3 ms·

If nothing else, the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment. It's probably also covered by the "unreasonable" part of "

If nothing else, the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment. It's probably also covered by the "unreasonable" part of "unread seizure." Either way, it is well within the scope of the courts.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment These issues are complicated. If you think something is fairly obvious, you are missing colour. (My feelings are different for a legislator.) My freedom to not get shot interferes with your freedom to be protected by police. Until recently, criminals were hanged by county legal functions. That line has shifted. Policing in America is too violent, but it is not apparent that it is illegally violent.
- XorNot 6y ago
  The problem there is that it's already been ruled the police do not have to protect you. So I don't know how you square that with the idea that someone has a freedom to be protected by police, who in turn are free to elect not to do that.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Our cops are with disturbing regularity murdering our citizens and robbing them on the highway. The majority of civil asset forfeitures are small potatoes stolen by cops without a charge leveled. We halfway between Western Europe and a corrupt former soviet republic.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    This is a great polemic, but irrelevant to the law. I believe we need laws prohibiting what’s going on. I don’t think we turn the courts into unelected legislators to do that.
    - caslon 6y ago
      Courts are already unelected legislators; the least they could do is enforce the Constitution.
    - DubiousPusher 6y ago
      And what does that mean? For 170 odd years the constitution has guaranteed people representation in court. But until Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, if you were broke, your chances of getting any kind of representation varies greatly from one state or county to the next. Finally, a fairly activist court decided to interpret that right as a specific literal individual civil right. And one of the most well known aspects of our court system is born. One which we tout every time we question the ethical qualifies of other countries. But why did it take so long. Why, when the court was less activist could this not be read literally and universally as we so clearly think it reads today. If it's just about," interpreting the constitution" and if there was some better time when judges knew their place, why couldn't they see it? You can say the same about aspects of the first amendment, the second, the fourth and many others. Practically everything we say is great about the American legal system and our civil liberties owes to a judge acting a bit like an activist primarily between the years of 1930 and 1970.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  All I'm arguing is that the court already has the right to rule over whether it's OK to shoot fleeing suspects. This isn't blurring any line, our constitutionally protected rights are being challenged.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    Also, the court has gone out of its way over the past 70 or so years to carve out standards protecting and empower police which aren't outlined anywhere in statute or the constitution. For example, Terry v. Ohio establishes a standard of "reasonable suspicion" which the court practically just made up. Another is Gonzales v. Raich In which the court decided the federal government can sieze, destroy and regulate marijuana grown for personal medical use because the 4th amendment allows the federal government to regulate interstate trade. And one person's personal supply would prevent them week my it on the interstate market. That's like saying the federal government can stop your grandma knitting a cap for your baby because it affects the interstate baby clothes trade. Talk about activist judging. That reasoning is two sizes too small. People like to believe there is an umpire at the end of the day that can "objectively" interpret law. It's why textualism and originalism have become so popular. The idea is comforting. But like most decisions everyone makes, the justices feel, decide and justify in that order.
    - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > Terry v. Ohio establishes a standard of "reasonable suspicion" which the court practically just made up Terry turned on the interpretation of the word "unreasonable."Prior to that, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which prevents illegally-collected evidence from being used in court, another interpretation, would have prevented a cop searching-and-seizing an M-16 on Broadway from arresting, charging and convicting its surreptitious holder. I think the Court erred in this. But it was far from wanton judicial activism. (Which to be fair the Court has engaged in.) > there is an umpire at the end of the day that can "objectively" interpret law Of course the Courts aren't objective. Law isn't code. That doesn't mean we can strive for them to be, as much as they can be.
- 8note 6y ago
  My freedom to be protected by the police includes being able to not be protected by the police when I don't want to. I don't think this freedom to be protected by the police is a thing
danjaco 6y ago
The real kicker here is "unreasonable." Cops shooting a fleeing suspect assuming that person is "dangerous" will be found reasonable. Cops shooting someone who talks back at them is already resisting arrest.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> the freedom to not get shot is fairly obviously protected under the ninth amendment These issues are complicated. If you think something is fairly obvious, you are missing colour. (My feelings are different for a legislator.) My freedom to not get shot interferes with your freedom to be protected by police. Until recently, criminals were hanged by county legal functions. That line has shifted. Policing in America is too violent, but it is not apparent that it is illegally violent.

XorNot 6y ago
The problem there is that it's already been ruled the police do not have to protect you. So I don't know how you square that with the idea that someone has a freedom to be protected by police, who in turn are free to elect not to do that.
michaelmrose 6y ago
Our cops are with disturbing regularity murdering our citizens and robbing them on the highway. The majority of civil asset forfeitures are small potatoes stolen by cops without a charge leveled. We halfway between Western Europe and a corrupt former soviet republic.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  This is a great polemic, but irrelevant to the law. I believe we need laws prohibiting what’s going on. I don’t think we turn the courts into unelected legislators to do that.
  - caslon 6y ago
    Courts are already unelected legislators; the least they could do is enforce the Constitution.
  - DubiousPusher 6y ago
    And what does that mean? For 170 odd years the constitution has guaranteed people representation in court. But until Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963, if you were broke, your chances of getting any kind of representation varies greatly from one state or county to the next. Finally, a fairly activist court decided to interpret that right as a specific literal individual civil right. And one of the most well known aspects of our court system is born. One which we tout every time we question the ethical qualifies of other countries. But why did it take so long. Why, when the court was less activist could this not be read literally and universally as we so clearly think it reads today. If it's just about," interpreting the constitution" and if there was some better time when judges knew their place, why couldn't they see it? You can say the same about aspects of the first amendment, the second, the fourth and many others. Practically everything we say is great about the American legal system and our civil liberties owes to a judge acting a bit like an activist primarily between the years of 1930 and 1970.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
All I'm arguing is that the court already has the right to rule over whether it's OK to shoot fleeing suspects. This isn't blurring any line, our constitutionally protected rights are being challenged.
- DubiousPusher 6y ago
  Also, the court has gone out of its way over the past 70 or so years to carve out standards protecting and empower police which aren't outlined anywhere in statute or the constitution. For example, Terry v. Ohio establishes a standard of "reasonable suspicion" which the court practically just made up. Another is Gonzales v. Raich In which the court decided the federal government can sieze, destroy and regulate marijuana grown for personal medical use because the 4th amendment allows the federal government to regulate interstate trade. And one person's personal supply would prevent them week my it on the interstate market. That's like saying the federal government can stop your grandma knitting a cap for your baby because it affects the interstate baby clothes trade. Talk about activist judging. That reasoning is two sizes too small. People like to believe there is an umpire at the end of the day that can "objectively" interpret law. It's why textualism and originalism have become so popular. The idea is comforting. But like most decisions everyone makes, the justices feel, decide and justify in that order.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > Terry v. Ohio establishes a standard of "reasonable suspicion" which the court practically just made up Terry turned on the interpretation of the word "unreasonable."Prior to that, the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine, which prevents illegally-collected evidence from being used in court, another interpretation, would have prevented a cop searching-and-seizing an M-16 on Broadway from arresting, charging and convicting its surreptitious holder. I think the Court erred in this. But it was far from wanton judicial activism. (Which to be fair the Court has engaged in.) > there is an umpire at the end of the day that can "objectively" interpret law Of course the Courts aren't objective. Law isn't code. That doesn't mean we can strive for them to be, as much as they can be.
8note 6y ago
My freedom to be protected by the police includes being able to not be protected by the police when I don't want to. I don't think this freedom to be protected by the police is a thing

danjaco 6y ago

The real kicker here is "unreasonable." Cops shooting a fleeing suspect assuming that person is "dangerous" will be found reasonable. Cops shooting someone who talks back at them is already resisting arrest.