only that Alito’s dissents cannot be said to have “disproportionately affected” anyone. If Rep. Watt had said that they showed a disturbing pattern of callousness towards African-Americans, or something of the kind, I’d strongly disagree, but at least the remark would make sense. What he actually said doesn’t.
The thing that makes [O’Connor] the swing is that she is reliably the one in the 5 of the 5-4’s. Would those 5-4’s also be there under Alito’s jurisprudence or not?
She is not “reliably” “the one” (what about the other four, who, as I said, aren’t always the same people?) in a 5-4 majority; it’s just that she is more often on the winning side of a 5-4 decision than any other Justice. And you are still arguing as though there are two fixed camps and O’Connor picks which one to join, case by case. I’m telling you it doesn’t work like that. (And in any case, 5-4 decisions are comparatively rare anyway, which is just another reason that this “swing vote” business is overblown.)
“actus, my point was only that Alito’s dissents cannot be said to have “disproportionately affected” anyone. ”
I know. And I think its clear that they’re saying ‘if these were followed, they would.’
“She is not “reliably” “the one” (what about the other four, who, as I said, aren’t always the same people?)”
you said they’re not the same people, so they can’t be the ‘reliable’ part of the 5-4 majorities.
“And in any case, 5-4 decisions are comparatively rare anyway, which is just another reason that this “swing vote” business is overblown”
I was under the impression that lots of key decisions had been 5-4’s…
Actually, to make this even more confusing, Rep. Watt’s phrase (“have disproportionately affected African-Americans”) does not make any sense at all on its face unless you believe “disproportionately” means “negatively,” which it does not. A group can be affected disproportionately in a positive manner as well (e.g., racial gerrymandering of districts to create minority-majority districts disproportionately affects minority votes of the district). I presume Rep. Watts meant “disproportionately affected blacks in a negative manner” (although how you affect people in ANY way with a dissenting opinion is beyond me, but if that is the case, then Kerry voters disproportionately affected my celebration of Bush’s re-election victory).
actus,
[me:] “She is not “reliably” “the one” (what about the other four, who, as I said, aren’t always the same people?)”
[you:] you said they’re not the same people, so they can’t be the ‘reliable’ part of the 5-4 majorities.
OK, actus, I have just waded through the 2004-05 SCOTUS docket on your behalf. There are 22 5-4 decisions, and O’Connor is on the winning side of fifteen of them. That means that she’s on the losing side of the other seven, of course.
Meanwhile there are 29 unanimous decisions in the same docket.
actus,
I ought to have added this: There was a case with two majorities, each concurring in part of the judgment.
Majority 1: Stevens, Scalia, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
Majority 2: Breyer, O’Connor, Rehnquist, Kennedy, Ginsburg.
Who the heck are you going to pick as the “swing vote” in that?
“There are 22 5-4 decisions, and O’Connor is on the winning side of fifteen of them. That means that she’s on the losing side of the other seven, of course.”
Ok.
you know, these stats have been run. Google them up and you’ll find all sorts — mostly because this court has been together a very long time.
“Who the heck are you going to pick as the “swing vote” in that?”
It doesn’t look like there was a dissent.
Actually, it
actus,
you know, these stats have been run. Google them up and you’ll find all sorts — mostly because this court has been together a very long time.
Quite so. I’m afraid I did it the hard way, actually, looking at every case in a term and checking who voted how. And then I was fool enough to waste pencil lead actually writing down the votes in each case. Of course, it was just the 2004-5 Term I checked. And I am not nearly as talented as Google.
This is of course really boring. I’ll spare you the details, as you’ve obviously got everything at your fingertips, and can tell me the Justices who voted most often together over the last decade even faster than I can tell you.
cobra should be a fiction writer. Indeed, most of the time I think he is a fiction writer, except for his addiction to long quotes.
But really! What is this world coming to when someone who was a conservative undergraduate can be nominated to the Supreme Court?
“But really! What is this world coming to when someone who was a conservative undergraduate can be nominated to the Supreme Court?”
Specially the type to tout it 10 years later to try to get a job. Blech! We all know the type don’t we?
Cobra,
If you’re against Affirmative Action and diversity then come out and say so openly.
Can I say that I’m against affirmative action and in favor of diversity? I would like university students to be exposed to as many different viewpoints as possible. I have to say that if that’s what AA is supposed to do, it’s a spectacular failure. Something like the Texas and Florida “top tenth” plans is far, far more likely to produce actual diversity of opinion in the classroom than is affirmative action as it has been practiced. Seriously, Cobra, who is more likely to provide a different viewpoint: A top student in an all-Hispanic school in an all-Hispanic county of Texas, or a Hispanic-surnamed kid in a Dallas or Austin school who’s far from the top of his class, but has reasonable SATs? I think it’s obvious that the kid in the rural school deserves a bigger boost, and also has more to teach his/her peers.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Can I say that I’m against affirmative action and in favor of diversity?”
Then you wouldn’t be on the same side as Alito. Read the text again. He was against people like YOU being at Princeton according to quotes from contemporaries. “You” meaning WOMEN. Now, I’m sure you’ll find some way to defend that too, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Now I know how the game works. This is an issues oriented game, and since Alito has been tagged an anti-Roe, anti-affirmative action, pro-corporate, pro-states rights, pro-police power judge, of COURSE right wingers will salivate at the prospect of this guy getting on the court and rolling back the clock.
Just be HONEST folks. Tell me in writing that this is your GOAL. Let the chips fall where they may.
–Cobra
Cobra, you left out a quote from the article you posted. Here, let me help you.
“The only CAP member who could be reached by The Daily Princetonian, Alito supporter and former New Jersey Superior Court judge Andrew Napolitano ’72, defended the group, saying that there is ‘absolutely no way’ it sought to protest coeducation.”
“The organization, Napolitano said, was committed instead to increasing alumni involvement in Princeton and tempering ‘the University’s anti-traditionalist leftist urges’ at a sensitive time in history when the majority of students and faculty were opposed to the Nixon administration’s policies, particularly the Vietnam War.”
“Napolitano said he never associated himself with any individual’s anti-coeducation stance, adding that ‘Sam Alito would never associate himself with that’ either.”
Now you feel better about him, right?
Laura writes:
>>>”Now you feel better about him, right?”
Nope. A look through his mindset on cases gives me the impression that
Levy-Warren’s description may be a lot closer than Napolitano’s.
–Cobra
Well, if you want to find reasons to wring your hands about his “mindset”, and to discount evidence that his “mindset” might not be what you fear (hope?), that’s certainly your right.
Cobra, I’m a little confused about your sympathy for burglars.
Is this a specially protected job market for black men? Are you arguing that black man have a right to invade other people’s homes and to steal? Is this some sort of justified revenge theory?
Why are you always apologizing for and rationalizing black gangsterism?
And, I forgot to ask this, Cobra. Since you seem to be suggesting that the exceptionally high rates rates of black men are simply justified retaliation for past injustices… how does this differ from the philosophy of the Klan?
In the previous post, it should read “exceptionally high crime rates…”
Stephen writes:
>>>”Are you arguing that black man have a right to invade other people’s homes and to steal? Is this some sort of justified revenge theory?
Why are you always apologizing for and rationalizing black gangsterism?”
I make no such claims, my friend. However, I don’t believe that police should be allowed to carry out summary executions on fleeing, unarmed suspects, who by the rule of law, are INNOCENT until proven guilty.
Alito, I’m afraid, may have different ideas
John writes:
>>>”So, on “affirmative action” all African Amerians don’t have the same interest. Only a majority supports it. Actually, even this isn’t true. It is true that on polls a majority of blacks say they support “affirmative action,” but is also true that on other, more carefully and accurately worded polls, most blacks do not support special privileges for themselves based on their race.”
Define “more carefully and accurately worded.” Do you mean polls meant to render a desired outcome that coincides with the political philosophy the pollster is representing?
Alito will be a wild fight, because not just conscious African Americans have a bone to pick with this joker.
In addition to neutering race and gender discrimination lawsuits (the very process anti-affirmative action types claim is a viable “alternative”),
advocating citizen machine-guns, and .38 caliber street justice by police, Alito is a civil libertarian nightmare with the Doe vs. Groody case, where he argued that unauthorized strip searches are fine and dandy–even on a 10 year old.
But you folks can read about all this stuff now, and if you all still come to the conclusion that this guy is the modern day reincarnation of Solomon, then I know truly what priorities are at work here.
-Cobra
Cobra, I’m going to answer you on my own blog, lest John tire of our discussion.
Cobra,
In addition to neutering race and gender discrimination lawsuits (the very process anti-affirmative action types claim is a viable “alternative”), advocating citizen machine-guns, and .38 caliber street justice by police, Alito is a civil libertarian nightmare with the Doe vs. Groody case, where he argued that unauthorized strip searches are fine and dandy–even on a 10 year old. But you folks can read about all this stuff now, and if you all still come to the conclusion that this guy is the modern day reincarnation of Solomon, then I know truly what priorities are at work here.
Look, let’s take these in order. I suppose what you mean by “neutering race and gender discrimination lawsuits” is the memo about comparable worth. Cobra, comparable worth is deader than the dodo. It was one of the dumbest ideas of a peculiarly dumb period, the late 70s, and I doubt you could find a living human being willing to argue for it now. We are talking about the government setting the pay scale for every job in the country. Do you find that thought attractive? I hope not.
Alito didn’t “advocate citizen machine-guns.” He said that merely owning a machine gun does not involve you in interstate commerce, and that therefore such ownership doesn’t bring you within the scope of the Feds’ power to regulate. That is IMO a reasonable position. (If you don’t find it so, consider that the same reasoning would uphold a state’s right to permit the growing of marijuana within state for medical or recreational use, so long as it is not sold across state lines.)
Again, in the Tennessee case, the point wasn’t that it’s good for police to shoot fleeing suspects, but whether doing so was a Fourth Amendment violation and therefore came under the purview of the Federal Government. I think there’s at least a plausible argument that that isn’t an “unreasonable seizure” under the Constitution.
As for the strip-search case, all that appears to have happened is that the cops who carried it out wrongly thought that their warrant gave them authority. It did give them authority to search the premises, but not the people there. An honest mistake? Maybe, maybe not. You will say “not.” I don’t know the case in detail, so I will say “possibly.” But if you will tell me that there’s no possibility that a drug dealer would hide the stuff on his little daughter on the assumption that she wouldn’t be searched — well, I don’t believe you, that’s all.
(Suppose the cops had had authorization for the strip-search? Would that have made it all better? Would the girl have been one bit less traumatized?)
You see, Cobra, the common thread in most of Alito’s controversial opinions, memos, statements, &c. seems to be that when he sees a problem, and sees the Federal Government sitting right there, he doesn’t reflexively pick up the Federal Government and bang the problem over the head with it. I would have thought the idea that Federal power is not literally infinite would have some appeal for you. Apparently not.
“That is IMO a reasonable position. (If you don’t find it so, consider that the same reasoning would uphold a state’s right to permit the growing of marijuana within state for medical or recreational use, so long as it is not sold across state lines.)”
Machine guns aren’t made ‘within a state.’
“An honest mistake? Maybe, maybe not. ”
Even if its a mistake, it doesn’t rise to the level of being an authorized search.
John, I know this is an indulgence on my part, but bear with me.
actus,
Machine guns aren’t made ‘within a state.’
They most likely are not, but there is no reason in principle that they couldn’t be. And in any case, possessing one is not in itself “interstate commerce.”
Here, let’s back off the machine guns for a moment and consider some totally different object. I have a viola. I bought it in California from someone else in California, so as far as I am concerned its connection with “interstate commerce” is essentially zero. I haven’t even taken it out of the state for the several years I’ve had it.
But. The instrument was made in Canada. I am assuming most of the wood is Canadian, though I don’t know that for certain, but pretty obviously the ebony of the fingerboard, the pegs, and the tailpiece is not. I don’t know whether these came from US suppliers, but it’s reasonably likely that they did, and likely also that they were not all in one state. Ditto the bridge; ditto the ingredients of the glue and the varnish. (Including the cigar ash — the maker of this instrument apparently used the ash of his cigars for antiquing purposes. I don’t know where he got his cigars.) The tools used to make the instrument doubtless also came from all sorts of places, the wood and metal in them from yet others, the work table, from somewhere else. And it’s almost certain that in some point in the process, one of these articles moved from one US state to another one. You get my drift.
Oh, and then there are the strings: currently, one by a small artisan stringmaker in Oregon, the other three by a big stringmaker, ordered from a company in Arizona but certainly made somewhere else.
So my question to you, actus, is this: If the Federal Government should decide for some reason to take the perennial viola jokes seriously and ban private possession of such instruments, could they do so under the Commerce Clause, given that the parts of my instrument came from several states, even though my only commercial transaction involving the instrument was buying it, in-state? (I’m leaving out the strings, for convenience’ sake; also that it and I have taken part in a number of “commercial transactions” better known as “gigs.”)
Ordinarily I wouldn’t say this, but do take my flippancy as flippancy. In a climate where Alito can toss off a line about how turning housewives into lawyers might not necessarily be to the benefit of humanity and have it interpreted as an Insult to the Women of America, one can’t be too careful.
Cobra:
“By this legal reasoning, police should not be allowed to shoot (or, in Cobra’s formulation, summarily execute) ANY suspect, even if fleeing and even if armed, because by the rule of law, all suspects are INNOCENT until proven guilty.”
Except that there’s a difference between the proportional use of lethal force, for self defense say, and the use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect who may be armed, and the use of force on a fleeing suspect who is not armed and is not suspected of a violent crime.
actus,
Except that there’s a difference between the proportional use of lethal force, for self defense say, and the use of lethal force on a fleeing suspect who may be armed, and the use of force on a fleeing suspect who is not armed and is not suspected of a violent crime.
I agree with you. Except that I doubt that these things are easy to draw distinctions among in the moment. If you hear screams and see someone running top-speed down the street, you do not necessarily know what (if anything) he has done or whether he’s armed. He might be a peeping Tom; he might be a concerned neighbor trying to fetch help. Or, of course, he might be a killer. Good reasons not to shoot.
But as I said before, I’ve had my home broken into, and if I could have wounded the persons responsible, I d*mn well would have. I have never understood why people instinctively “get” the idea that rape is a personal violation, but don’t see that someone breaking into your house, sorting through your stuff, deciding what’s worth ripping off you and what isn’t, is exactly the same. These folks broke in in broad daylight. I spent the following year or two anticipating a stealthier return visit.
El blogero writes:
>>>”By this legal reasoning, police should not be allowed to shoot (or, in Cobra’s formulation, summarily execute) ANY suspect, even if fleeing and even if armed, because by the rule of law, all suspects are INNOCENT until proven guilty.”
The police have standards and guidelines to regarding the use of deadly force. An unarmed teenager climbing a fence, according to most available standards is not a “threat or danger” requiring lethal force.
>>>”Cobra’s main objection to Alito seems to be that Alito is racially insentive or even racist. If this is the case, shouldn’t the argument be along the lines of, “Alito ruled in favor of the police and against the fleeing suspects in cases where the suspect was black, but for the suspect and against the police in cases where the suspect was white”? Does this evidence exist? Was it presented by Cobra? No and no.”
Geez, El Blogero…John gets upset with the length of my posts ALREADY, and here you go wanting me to review in detail all of the ramifications of the racial aspect of the Alito case. Here’s what I will do for you though. As Michelle pointed out, Slate does an excellent synapsis of the case in question here:
Alito on Slate
Pay particular attention to the gist of the Alito’s argument:
>>>”Alito wrote in a cover note, referring to the 6th Circuit’s ruling. In a 15-page memo, he argued in favor of letting states give police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion whenever a suspect flees, whether or not he poses a threat. Alito’s memo is written with his usual dispassion. But he’s forceful in his belief that the Constitution has no role to play in a cop’s decision about whether to shoot an unarmed suspect. Alito’s memo is also striking for what it doesn’t say. In Memphis and across the country, cops were shooting black suspects at a far higher rate than white ones. (The evidence is collected in a 2004 article in The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science by Northwestern political science professor Wesley G. Skogan and University of Chicago law professor Tracey L. Meares.) Laws like Tennessee’s made it easier for the police to shoot unarmed black people, as Edward Garner’s father argued in his suit. Alito, however, ignored the racial undertones of the case.”
The fact that blacks are shot by police at a disproportionately higher rate is also demonstrated in Department of Justice findings, which show that young blacks are killed by police at a rate six times higher than similiar aged whites.
Again, I believe that people view topics based upon their own self-interests. I have no interest in seeing the “death-by-cop” toll of black people in America climb any higher than the unacceptable level it is today. It is yet another reason why I cannot support “Open Season” Alito for this nomination.
–Cobra
Actus and Cobra,
I think the proportional use of force and judgment arguments are exactly why Cobra’s “INNOCENT suspect shall not be executed” rule fails. The police will always have to use their judgment. The question for a court to answer as a matter of law is whether the police acted reasonably, not whether the police did what the judge thinks they should have done.
Judges should decide cases based on the constitution. The notion of determining reasonableness based on the extra-judicial factors mentioned above is a feel-good salve, but leads to standards that are impossble to apply (i.e., not okay to shoot fleeing, black suspects; different result with fleeing Asian suspects). That’s wild, weird stuff.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
And since Alito decided the above didnt apply in the shooting he is “Open Season” Alito who has no concern for this “death by cop”? That is a pretty idiotic statement from anyone. If the Feds decided to use the interstate commerce clause to pass a law against someone driving a 76 pinto with a jet engine strapped to the roof over 200 mph and I get busted by the feds for doing just that, then the judge I appeal my conviction to decides that this really isnt covered under the interstate commerce clause, you would state the judge therefor is FOR and ENCOURAGES such driving? There could be no possible chance that this mythical judge might be appalled by the act, but ruled based on his understanding of the law?
Buzz writes:
>>>”And since Alito decided the above didnt apply in the shooting he is “Open Season” Alito who has no concern for this “death by cop”?”
Absolutely. Here’s the passage again:
>>>”>>>”Alito wrote in a cover note, referring to the 6th Circuit’s ruling. In a 15-page memo, he argued in favor of letting states give police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion whenever a suspect flees, whether or not he poses a threat.”
What part of this passage don’t you understand? A person is a “suspect” based upon what? Heresay? Until an INVESTIGATION occurs, that’s the most prevalent scenario because most crimes are not eyewitnessed by law enforcement themselves. If you agreeing with Alito, then you believe that killing ANYBODY who evades, flees, or even WALKS AWAY from police is “reasonable seizure” then welcome back to the 18th Century.
Couple this with the FACTS about the disproportionate amount of police killing involving African Americans and the “Open Season” nickname for Alito fits right alongside the others he’s acquired, such as “Strip Search”, “Back Alley” and “Machine Gun”.
Of course, as I said before, those not among the target group being disproportionately shot and killed may or may not have the same sense of urgency as the person typing this post, who has to face the reality of interracial police confrontation.
–Cobra
Cobra,
This is what Alito’s memo has to say on the subject you raise:
Memoranda prepared by staff attorneys in the Civil Rights Division contend that the common law fleeing felon rule amounts to the imposition of punishment prior to an adjudication of guilt and thus violates procedural due process. See Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979). This argument seems clearly incorrect. If shooting a fleeing felony suspect is punishment, as this argument holds, then such a suspect may never be shot. Deadly force could not be employed even under the circumstances in which the Court of Appeals in this case and the Model Penal Code would allow its use. See Jones v. Marshall, 528 F.2d at 136 n.9. The flaw in this argument is that the shooting is not punishment under the criteria of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 91969. Among other things, it has not historically been regarded as punishment (at least not for the past few centuries) but as a means of arrest; and it is necessary and appropriate to achieve that purpose, at least in the circumstances here.
In other and shorter and less legalistic words, Cobra, the argument you advance would mean that deadly force can never be used against any suspect, because that person is only a suspect and the INVESTIGATION, as you call it, is yet to come. I don’t like police shooting petty burglars any more than you do, but your rule as you phrase it would rule out shooting someone who’d just massacred fifty schoolgirls. I mean, he’s merely a “suspect” until there’s been an INVESTIGATION and a trial, right?
Cobra,
Forgot to comment on this:
In Memphis and across the country, cops were shooting black suspects at a far higher rate than white ones.
We need to be careful here. Do you mean that whites fleeing a crime scene were far more likely to be shot than were blacks fleeing a crime scene, or do you mean that many more blacks than whites were shot in those circumstances? They aren’t at all the same thing (though they might both be true).
Have you a link to the study?
Oh, I ought to ad that actus might be interested to know that one of the three votes in dissent in this case (that is, in support of Alito’s position, which was reversed 6-3 by the Supremes) came from that famously moderate “swing” Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor. So at least so far as this case is concerned, substituting Alito for O’Connor represents zero change. We need to “preserve the balance of the court,” yes?
“The question for a court to answer as a matter of law is whether the police acted reasonably, not whether the police did what the judge thinks they should have done.”
Whats teh difference between the two?
In law, the difference between those statements is immense. There are always many reasonable things a person can do in any situation. All the judge has to determine is if the act chosen by the person was reasonable, regardless of whether the judge would personally have chosen one of the other reasonable alternatives (i.e., what the judge thinks the person should have done).
Michelle:
“Lawful Policing” by Skogan can be found here:
click here
Alito writes:
>>>”If shooting a fleeing felony suspect is punishment, as this argument holds, then such a suspect may never be shot.”
Hello? Listen to the man’s words. He’s advocating shooting and KILLING people who may not pose any threat. I don’t know how much more clearly this has to be explained.
A “suspect” is NOT a CRIMINAL. A “suspect” is somebody you THINK may have committed a crime. And a “felony” can constitute a number of violations, most of which are not CAPITAL OFFENSES.
Shoplifting can be a “felony” if the dollar amount of the merchandise you shoplifted is high enough (grand larceny)…”one IPod could be a misdemeanor…two a felony.” And of course, a police officer in PURSUIT of such a person would have no idea of what the total dollar amount is during the pursuit.
Alito writes:
>>>The flaw in this argument is that the shooting is not punishment under the criteria of Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 168-169 91969. Among other things, it has not historically been regarded as punishment (at least not for the past few centuries) but as a means of arrest; and it is necessary and appropriate to achieve that purpose, at least in the circumstances here.”
Listen to this man again. Killing somebody is certainly punishment. That person is deprived of LIFE…the ultimate civil right. Sure, a court may decide after the person is DEAD that the “suspect’s” killing was “justifyable”…You’ve heard the rhetoric–
“He made a false move”
“He was coming right at me”
“He had a wallet…” etc.
But Alito seems to be arguing here that the deprivation of life is NOT “punishment.”
That sort of thinking is TERRIFYING.
Michelle writes:
>>>I don’t like police shooting petty burglars any more than you do, but your rule as you phrase it would rule out shooting someone who’d just massacred fifty schoolgirls. I mean, he’s merely a “suspect” until there’s been an INVESTIGATION and a trial, right?”
There’s a difference there. A suspect believed to have just massacred fifty school girls would be considered “armed and dangerous”. A suspect believed to have stolen a new X-Box from Target shouldn’t get the same level of alert.
And another thing, lest I be accused of perpetualy bashing law enforcement. There are thousands upon thousands of good, hard-working LAW ABIDING police officers who follow the rules of engagement and successfully apprehend thousands of suspects every year without incident. Over the years, law enforcement has placed into custody, without incident all types of fugatives, drug dealers, serial killers, mobsters, rapists, terrorists and even Presidential assassins and attempted assassins.
So what’s with the allure of Alito’s Edward G. Robinson “shoot ’em in the back, see…nyah!” agenda to people on this blog?
–Cobra
actus, I think elblogero is right here. “What the judge would have done in the police officer’s place” is not the legal standard and could never be, because that amounts to holding every officer to a standard developed in the future in a random judge’s head. You can’t work like that. “Reasonability” is a vaguer standard (at least after the fact, when the judge has decided definitely what s/he would have done), but it does have the small merit of bearing some relation to what police actually do think about in a crisis. And in a job where a great many things are judgment calls, it’s a little unfair to call every disagreement a legal violation.
[snark] You’ll be wanting dissenting Supreme Court Justices impeached next. I mean, if a majority of the Supremes are against you, you’re obviously incompetent. [/snark]
Cobra, I’ll try again. Do you believe that someone merely suspected of being “armed and dangerous” should be subject to the death penalty? As “punishment”? Because if shooting a fleeing suspect in the back is “punishment,” you have just said that someoneone merely under suspicion should be punished by severe injury or death on the spot, without trial, if the alleged (i.e., not yet proven and adjuticated) crime is severe enough.
In other words, you disagree with Alito about what alleged crimes justify shooting a fleeing suspect, but not about whether shooting a fleeing suspect is “punishment.” Or else, you believe it’s right to “punish” people who are merely suspected of some crimes, but not yet found guilty. Take your pick.
As I have already said, I don’t think deadly force ought to be used against a fleeing suspect unless absolutely necessary (with “absolutely necessary” meaning something a little stronger than “But he stole three DVDs!”) But what I think and what the Fourth Amendment says aren’t the same thing.
Ow. Apologies for the “someoneone.” Some editrix, me.
“actus, I think elblogero is right here. “What the judge would have done in the police officer’s place” is not the legal standard and could never be, because that amounts to holding every officer to a standard developed in the future in a random judge’s head”
It was unclear to me what he meant, but now its clear. Ultimately a judge will determine reasonableness, on the thoery that that is what the judge would have done, something reasonable.
actus, that’s cute, but not helpful. What a judge thinks s/he would have done in a situation cannot be a legal standard, because there are many possible courses of action in a fast-moving event like your basic violent assault, robbery, &c. What constitute reasonable actions under the circumstances is another matter, and one that it’s, um, “reasonable” for a court to consider. The question isn’t whether the officer(s) did the right thing, but whether they made reasonable decisions in the circumstances — that is to say, decisions that were defensible given the state of things in the moment, so far as they knew them.
Sorry to spell this out so pedantically, but it seemed necessary.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Do you believe that someone merely suspected of being “armed and dangerous” should be subject to the death penalty? As “punishment”?
You’re confusing two concepts. First, I don’t believe that police officers should be in the “punishment” business in the first place. That’s the job of judges during the sentencing phase post conviction, or guilty plea.
Also, there are a wide variety of tactics short of lethal-force that police have at their disposal, not to even mention that a drawn weapon doesn’t always have to fired to act as a deterrant.
That being said, if a “suspect” is determined to be armed and dangerous still doesn’t permit pursuing cops to become lynch mobs or possies. The risk and threat level is certainly higher, but the caviat must be if the “suspect” presents a danger to the officer or civilians around him before shooting.
Again, all sorts of gun-toting suspects have been tracked down and apprehended without any shots being fired by police, so it’s not an implausible burden.
That’s what makes Open Season Alito even more disturbing.
–Cobra
I think the above discourse by Cobra proves the point: suspects should not be shot by the police ever because that would the punishment of an INNOCENT person (applying the Cobra rule that INNOCENT persons should not be executed summarily by officers because punishment is job of judges and juries). Also, the caveat doesn’t make any sense because even if the suspect poses a danger to the officer or civilian, he is still INNOCENT until he has an opportunity to present his defense at trial and should not be punished for posing a threat. He still deserves a chance to make his case at trial (maybe he has an affirmative defense for his threatening action or the underlying crime).
Maybe it would be better for criminals to know that under Cobra’s rule they cannot be shot while fleeing. The police have to shout, “STOP! . . . or I’ll run after you and bring you to a court for trial and potential punishment based on the verdict.” I wonder how that would work?
elblogero,
I wouldn’t put it quite as harshly as that. Cobra does come down where most reasonable people would: Police have to weigh the risk of killing against the risk of escape, and unless the risk of escape is imminent danger of other people being physically harmed, letting a suspect run without shooting at him is usually the right choice. (And also the usual one — contrary to Cobra’s implied contention, cops really don’t generally fire at fleeing suspects willy-nilly, because those that do end up, as here, in serious legal hot water.)
That doesn’t alter the fact that Cobra must agree that the suspect accused of multiple homicides is, legally speaking, every bit as “innocent” as the suspect that lifted a DVD from Borders until after a trial is concluded. Nor that he (or was it actus?) did call shooting a fleeing suspect “punishment” up-thread.
Michelle writes:
>>>”Cobra does come down where most reasonable people would: Police have to weigh the risk of killing against the risk of escape, and unless the risk of escape is imminent danger of other people being physically harmed, letting a suspect run without shooting at him is usually the right choice. (And also the usual one
I’d like to see the source on that Memphis data. I don’t remember very many instances of people being shot fleeing scenes – in fact, off hand I don’t remember any.
The purpose of Cobra’s ramblings throughout this post is to repeat the same old song and dance: Black men are in jail in such large numbers because of racism, or black men are shot fleeing crime scenes because of racism, or black men… etc.
No, Cobra, racism is not the cause of any of these syndromes. Black men are in jail in such large numbers because they commit the crimes, and they tend to get shot fleeing crime scenes because they commit the crimes.
And, your determination to find an excuse for these criminals is part of the problem. I’d suggest you stop offering black men these excuses.
The solution is for black men to cease committing so many crimes. The white community is not to blame for the ravages of crime in the black community.
Black men are to blame.
Cobra,
The Diallo case was a terribly complicated one. There was an article in City Journal dissecting the sequence of events. As I recall the CJ account, basically, one officer thought Diallo was pulling a weapon and fired, hitting part of the metal staircase and sending up sparks that caused a second officer to think there’d been return fire, &c.
“Tragic misunderstanding” doesn’t begin to cover an innocent man being shot at 47 times by four cops while attempting to show his ID. All the same, if the cops really did think they were in a firefight, it’s pretty obvious that they’d shoot back. It was the first shot that precipitated the whole thing, and the first shooter who deserved to be disciplined — even though, IIRC, that shot didn’t actually hit Diallo.
I have to look that article up again, because I don’t have a hard copy and it’s been many years.
Cobra,
It’s at
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_3_a1.html
and as I suspected I got the account wrong: One officer thought he saw Diallo pulling a gun, a second heard the warning and shot at Diallo three times, then fell down the stairs, whereby the other three not unnaturally thought he’d been shot and opened fire.
And it was 41 rounds, of which 19 hit Diallo. Nasty. Not a good way to die when you are just innocently opening the door to your own apartment.
All the same, it’s possible to be white and rural and unarmed and still get mistakenly shot. Cf. Ruby Ridge.
Michelle,
Then we’re on the same side of this discussion, as neither of us want to see the slaughter of people suspected of crimes without due process.
Open Season Alito opposes this viewpoint.
–Cobra
Cobra, you still don’t understand. The question put before Alito wasn’t whether shooting fleeing suspected thieves in the back was a good idea; it was whether doing so constituted an “unreasonable seizure” under the Fourth Amendment as incorporated under the Fourteenth to apply to the states. He thought it did not, and so far as I can see he was right.
“Due process” is in the Fifth Amendment, though it’s through the parallel clause of the Fourteenth that the Fourth is applied to state governments at all.
Michelle,
If killing somebody who is not a threat “reasonable seizure”, then give me an example of what “unreasonable seizure” is.
And remember, Alito didn’t say “thief”. He said “suspect.”
His memo is a license to kill “suspects” with impunity, and by statistics, they will probably be disproportionately black.
See the equation?
–Cobra
If killing somebody who is not a threat “reasonable seizure”, then give me an example of what “unreasonable seizure” is.
Who said he wasn’t a threat? Perhaps an investigation after the fact did. But that’s not what the cop faced. An “unreasonable seizure” in this context would be killing someone who can’t reasonably be perceived as a threat. Shoplifters cannot be. Maybe people who break into homes during the daytime can’t be, maybe. But people who break into homes at night not only can be, but should be.
Combine that with the individual’s refusal to surrender, and it’s hard to see why it was “unreasonable” to think he was a threat.
His memo is a license to kill “suspects” with impunity,
Of course it isn’t. Aside from your inability to see distinctions between reasonable and unreasonable, a larger problem is your inability to understand that the U.S. Constitution is not a condominium board. It doesn’t exist to specify and govern everything that happens in the country. Alito’s memo was about the scope of the U.S. Constitution, not about whether there should be any policies against such a practice or whether there should be state civil or criminal penalties attached to the behavior in question.
and by statistics, they will probably be disproportionately black.
As will their victims. Why aren’t you more concerned with them than with criminals? The fact that someone died is a shame. But he chose to burglarize someone’s home, and then he chose to run rather than surrender.
By the way, as long as we’re talking about the implications of the policies people endorse, your position argues that there’s a constitutional right (!) to flee from the police when they’re trying to arrest you. It’s ludicrous to suggest that the authors of the Bill of Rights were trying to create such a right, and it’s crazy as a policy. Why would you tell criminals that they have a license to escape from the police?
David,
One more time:
>>>”>>>”Alito wrote in a cover note, referring to the 6th Circuit’s ruling. In a 15-page memo, he argued in favor of letting states give police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion whenever a suspect flees, whether or not he poses a threat.”
A “suspect” is anybody who looks “suspicious” to many people. I know that from the time I was 13 years old walking down the street in Clark, NJ with another African American holding a bag. When a brown chevy Nova squealed up to us, my friend didn’t know what was up, and he ran. Turned out it was Clark police officers who suspected us of shoplifting at a local convenience store. I know this because one old cop stayed behind to admonish me about it.
Of course, we never did anything wrong that night. But in Alitoworld, the police should have been allowed to shoot my friend dead, and probably me as well, because I had the audacity to provide a stationary target for them.
Maybe you would like to live in Alitoworld, Dave.
I certainly don’t.
–Cobra
Cobra, there are three big problems with your response to me.
1) You say “>>>”>>>”Alito wrote in a cover note, referring to the 6th Circuit’s ruling. In a 15-page memo, he argued in favor of letting states give police the power to shoot to kill at their discretion whenever a suspect flees, whether or not he poses a threat.”
But you’re not quoting Alito. You’re quoting someone else’s paraphrase of Alito. If you want to fairly condemn him, it’s incumbent upon you to condemn him for what he said, not for what someone claimed he said. The memo is readily available.
2) You’re still missing the point. Alito’s memo was about what the Constitution should be understood to say about the subject. Alito did not discuss what the law should be; he said that the decision should be left to the legislature.
3) Alito was discussing a specific case. That involved an analysis of policy generally, but only factored into this specific fact pattern. The fact that sometimes it might be wrong for the police to shoot a suspect doesn’t mean that it was wrong in this case.
As for your anecdote, (1) shoplifting is a misdemeanor, so it doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion, (2) your comment about “stationary target” just shows how unserious you are about these discussions, and (3) don’t flee from the police. Duh. Think of it as natural selection.
David writes:
>>>”If you want to fairly condemn him, it’s incumbent upon you to condemn him for what he said, not for what someone claimed he said.”
Fair enough. Let his own words paint him as “Open Season Alito.”
From the Memo:
…”As noted before, a fleeing suspect in effect states to police ‘Kill me or let me escape the legal system for now.'”
…”Was there a seizure? In the first place, I’m not sure that the shooting of a fleeing felony suspect should be analized as a ‘seizure'”
Alito also uses common law from the 1790’s to justify shooting and by result, killing fleeing suspects.
The majority disagreedin the SCOTUS a year later in the SAME CASE:
>>>”A year later, however, the Supreme Court used the same case to set a firm national rule against the routine use of “deadly force” against fleeing suspects who pose no danger.
“It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape,” wrote Justice Byron White for a 6-3 majority in Tennessee v. Garner. “Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so.”
The Fourth Amendment forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures” by the government, and the high court said that killing an unarmed suspect who was subject to arrest amounted to an “unreasonable seizure.”
SCOTUS disagreed with Alito just like Cobra
David writes:
>>>”(1) shoplifting is a misdemeanor, so it doesn’t have anything to do with the discussion,”
For the third time on this thread, shoplifting (larceny) can either be a felony or a misdemeanor based up the value of the items shoplifted. Swiping one IPod is a misdemeanor. Swiping two is a felony. If you’re leaving it up to the officer to decide the value of goods a suspect may or may not have to be the determinant of whether a hail of lead should fly is NOT a world I want to live in. Apparently you beg to differ.
>>>”2) your comment about “stationary target” just shows how unserious you are about these discussions, and (3) don’t flee from the police.”
Even Alito in the 15 page memo suggests that there are strong arguments against his own stance regarding this.
Patrick Dorismond didn’t flee from an undercover cop trying to sting him on a crack buy and he ended up shot dead. Angel Baez didn’t flee and he was strangled in a choke hold by P.O. Francis Livoti. Abner Louima didn’t flee from police and he ended up receiving a severe beat down and a sexual assault with a broken broomstick handle.
A badge is neither a halo or a judge’s gavel, David.
–Cobra
…”As noted before, a fleeing suspect in effect states to police ‘Kill me or let me escape the legal system for now.'”
And that’s a simple statement of fact. What’s your point? Do you understand how legal analysis works? Here he’s raising the question, not discussing how it should be answered.
…”Was there a seizure? In the first place, I’m not sure that the shooting of a fleeing felony suspect should be analized as a ‘seizure'”
What’s your point? This has nothing to do with the question of whether police should shoot suspects. He’s discussing how the legal analysis should go — whether there’s a fourth amendment issue here.
Alito also uses common law from the 1790’s to justify shooting and by result, killing fleeing suspects.
You’re doing it again. Alito was not “justifying” it. He was discussing whether it was constitutional. You didn’t cite a single quote from his memo — because you can’t — where he says that he personally thinks cops ought to shoot fleeing suspects. What he said was that the situation called for judicial restraint — that if there is going to be a rule against it, the legislature, not the courts, should create it.
Yes, sometimes shoplifting can be a felony. Still, generally speaking, it’s hard to imagine that it’s reasonable to think a shoplifter presents much of a threat. So if a police officer shot such a person, a wrongful death suit or even criminal prosecution might well be appropriate. But that doesn’t make it a constitutional violation. Every crime or tort by the police is not a violation of the constitution.
As for the world we want to live in, you might want to live in a world where a felony suspect who is being arrested can punch the arresting officer and run away, and the cop’s only remedy is to yell “Please stop!” But I hope you’re the criminal’s next victim in such a world. (I don’t think shoplifters ought to be executed — but let us not forget that they are, in fact, criminals. Let’s have a little more sympathy for the shopowners and less for the shoplifters. The latter have a simple remedy if they don’t want to get shot: don’t shoplift. If they choose to ignore that, they have an alternate one: don’t flee once they’re caught.)
(Let’s not forget, further, that this individual was not a “shoplifter.” He was someone who broke into a home at night.)
Even Alito in the 15 page memo suggests that there are strong arguments against his own stance regarding this.
Which is because he’s intellectually honest (unlike you). He was presenting a legal memo to his superiors. His job is to analyze the issue, advocate for a particular approach, but present the counterarguments as well. (And to forestall your obvious reply: for the umpteenth time, the approach he advocated was not “police should shoot suspects,” but “the constitution doesn’t say anything about the subject.”) The fact that he did point out the arguments against his stance just serves to illustrate your own lack of honesty in labeling him “Open Season.”
Whereas I haven’t seen you even admit that there are any arguments against your position.
Patrick Dorismond didn’t flee from an undercover cop trying to sting him on a crack buy and he ended up shot dead. Angel Baez didn’t flee and he was strangled in a choke hold by P.O. Francis Livoti. Abner Louima didn’t flee from police and he ended up receiving a severe beat down and a sexual assault with a broken broomstick handle.
A badge is neither a halo or a judge’s gavel, David.
More lack of seriousness from you. None of that has anything to do with anything. We’re not discussing police mistakes or misconduct, which obviously occurs from time to time. We’re discussing what legitimate uses of force by police are. That people can be injured by the police even when they don’t flee does not mean that fleeing is a policy we want to encourage or reward.
>>>”So if a police officer shot such a person, a wrongful death suit or even criminal prosecution might well be appropriate. But that doesn’t make it a constitutional violation. Every crime or tort by the police is not a violation of the constitution.”
Who does the Constitution apply to regarding Search and Seizure if not law enforcement?
>>>”…”As noted before, a fleeing suspect in effect states to police ‘Kill me or let me escape the legal system for now.'”
And that’s a simple statement of fact. What’s your point? Do you understand how legal analysis works? Here he’s raising the question, not discussing how it should be answered.”
Are you denying that those are the words in the memo from Alito? Do you realize the implications? The appearance of police at a scene can generate all types of flight, from people actually doing something illegal, to innocent bystanders who don’t want to become involved. Open Season Alito argues with that line that anybody who evades police contact for any reason has forefeited his or her right to live, otherwise, YOU explain to me what ALITO’S WORDS HERE MEAN:
>>>”…”As noted before, a fleeing suspect in effect states to police ‘Kill me or let me escape the legal system for now.'”
You can’t spin this, David. You can’t change his quote into something innocuous.
And the Supreme Court agreed with MY position, not Alito’s, so you have to attack their understanding of legal analysis way before getting to me.
–Cobra