Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Decision, Rules Cops Can Shoot Armed Suspects

AndrewBlake

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a University of Arizona police officer.

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a lawsuit brought against an Arizona police officer by a woman who was shot four times while she was armed with a large kitchen knife.

The Supreme Court sided with University of Arizona Police Department Corporal Andrew Kisela by a 7-2 vote in the May 2010 shooting, and determined the officer was entitled to qualified immunity.

The incident occurred when three university police officers responded to a home in Tucson for a call about a woman behaving erratically and hacking at a tree with a knife, according to Reuters.

When police arrived at the home, there were two women in the driveway, one of whom was armed with a large knife and appeared to be threatening the other.

Amy Hughes did not comply with officers’ orders to drop the knife, and she started moving toward Sharon Chadwick. Cpl. Kisela shot her as she was just six feet from Chadwick.

Hughes had a history of mental illness, according to the Supreme Court summary, and shortly before she was shot, she had held a knife to Chadwick’s dog and threatened to kill it.

Afterwards, Hughes filed a lawsuit against the police officer claiming he had violated her Fourth Amendment rights that protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. She was seeking at least $150,000 in damages, according to Reuters.

The first trial judge threw out the case and said Cpl. Kisela’s actions had been justified, but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that ruling and said Hughes had a right to walk towards somebody in her driveway while holding a knife, Reuters reported.

On April 2, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Cpl. Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity protecting him from the litigation because he did not violate any clearly established law.

The court’s decision was unsigned and issued without full briefing and oral argument, which was an indication that the majority of the justices found the case to be easy and require no explanation, The New York Times reported.

Comments (23)
No. 1-23
NTPD935Ret
NTPD935Ret

Finally one for the good guys!!!! I can not wait until California finally falls into the Pacific Ocean!

Goldbear5
Goldbear5

Amen!!! And good riddance!
Freeking liberal infested, cop haters!

pbm4jc
pbm4jc

That's 9th Circuit Court alright. I'll bet the 2 dissenting judges were Sotomayor and Kagan, two female liberal ideologues who lack bench experience. RBG at least has some common sense. I could be wrong.

Bob480hivolt
Bob480hivolt

Another example of judicial activism by the 9th circus court being overturned.

RunCop
RunCop

9th Circuit scumbag liberal pukes...another loss!!

Just-My-Thoughts
Just-My-Thoughts

Thank God.... What are the police to do when someone comes at them? Are they supposed to know they're mentally ill, just having a bad day? Cops are expected to be mind readers, shrinks, family, drug and alcohol counselors and give hugs and a nice chat before they can arrest anyone. People are responsible for what they do, mentally on or off, on or off drugs/alcohol, etc. Your actions come with a price.

LEO0301
LEO0301

I guess the appeals court thought it would be a good idea for the police to allow the woman to hack someone to death with a knife. This is what happens when you allow those without common sense to dictate laws.

Katarina
Katarina

Seems the 9th Circuit Court is past due for a collective mental eval., or they are functioning under the laws and constitution of a country other that the USA. Waste of time and money, as well as mental anguish for this officer.

SheepDog1
SheepDog1

Well said. All they ever do is delay the inevitable decisions the Supreme Court will make to correct their flawed way of thinking. Might as well just remove them from the bench.

Rving
Rving

Congress is responsible for the nut job unelected activists in the 9 th circus. They can break them up...Why won’t they?

Burgers Allday
Burgers Allday

It was Sotomayor and RBG.

Grannyb9
Grannyb9

The duty of these judges is NOT to dictate laws but to interpret and apply the LAW, not their opinion. If the woman would have hacked someone that person would have sued the police for not doing their job.

CaptCap
CaptCap

This is a great ruling for the good guys. Meanwhile, the California legislature is working diligently trying to limit officers’ ability to defend themselves in situations like this. Let’s hope and pray that sanity will prevail!

jericho777
jericho777

Amazing that when the mentally ill commit mass shootings the left wants legal law abiding citizens accountable for their deadly actions, and when there is a justified shooting of a mentally ill person trying to kill someone, they become protected by the left, the SOB want the cake and icing too, and then blame Conservatives for being to lenient, then to harsh, then too, well, face it, Liberalism truly is a mental disease of itself, why they are so damn protective f criminals and hate our peace keepers.

MarineDoc
MarineDoc

Finally a slap down to the ultra liberal San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

cspcapt
cspcapt

let's place the justices in the same situation and see what they would do

Mischa1
Mischa1

Mental hospitals are needed so badly...our mentally ill are walking around everywhere with no homes, no meds....these kids shooting up schools are NOT SANE people

mcw
mcw

Another horrid decision by the ultra-lib/anti-Constitution 9th Circuit that had to be rightly overturned (AGAIN) by the SCOTUS. Lord have mercy -- 7 years out of a good cop's life to get a "Constitution 101" decision.

tundra4x4
tundra4x4

The next case will be the Liberalfornia's loony left's law, Assembly Bill 931, where they want to make it a criminal offense for an officer to shoot a pos who has a toy, fake, BB or Pellet gun.


News

FEATURED
COMMUNITY