Here's a case out of the 4th Circuit yesterday, Henry v. Purnell:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/087433.P.pdf
Officer Purnell was serving a warrant on Mr. Henry for failure to appear for child support. Mr. Henry begins to run - Mr. Purnell means to pull his taser, but instead pulls his gun and shoots Mr. Henry in the back of the elbow. Obviously, it is settled law that you can't shoot a fleeing, non-dangerous, midemeanant in the back. But Mr. Purnell has the chutzpah here to still claim qualified immunity: he knew he couldn't do that, and didn't mean to do that, so he should be immune because his heart was in the right place (good faith). Really? Well, the majority on this panel agrees with him, over a rather uncomplimentary dissent. The analysis for these cases is supposed to be that of a reasonable officer. The majority discusses at length how the mistake was reasonable. Do you want that in your community? I guess it depends on who you ask - the shooter or the shootee. The dissent believes that shooting the non-dangerous man in the back while fleeing is objectively unreasonable on its face, no matter what the reason. I agree.
It gets even better. Officer Purnell has essentially no training on the taser. He wears it on the same side as the gun. He doesn't recognize the weight difference, the thumb break difference on the holster, the laser sight difference, on and on. Shoot a fleeing man in the back and don't take responsibility. Sure, there are not two sets of rules. To be fair, Officer Purnell immediately tried to help the man, apologized to him, and was generally a nice man on the scene. So what? He didn't have to assert the qualified immunity defense. He could've waived that. He could've been a man. He is personally being sued. His lawyers may not make arguments which he does not approve.
So here's where we need have all elected LEO (sheriffs). At the time of the next election, massive billboards and fliers need to be printed quoting from this officer's briefs arguing this was reasonable. I just don't think a community is going to vote for a sheriff who abides this type of thing. Why was this man not fired on the spot, the claim for damages paid, and responsibility taken? Is it really that hard? It's just money. It's not worth your dignity and integrity.
http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/087433.P.pdf
Officer Purnell was serving a warrant on Mr. Henry for failure to appear for child support. Mr. Henry begins to run - Mr. Purnell means to pull his taser, but instead pulls his gun and shoots Mr. Henry in the back of the elbow. Obviously, it is settled law that you can't shoot a fleeing, non-dangerous, midemeanant in the back. But Mr. Purnell has the chutzpah here to still claim qualified immunity: he knew he couldn't do that, and didn't mean to do that, so he should be immune because his heart was in the right place (good faith). Really? Well, the majority on this panel agrees with him, over a rather uncomplimentary dissent. The analysis for these cases is supposed to be that of a reasonable officer. The majority discusses at length how the mistake was reasonable. Do you want that in your community? I guess it depends on who you ask - the shooter or the shootee. The dissent believes that shooting the non-dangerous man in the back while fleeing is objectively unreasonable on its face, no matter what the reason. I agree.
It gets even better. Officer Purnell has essentially no training on the taser. He wears it on the same side as the gun. He doesn't recognize the weight difference, the thumb break difference on the holster, the laser sight difference, on and on. Shoot a fleeing man in the back and don't take responsibility. Sure, there are not two sets of rules. To be fair, Officer Purnell immediately tried to help the man, apologized to him, and was generally a nice man on the scene. So what? He didn't have to assert the qualified immunity defense. He could've waived that. He could've been a man. He is personally being sued. His lawyers may not make arguments which he does not approve.
So here's where we need have all elected LEO (sheriffs). At the time of the next election, massive billboards and fliers need to be printed quoting from this officer's briefs arguing this was reasonable. I just don't think a community is going to vote for a sheriff who abides this type of thing. Why was this man not fired on the spot, the claim for damages paid, and responsibility taken? Is it really that hard? It's just money. It's not worth your dignity and integrity.
