home

Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed Teenager Was Reasonable

by TChris

If a police officer doesn’t know why a suspect is fleeing, it’s reasonable for the officer to shoot the suspect to death and ask questions later. As you pause to consider the absurdity of that proposition, ask yourself why a government lawyer would consider it reasonable for an officer to shoot and kill an unarmed teenager who had just stolen $10 in a burglary. And then ask whether a lawyer who expressed that belief should serve on the Supreme Court.

As an assistant to the Solicitor General, Judge Alito weighed in on a case involving an officer who was investigating a possible burglary. The officer heard a door slam, then went to the backyard where he “shined his flashlight on a youth who appeared to be unarmed and who was trying to climb a six-foot-high chain link fence to escape.” The officer “seized” the kid by shooting him in the head.

The victim’s parents sued the Tennessee officer for violating their son’s constitutional rights. Alito reviewed the case when it reached the Supreme Court to decide whether the federal government should file an amicus brief in support of Tennessee’s position that it is always permissible to use deadly force to stop a felony suspect from fleeing.

The Fourth Amendment requires seizures to be reasonable, and Alito opined that the officer’s decision to seize the unarmed minor by putting a bullet through his head was reasonable. The instant application of the death penalty for a property crime, without the bother of a trial, didn’t appear to concern Alito.

"I think the shooting [in this case] can be justified as reasonable," Alito wrote in a 1984 memo to Justice Department officials. Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing, the courts should not set a rule forbidding the use of deadly force, he said. "I do not think the Constitution provides an answer to the officer's dilemma," Alito advised.

Alito advised against federal participation in the appeal because federal law enforcement agencies, unlike Tennessee, already had policies prohibiting the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects who are not known to be dangerous. Alito was concerned that the federal policies might undermine Tennessee’s argument. If the feds are capable of understanding that deadly force is unreasonable when the danger to others is speculative, the Court might wonder why Tennessee law enforcement agencies shouldn’t follow the same standard. Better, Alito thought, for the federal government to stay out of it, to avoid explaining the apparent inconsistency.

The Court used the case to announce a rule of constitutional law that has been uncontroversial, perhaps because it is so obvious:

"It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape," wrote Justice Byron White for a 6-3 majority in Tennessee vs. Garner. "Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so."

That Alito would have licensed the police to shoot unarmed teenagers is another reason to conclude that his views are too far outside the mainstream to permit confirmation of his Supreme Court nomination.

< Fitzgerald's New Filing: Who is He Protecting | Partisanship v. Professionalism in the Justice Dept. >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#1)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    So let me get this straight; A fellow who says "Because the officer could not know for sure why a suspect was fleeing, the courts should not set a rule forbidding the use of deadly force." and "Why do you keep bringing up the fact that this case involves the strip search of a 10-year-old child?" is even considered for the supreme court!? Killing teenagers and stripping young girls seems more like a pedophile fantasy than a nominee to the SC.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#3)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    We can shoot people in similar circumstances here in Texas. And "we" aren't cops, "we" are ordinary civilians. I happen not to like that law...

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#4)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    roy, I can understand why civilians are held to a lower standard than trained professionals.


    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#5)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Sailor, So a cop has less protection under the law than a citizen? Silly me, I thought we were all equal.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#6)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Yes but are there any cases where Alito argued against police actions? I would be very interested to hear of them. Putting this man on the SCOTUS will enhance police powers at all levels. Presumption of innocence is not in his vocabulary.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Gee, doctors are held to a higher standard than people w/o their training, engineers are held to a higher standard, anyone with specific training is held to a higher standard. Frankly Patrick, I'm a bit surprised at your POV. Aren't cops better trained, better educated, better people than folks who would shoot an unarmed child in the back? What would have been the charges against a homeowner who killed someone running away from his house after a burglary?

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#8)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Gee, doctors are held to a higher standard than people w/o their training, engineers are held to a higher standard, anyone with specific training is held to a higher standard.
    A higher standard of what? The law is supposed to treat everyone equally, no?
    Aren't cops better trained, better educated, better people than folks who would shoot an unarmed child in the back?
    I would hope so, but that training and responsibility doesn't come with a lessened protection under the law.
    What would have been the charges against a homeowner who killed someone running away from his house after a burglary?
    Can't say for sure, depends on the circs, but you can rest assured they'd be charged with something, just like the cops would. Prior to Tennesee v Garner, you could shoot a feeing felon in the back. It was legal whether it was right or not. And I don't necessarily disagree with the decision.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#9)
    by Lww on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Right on Patrick. You can't generalixe the police. Thousands of depts big and small, rural, suburban and city. Rverytime a cop chases somebody they get a rush of acrenaline that is controlled by the training and personality of each officer. Shouldn't the attention be on the criminal who flees and puts everyone in jeopardy whether it's from the speeding car they drive or the armed itchy-fingered policemen chasing them?

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    A higher standard of what? The law is supposed to treat everyone equally, no?
    the law does treat everyone equally, but you knew that already. the standard is, for everyone, cop or not: were you in immediate, life threatening, danger? shooting someone in the back is disposotive. clearly, they presented no immediate threat to your well being, cop or not. except in FL, where you can shoot someone if they look at you funny. professionals are always held to a higher standard, because they also have more authority. that doesn't mean they are required to endanger themselves more than others, just act in a professional manner. you can put the strawman back in the closet now patrick.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#11)
    by Aaron on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Yahoo it's the wild West! With Samuel Alito help soon everywhere will soon be like my home state. Down here in the good old FLA, they recently passed a law that allows you to shoot somebody... if they look at you funny. I kid you not, that's almost how broad this "Stand Your Ground" law is. If you feel your life is in danger, you have the right to open fire in public places... period. Which sounds like common sense... I guess. The idea being to lower the burden on the shooter. I've lived down here all my adult life, and I can tell you that people around here didn't need to have their burden lowered when it comes to shooting people. In South Florida there is no gun registration, all you need is proof of ownership ( like a receipt) on your person if you're carrying a gun around. It's also relatively easy to get a concealed weapons permit. Some years back legislators altered the law to allow anyone to carry a SideArm openly anywhere in public. They quickly rethought that one after I strapped on my six gun and started riding around the streets of Fort Lauderdale on my motorcycle. Cops would just laugh at me. Now I'll admit, I've only shot a few people over the course of my life, and most of them have lived. But when I get the urge to shoot somebody I sure don't need some pesky laws making me second-guess my decision to open fire in a crowded place with a bunch of kids around. (Tourist warning) It are coming to South Florida for your vacation along with the sunblock and your print shirts, be sure to include a flak jacket and your favorite assault weapon, otherwise you'll be at a disadvantage to the locals. Avoid looking Floridians directly in the eye or making any movements which could be construed as threatening, and be sure to have all your affairs in order before you leave home... just in case.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#12)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    cpivna, It's only a strawman if I debunk my own fallacious premise. If you'll read up the thread you'll see I questioned a premise made by two other posters.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    (off-topic, partly my own fault) Please read Florida's new law (PDF) before taking cpinva or Aaron seriously. The law regarding violent response to funny looks has not changed.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Professionals are treated differently under the law. If an ordinary citizen comes across an accident victim and doesn't help them, no charges. If a doctor, who has a 'duty of care', comes across the victim he HAS to help, or can be charged with a crime. Laws treat social workers, day care workers, teachers and yes, even cops, differently. And to reiterate, strip searching 10 year olds and shooting unarmed teenagers in the back is wrong, and a person who advocates it shouldn't be a judge, much less a supreme.

    Re: Alito Opined that Deadly Force Against Unarmed (none / 0) (#15)
    by Patrick on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:06:38 PM EST
    Yes there are specific laws for certain situations, but you cannot apply the same law differently to different people, that's all, and that was how I interepreted the comments made above. The situation was about shooting an unarmed juvenile. It does not matter if you are a professional, illiterate, cop, doctor, mom, brain surgeon or brain dead. (Well Brain dead might be a defense...)

    Well, we are talking about a civil rights suit here, right? We're talking about suing a government actor and or the government itself for violating the constitution, right? So, it's not about a double standard for a private citizen and for the police. The issue was not whether the police officer should be charged with a crime like manslaughter or murder, in which case I agree that private citizens and police should be held to the same standard. It was about whether or not he violated the 4th Amendment. There is no 4th Amendment protection against the actions of private citizens. It only applies to state actors. Am I missing something? And, seriously, this Alito needs to be stopped. It would seem there is no exercise of police power that is not reasonable to him.