No investigation, no warrant, and
Upon arrival the officers found no Nissan and no guns. What they
did find was a 3-year-old St. Bernard named Seven, who they
proceeded to shoot and kill in front of the 12-year-old girl who
was playing with her pet in the backyard at the time. According to
that girl, she watched one of the officers shoot the dog in the
head while it was lying wounded on the ground from two previous
shots.
And of course the department defended them. And a bunch of friggin' idiots on a jury said "No problem." Happily, however,
Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit rejected
that jury’s holding and ordered a new trial for the offending
officers. “There was simply insufficient evidence to warrant the
application of the exigent circumstances exception here,” the 2nd
Circuit declared in
Harris v. O’Hare. “Taken to its logical end, [the
officers’] argument would permit exigent circumstances anytime
there is a tip about illegal guns being located in a high-crime
neighborhood or city, and would allow the exception to swallow the
rule.”
Yank their qualified immunity and make them PERSONALLY pay damages. And charge them for the violations of civil rights and throw their ass in prison.
1 comment:
I hate to say this but I'm rapidly getting to the point where I would advise any policeman 'You should consider another line of work, because current cop policy is going to get you killed.'
Post a Comment