Supreme Court Rules Cops Can Kill Non-Threatening People As Long As They Say They Were Scared

 In a ruling that will be used to a reinforce a disturbing pattern  practiced by police officers across the United States, the Supreme Court  has determined that officers who shoot non-threatening citizens are  completely justified and cannot face consequences for their actions—as  long as they express to the court that they feared for their safety. 

The case of Kisela v. Hughes  originated from a police shooting in Tucson, Arizona, in 2010. Police  Corporal Andrew Kisela heard a report over police radio about a woman  using a kitchen knife to hack a tree and acting erratically in public.  He responded to the scene with two other officers. On the other side of a chainlink fence, the officers saw Sharon Chadwick standing next to her car. Her roommate, Amy  Hughes, emerged from the house with a kitchen knife held at her side.  Despite the fact that the two women were standing at least six feet  apart, the blade of the knife was facing away from Chadwick, and Hughes  did not appear to be threatening her roommate in any way, all three  officers approached the fence with their guns drawn. 

Less than 60 seconds after Kisela saw Chadwick, he  opened fire and shot Hughes four times through the fence. After she fell  to the ground, officers jumped over the fence, approached Hughes and  placed her in handcuffs, and then called paramedics. It took just seconds for Officer Kisela to choose to shoot Hughes  multiple times, even though she had not broken any laws and she did not  appear to be threatening anyone. 

Miraculously, Hughes did not die from  the gunshot wounds she sustained and Chadwick was not injured during the  reckless attack. Hughes filed a lawsuit against Kisela, based on the claim that her  civil rights were violated during the shooting. While a federal district  judge ruled in favor of Kisela, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals  reversed the decision and argued that Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights  were clearly violated. 

The Supreme Court has now reversed the 9th Circuit court’s decision, and in its opinion  on the case, the court argued that there should not be a debate over  whether Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights were violated, because Kisela  should automatically be afforded “qualified immunity” as a police officer. 

“The Court need not, and does not, decide whether  Kisela violated the Fourth Amendment when he used deadly force against  Hughes. For even assuming a Fourth Amendment violation occurred—a  proposition that is not at all evident—on these facts Kisela was at  least entitled to qualified immunity. ‘Qualified immunity attaches when  an official’s conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or  constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known …  Because the focus is on whether the officer had fair notice that her  conduct was unlawful, reasonableness is judged against the backdrop of  the law at the time of the conduct.’”

As SCOTUS Blog noted, even if the Supreme Court judges believed that Kisela was guilty of violating Hughes’ Fourth Amendment rights, “Kisela  still could not be sued because any rights that he might have violated  were not clearly established—a key factor in whether government  officials enjoy immunity from lawsuits.” 

Even though Chadwick testified that she did not feel threatened by  Hughes or the knife in her hand at the time of the shooting, the Supreme  Court has chosen to side with the police officer who chose to open fire  within seconds, before taking the time to accurately assess the  situation. By supporting Kisela’s actions, the Supreme Court has essentially  given all police officers a blank check, which says that if they see a  person standing in the distance on her property, and she appears to be  holding a weapon in her hand, the officer has the right to open fire and  shoot her multiple times—as long as the officer maintains that he  feared for his safety, even if he cannot prove that the person he  targeted was threatening him. 

In a dissenting opinion, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued  that while the other two officers attempted to use verbal commands to  convince Hughes to drop the knife, Kisela made no attempt to de-escalate  the situation and opted to use deadly force instead.  

“Hughes was nowhere near the officers, had committed  no illegal act, was suspected of no crime, and did not raise the knife  in the direction of Chadwick or anyone else. Faced with these  facts, the two other responding officers held their fire, and one  testified that he ‘wanted to continue trying verbal command[s] and see  if that would work.’ But not Kisela. He thought it  necessary to use deadly force, and so, without giving a warning that he  would open fire, he shot Hughes four times, leaving her seriously  injured. Kisela did not wait for Hughes to register,  much less respond to, the officers’ rushed commands. Instead, Kisela  immediately and unilaterally escalated the situation.” 

It is no secret that police officers regularly get away with shooting  and killing innocent citizens in the United States, and they do so by  arguing that they opened fire because they feared for their safety. By choosing to support a trigger-happy officer who chose to put lives  at risk, the Supreme Court has made it clear that there will be no  justice for the innocent woman who received life-threatening injuries as  a result of the attack and that police will continue to get away with  targeting the mentally ill, and will face no consequences for their  actions. 

---

 We are the Free Thought Project — a hub for Free Thinking conversations about the promotion of liberty and the daunting task of government accountability. All of our content was created by our team of artists and writers. Learn more about us on our website thefreethoughtproject.com.