For example, current state-citizen tensions surrounding police killings of unarmed black youth and the failure to hold officers responsible for unlawful actions has roots in centuries of sanctioned violence against black bodies. Coates stated, “In America, it is traditional to destroy the black body—it is heritage” (Coates, 103). His searing recitation of Prince Jones’s death supports the claim. In Baltimore, Ferguson, and across the US, white police officers consistently are implicated and often exonerated in cases of racial violence against young blacks. The unaccountable officer who shot Jones was black.
The second main point of argument that the court listened to was based on the precedent case of Chimel v. California 395 U.S. 752 (1969). In Chimel, it was ruled that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the body of a person and the immediate area, to remove any weapons for officer safety. It is also reasonable to seize any evidence found in order to prevent it 's concealment or destruction. The Chimel case also was the base to the Search Incident To Arrest doctrine. On the point of officer safety Riley argued that the data on a cell phone could not be used as a weapon to endanger officer safety or to aid the arrestee 's escape from custody.
After luring the boy off the playground with bribery of buying him something from the store, one of the three suspects named Boone-Doty led him to an ally. At this time is when 9-year old Tyshawn Lee was shot several times at close range. The autopsy showed Lee had tried blocking one of the shots which took off part of his thumb. He also received shot grazes to
But the court in Schneckloth v. Bustamonte used a different test for consent searches and it’s the voluntariness test or totality of the circumstances. In this test knowledge to refuse consent is a factor but it is not a requirement the main requirement is on police coercion, this means that the officer did not force Alcala to search the vehicle. In this case Officer Rand asked Alicia to search the vehicle and he said sure this shows that did not use police coercion, because he voluntarily answer and submitted. It would have been coercion if Alcala said “no” and then Rand started saying things like “you’ve got nothing to hide let me search the car”. So the consent was voluntary because Alcala was not coercion into allowing the search by Officer
A popular story that has recently been in the news is the fatal shooting of 12-year old, African American Tamir Rice. In 2014, Cleveland police got a call that an African American male was at a nearby park waving something around that looked like a gun. The caller reported to the dispatcher that it could be a kid. When relaying the information over to police, the dispatcher failed to mention that the suspect was possibly a kid. When police arrived at the scene they ended up killing the little boy almost immediately after encountering him.
Tulsa police officer, Betty Shelby, shot an unarmed black man after his car was found abandoned in the middle of the road. Federal, State, and local authorities have launched investigations into the officer shooting. Tiffany Crutcher, the victim 's twin sister, has urged prosecutors to press charges immediately. Terence Crutcher was shot and killed after he ignored direct orders from the officers confronting him, and as officers thought he was reaching for a weapon. There was no weapon found on him, or in his vehicle.
On Target, Inc., 353 Md. 544 (1999) is distinguishable because in that case criminals stole firearms that were used in a murder from defendant. Byrne, however, fails to appreciate that the means by which the criminals came into possession of the firearms was not outcome determinative in that case. Indeed, supposed the criminals had purchased rather than stole the firearms at issue, and the well-established principles with regard to an individual’s liability for the criminal activity of a third party would nevertheless have still applied to compel the same result. Rather, the material fact in Valentine was that—similar to this case—was that the firearms distributor could not be liable for the criminal’s conduct unless the distributor had a means by which to control the conduct of the criminal. Likewise, in this case—irrespective of their prior relationship—the Co-Owners cannot be liable for Hannon’s criminal activities because they had no means by which to control Hannon’s
His attacker George Zimmerman- a neighborhood watch member- reportedly shot and killed Martin merely yards from his home. Similar to Trayvon Martin, Mike brown was an unarmed teenager who was brutally killed by police. “The fatal shooting of an unarmed black teenager Saturday by a police officer in a St. Louis suburb came after a struggle for the officer’s gun…” ( Mike Brown NY Times Article). Hundreds of community members gathered to peacefully rally for a better investigation of his death, and in response police brought K-9 enforcements and weapons, if that isn 't a despicable representation of police force, I don 't know what
The doctrine states that courts are bound by decisions held in earlier cases. However, I agree with the reasoning in Johnson, a court should be allowed to correct the effects of a prior court ruling if the ruling was badly reasoned and has a negative impact on society. The criminal justice system, which includes the courts, was established to control crime and enforce punishments on those who violated the law. Stare decisis should not apply to a court correcting a prior court decision, which consequences resulted in contradicting the establishment of the criminal justice
Two Palm Springs police officers were both shot and killed while responding to a public disturbance. John Felix, a twenty 6 year old resident of Palm Springs was the convicted suspect of the shooting, and deaths of Jose Gilbert Vega, 63, and Lesley Zerebny. When the officers arrived to the residence of John Felix, they tried to get him to comply with there orders to exit his home. After 10 minutes had past with no progress, and Felix opened fire on both the officers. Felix had said he would kill the officers, but the officers did not expect to be fired on behind the door.
But, you can’t always trust them, you can’t have this hope that they will always have a good influence and never break the law again. As you know, ex-cons had made a mistake, those who trusted them before might have thought that the person would make good choices, but it turned out that the person made bad choices and broke the law. So, that’s why ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. Ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. They Have already broken the law, so it is unfair to let ex-cons have the rights to vote again.
You mentioned in your post that whether the defendant is guilty or not, if they are violated by an officer then the violation needs to be put to light. What are some consequences for the defense attorney if he is caught not bringing evidence (that could alter a trial) to court? What are the defendants’ rights that are being violated by the officer? One of duties that is to be performed by a defense attorney according to America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System is to, “zealously represent the client’s interests within the bounds of the law.” If the defense attorney fails to recognize the violation of his defendants’ rights does that corrupt the duty that is supposed to be performed?
First, police officers are racism against on black people. The unarmed black people who noticed police officers are white and they killed black people more than white people. They are racism toward to black people because of their color races. “…black people are being killed by police at more than twice the rate of white and Hispanic or Latino people. Black people killed by police were also significantly more likely to have been unarmed” (Laughland, Swaine and Lartey).
There is a distinct pattern of police officers knowingly violating the civil rights of citizens in this country because they have been allotted the discretion to do so. That idea that police officers, are culturally conditioned to see minorities in a negative light and more often than not use their discretion to arrest, stop, question an unreasonable and disproportionate number of minorities and 99% of time they are never found liable or held accountable for their actions is a serious issue. People love to argue in favor of the "good cop" the defenders of freedom. The truth is the vast majority of the law enforcement officers in this country perform their very difficult jobs with respect for their communities and in compliance with the law. But this is not always the case.
On October 31, 1968, in Cleveland, Ohio a Cleveland police officer, named Martin McFadden, saw three men acting suspiciously around a jewelry store, which he believed they were casing a job. The officer, McFadden, walked up to three men and asked a few questions; afterwards, he proceeded to stop and frisk them. McFadden found a pistol in John Terry’s pocket, a revolver in Richard Chilton’s pocket and nothing was found on Carl Katz. The officer arrested Terry and Chilton for carrying concealed weapons and Carl Katz was sent free. Terry was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail.