Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

LymphocyteLover

(5,644 posts)
Mon Apr 19, 2021, 07:45 PM Apr 2021

How the Supreme Court Gave Cops a License to Kill

Really good piece, please read the whole thing.

"As it is, Chauvin’s attorneys have taken to citing the 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor—and doing it so frequently that you’d think a man named Graham V. Connor told Chauvin he could get away with murder. In a way, that’s exactly what the case did. Graham v. Connor changed the use-of-force guidelines for police all across the country, allowing them to be more violent and homicidal.

To understand how one case has authorized brutality, you have to appreciate that our only real constitutional protection from police violence is the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on “unreasonable search and seizure.” “Unreasonable” was, naturally, poorly defined by the collection of white men who wrote and ratified the Constitution and determined that things such as slavery and genocide were totally “reasonable” uses of state power. Still, for most of American history, the Fourth Amendment followed a “reasonable [white] man” standard: The actions of the government, or its agents, were judged through the lens of what an average person would find reasonable.

In practice, this allowed for plenty of abuse. Victims of police brutality had to show that officers acted “unreasonably” and with malicious intent. As one can imagine, it was always hard for victims (or their surviving family members) to prove that a violently homicidal police officer intended to kill them. Before camera phones, it was nearly impossible to get white people to believe the cops acted like Black people have always said they do.

Graham v. Connor took this loophole and made it so big that whole police forces could simply saunter right through it. Instead of limiting police use of force to what a reasonable person might expect, the Supreme Court said that force could only be judged against what a reasonable “officer on the scene” would do. In the actual Graham v. Connor case, that meant the court found that a “reasonable officer” could slam Dethorne Graham’s head into his car and break his foot, because Graham was resisting arrest, never mind that he was a diabetic going into shock who was being detained on the suspicion that he stole some orange juice—which he did not."
https://www.thenation.com/article/society/chauvin-supreme-court/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the Supreme Court Gave Cops a License to Kill (Original Post) LymphocyteLover Apr 2021 OP
What year was this? El Supremo Apr 2021 #1
1989 TwilightZone Apr 2021 #2
K&R! SheltieLover Apr 2021 #3

TwilightZone

(25,471 posts)
2. 1989
Mon Apr 19, 2021, 08:27 PM
Apr 2021

As noted in the sub-heading and in the article.

"Derek Chauvin’s defense team is hoping that the 1989 Graham v. Connor ruling will be his ticket to acquittal."

"As it is, Chauvin’s attorneys have taken to citing the 1989 Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor—and doing it so frequently that you’d think a man named Graham V. Connor told Chauvin he could get away with murder. In a way, that’s exactly what the case did. Graham v. Connor changed the use-of-force guidelines for police all across the country, allowing them to be more violent and homicidal. "

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»How the Supreme Court Gav...