Roberts replaced Rehnquist.
Rehnquist is the effing idiot who wrote a decision that makes it so difficult to convict a police officer that it will never happen, or happen only in extreme circumstances:
snip
The court’s 1989 ruling in Graham v. Connor spelled out a legal standard that shaped how juries weigh evidence when considering charges of excessive force.
“The question is whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation,” Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote in the opinion.
“The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight,” Rehnquist explained in the opinion. “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
The word “objective” is important. It means a jury can’t take into account an officer’s subjective beliefs, including his prejudices and biases, when deciding if his actions were reasonable or not.
snip
Anyone who knows anything about attribution theory will tell you what a foolish decision this is.
This debacle can be laid squarely at the feet of conservatives.
Read the entire article. which I posted a few days ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/12/04/why-its-so-difficult-to-charge-police-officers-who-kill/
Cher
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read