quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince I am not trying to excuse the police... the story is so outlandish there must be more to it don't you agree?

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it.

Nn, I really appreciate your reasoned attempt to parse the issues in this case but I believe you erred.

This is from Justice Alioto's Order:

On remand, the court should re-
visit the question whether proximate cause permits respondents to
recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to
secure a warrant at the outset.

1. Alioto does not link permission at the Main house to entry at the rear shack.

2. Alioto leaves open the possibility the Ninth can link the warrantless entry to proximate cause for damages. True the Ninth already awarded a nominal amount on the warrantless count. I don't know if there is anything that would prevent them to change the monetary award at remand. We shall have to wait and see.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it.

Nn, I really appreciate your reasoned attempt to parse the issues in this case but I believe you erred.

This is from Justice Alioto's Order:

On remand, the court should re-
visit the question whether proximate cause permits respondents to
recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to
secure a warrant at the outset.

1. Alioto does not link permission at the Main house to entry at the rear shack.

2. Alioto leaves open the possibility the Ninth can link the warrantless entry to proximate cause for damages. True the Ninth already awarded a nominal amount on the warrantless count. I don't know if there is anything that would prevent them to change the monetary award at remand. We shall have to wait and see.

quote:

By conflating excessive force claims with other Fourth Amendment claims, the provocation rule permits excessive force claims that cannot succeed on their own terms. That is precisely how the rule operated in this case. The Dis- trict Court found (and the Ninth Circuit did not dispute) that the use of force by the deputies was reasonable under Graham. However, respondents were still ab

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince I am not trying to excuse the police... the story is so outlandish there must be more to it don't you agree?

Butch

IDK, Butch. One cop yelled "gun" and the other opened fire. I don't think that is outlandish. What is outlandish to me is the police entry without a warrant and without cause to think a crime was in progress.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it.

Nn, I really appreciate your reasoned attempt to parse the issues in this case but I believe you erred.

This is from Justice Alioto's Order:

On remand, the court should re-
visit the question whether proximate cause permits respondents to
recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to
secure a warrant at the outset.

1. Alioto does not link permission at the Main house to entry at the rear shack.

2. Alioto leaves open the possibility the Ninth can link the warrantless entry to proximate cause for damhttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j7AO8TxDGjwJ:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-1977P.ZC+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=kmeleonages. True the Ninth already awarded a nominal amount on the warrantless count. I don't know if there is anything that would prevent them to change the monetary award at remand. We shall have to wait and see.

quote:

The supremes didn't reduce the rights of Mendez at all. What it did was tell the 9th circuit they used the wrong path to arrive at their decision. A path that made claims that could not succeed under established law. It didn't negate Mendez rights it just told the district court and the appeals court that there is established law and to use it. Of course it took several,page to get to that point and I'm not going to argue it by individual points, it'd take days, or at least hours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it.

Nn, I really appreciate your reasoned attempt to parse the issues in this case but I believe you erred.

This is from Justice Alioto's Order:

On remand, the court should re-
visit the question whether proximate cause permits respondents to
recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to
secure a warrant at the outset.

1. Alioto does not link permission at the Main house to entry at the rear shack.

2. Alioto leaves open the possibility the Ninth can link the warrantless entry to proximate cause for damhttps://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:j7AO8TxDGjwJ:https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/pdf/99-1977P.ZC+&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=kmeleonages. True the Ninth already awarded a nominal amount on the warrantless count. I don't know if there is anything that would prevent them to change the monetary award at remand. We shall have to wait and see.

in order to get a larger picture of the nuances you need to read graham

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Vince I am not trying to excuse the police... the story is so outlandish there must be more to it don't you agree?

Butch

IDK, Butch. One cop yelled "gun" and the other opened fire. I don't think that is outlandish. What is outlandish to me is the police entry without a warrant and without cause to think a crime was in progress.

That is exactly what is outlandish Vince... This is why i am saying there has to be more to the story

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The supremes didn't reduce the rights of Mendez at all. What it did was tell the 9th circuit they used the wrong path to arrive at their decision. A path that made claims that could not succeed under established law. It didn't negate Mendez rights it just told the district court and the appeals court that there is established law and to use it. Of course it took several,page to get to that point and I'm not going to argue it by individual points, it'd take days, or at least hours.

Specifically, Alito remanded to the Circuit Court and told them to pursue under the issue of entering without a warrant. The lack of warrant was indeed one of the issues ruled in favor of Mendez by the Circuit Court, and Alito concurred but threw out the provocation rule. Your comments above are sympatico with what I already noted but not as specific. Whether Mendez can prevail by claiming that entrance without a warrant was unreasonable AND the proximate cause of his injuries is problematic in my opinion unless the Court applies the analogy that evidence illegally obtained is tainted. I have little hope for that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirMetal

too many people are getting shot by cops going to the wrong address.

This no knock policy is pure bullshit and has to stop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The supremes didn't reduce the rights of Mendez at all. What it did was tell the 9th circuit they used the wrong path to arrive at their decision. A path that made claims that could not succeed under established law. It didn't negate Mendez rights it just told the district court and the appeals court that there is established law and to use it. Of course it took several,page to get to that point and I'm not going to argue it by individual points, it'd take days, or at least hours.

Specifically, Alito remanded to the Circuit Court and told them to pursue under the issue of entering without a warrant. The lack of warrant was indeed one of the issues ruled in favor of Mendez by the Circuit Court, and Alito concurred but threw out the provocation rule. Your comments above are sympatico with what I already noted but not as specific. Whether Mendez can prevail by claiming that entrance without a warrant was unreasonable AND the proximate cause of his injuries is problematic in my opinion unless the Court applies the analogy that evidence illegally obtained is tainted. I have little hope for that.

I agree to a point. Yes the entering without a warrant is both troubling and involved in this case. But, what Alito was saying is that the 9th didn't properly use established law while it looked at that part of its decision. Alito was saying the 9th applied the law improperly so remanded it back to them. Which doesn't mean that the outcome will change when the 9th applies the law according to established SCOUS law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirMetal

too many people are getting shot by cops going to the wrong address.

This no knock policy is pure bullshit and has to stop.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The supremes didn't reduce the rights of Mendez at all. What it did was tell the 9th circuit they used the wrong path to arrive at their decision. A path that made claims that could not succeed under established law. It didn't negate Mendez rights it just told the district court and the appeals court that there is established law and to use it. Of course it took several,page to get to that point and I'm not going to argue it by individual points, it'd take days, or at least hours.

Specifically, Alito remanded to the Circuit Court and told them to pursue under the issue of entering without a warrant. The lack of warrant was indeed one of the issues ruled in favor of Mendez by the Circuit Court, and Alito concurred but threw out the provocation rule. Your comments above are sympatico with what I already noted but not as specific. Whether Mendez can prevail by claiming that entrance without a warrant was unreasonable AND the proximate cause of his injuries is problematic in my opinion unless the Court applies the analogy that evidence illegally obtained is tainted. I have little hope for that.

I agree to a point. Yes the entering without a warrant is both troubling and involved in this case. But, what Alito was saying is that the 9th didn't properly use established law while it looked at that part of its decision. Alito was saying the 9th applied the law improperly so remanded it back to them. Which doesn't mean that the outcome will change when the 9th applies the law according to established SCOUS law.

Look again. Alito very specifically points the Circuit Court to the lack of warrant in his remand. He objected to the provocation doctrine which is not established except in the Ninth Circuit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termyn8or

This no knock shit, I agree. What's more it puts the cops at risk because if you start kicking down the door here, guns are coming out.

As far as no-knock, that is all a crock of shit, totally against the fourth amendment and as far as I am concerned any cop who does it is subject to summary execution at the door, upon which he did not knock.

But I tell you this, a gun is a way out. When it is all going down, you stick it in your mouth and pull the trigger. They don't like that because as long as you're alive they can get something out of you, or at least they think.

Done.

T^T

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The supremes didn't reduce the rights of Mendez at all. What it did was tell the 9th circuit they used the wrong path to arrive at their decision. A path that made claims that could not succeed under established law. It didn't negate Mendez rights it just told the district court and the appeals court that there is established law and to use it. Of course it took several,page to get to that point and I'm not going to argue it by individual points, it'd take days, or at least hours.

Specifically, Alito remanded to the Circuit Court and told them to pursue under the issue of entering without a warrant. The lack of warrant was indeed one of the issues ruled in favor of Mendez by the Circuit Court, and Alito concurred but threw out the provocation rule. Your comments above are sympatico with what I already noted but not as specific. Whether Mendez can prevail by claiming that entrance without a warrant was unreasonable AND the proximate cause of his injuries is problematic in my opinion unless the Court applies the analogy that evidence illegally obtained is tainted. I have little hope for that.

I agree to a point. Yes the entering without a warrant is both troubling and involved in this case. But, what Alito was saying is that the 9th didn't properly use established law while it looked at that part of its decision. Alito was saying the 9th applied the law improperly so remanded it back to them. Which doesn't mean that the outcome will change when the 9th applies the law according to established SCOUS law.

Look again. Alito very specifically points the Circuit Court to the lack of warrant in his remand. He objected to the provocation doctrine which is not established except in the Ninth Circuit.

Yes, Alito says that using the 9th provocation doctrine coupled with the lack of warrant artificially creates scenarios that aren't valid. That was my point. You did sum it up well while I was trying to avoid reading the legal doc again.

quote:

and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them.