https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/news/hogan-lovells-secures-rare-90-supreme-court-ruling-in-landmark-fourth-amendment-case
Boston, 21 May 2025 - A team led by Hogan Lovells partner Katie Wellington won a unanimous 9-0 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal case clarifying the Fourth Amendment standard used to evaluate the reasonableness of a police officer's use of deadly force.
@AThousandYoung saidThis happened a long time ago. The unarmed driver decided to drive away from the traffic stop and the officer killed him arguing that he feared for his life.https://www.hoganlovells.com/en/news/hogan-lovells-secures-rare-90-supreme-court-ruling-in-landmark-fourth-amendment-case
Boston, 21 May 2025 - A team led by Hogan Lovells partner Katie Wellington won a unanimous 9-0 victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in a pivotal case clarifying the Fourth Amendment standard used to evaluate the reasonableness of a police officer's use of deadly force.
Judges need judgement, and this is about the easiest case to test that. Any judge who saw this case and thought, yeah the officers action to use lethal force was justified should be fired.
@wildgrass saidYou left out that the actions of the cretin gave her no choice but to shoot to kill.
This happened a long time ago. The unarmed driver decided to drive away from the traffic stop and the officer killed him arguing that he feared for his life.
Judges need judgement, and this is about the easiest case to test that. Any judge who saw this case and thought, yeah the officers action to use lethal force was justified should be fired.
It’s oK, I still side with you, not 8 learned judges and one other judge who could not define ‘what a woman is”.
Jesus. The forum. What comedy. Libs know not humor, but, they know comedy. Send us another.
@AverageJoe1 saidYou mischaracterize. That judge chose not to answer the question.
You left out that the actions of the cretin gave her no choice but to shoot to kill.
It’s oK, I still side with you, not 8 learned judges and one other judge who could not define ‘what a woman is”.
Jesus. The forum. What comedy. Libs know not humor, but, they know comedy. Send us another.
Remember when all those trump appointed judges were asked about roe v. Wade and all of them lied?
@wildgrass saidRight. If I ask you what a dog is, and you answer the question, and then I asked you what a woman is, and you do not answer the question, you are able to define one but not the other. If you were being interviewed as she was for high office, you would be regarded as notdefining what a woman is!!!!
You mischaracterize. That judge chose not to answer the question.
Remember when all those trump appointed judges were asked about roe v. Wade and all of them lied?
You become more like the evasive Marauder every day, and I sense pent up anger. If we take the midterms, I fear the forum will spiral upward rather than into an abyss.
Amazing how y’all are not ‘right on’ with issues.
Ask ME a question.
Funny, they took her anyway, which started the ANTI-DEI movement!!!!!
Hey….all 9 judges lied? Do a thread, don’t remember that, I think actually ‘interpreted’ not lied.
Didn’t need to, just quoted the constitution.
@AverageJoe1 saidWe asked this forum years ago how to define a woman and none of you conservatives answered the question either.
Right. If I ask you what a dog is, and you answer the question, and then I asked you what a woman is, and you do not answer the question, you are able to define one but not the other. If you were being interviewed as she was for high office, you would be regarded as notdefining what a woman is!!!!
You become more like the evasive Marauder every day, and I sense pent ...[text shortened]... r that, I think actually ‘interpreted’ not lied.
Didn’t need to, just quoted the constitution.
@wildgrass saidWhatever. She be SCOTUS judge. AAA-DEI.
We asked this forum years ago how to define a woman and none of you conservatives answered the question either.
@AverageJoe1 saidLol. A SCOTUS judge might be considered smart for not overreaching on his or her expertise during a confirmation hearing.
Whatever. She be SCOTUS judge. AAA-DEI.
The person who ask that question couldn't even answer it herself. A reporter later asked ted Cruz who was in the hearing and he had to look it up in the dictionary.
@wildgrass saidOh yeah Kamala said she would not do anything different than Biden did if she were president!!!!!! OK your turn to write some some faeried flourished stupid crap.
Lol. A SCOTUS judge might be considered smart for not overreaching on his or her expertise during a confirmation hearing.
The person who ask that question couldn't even answer it herself. A reporter later asked ted Cruz who was in the hearing and he had to look it up in the dictionary.
The woman would/could not define what a woman is. Get over it. You lose another.
@AverageJoe1 saidPlease enumerate all actiuons that made "kill" necessary,
You left out that the actions of the cretin gave her no choice but to shoot to kill.
@Ponderable saidI was not there.
Please enumerate all actiuons that made "kill" necessary,
I do not know the facts.
I see no reason for your lib-laced question when the defendant was exonerated by people who studied every facet of the case.
Only Sonhouse gets to make such decisions, exhibiting, for instance, full knowledge of why Trump does things. You and I do not have that innate ability.
@wildgrass saidHa, I missed that. You said that she did not overreach. hahaha
Lol. A SCOTUS judge might be considered smart for not overreaching on his or her expertise during a confirmation hearing.
The person who ask that question couldn't even answer it herself. A reporter later asked ted Cruz who was in the hearing and he had to look it up in the dictionary.
If you ask me to define a car, give me an example of 'not overreaching' when responding. You libs are totally succumbed to TDS.
To defeat oneself by seeking to say too much. So, to 'temper' her answers juuuussstt enough to avoid getting trapped?
Or, be honest and say I cannot answer it. I think even sonhouse could answer and he is not a scientist.
@AverageJoe1 saidIt was you I quoted by
I was not there.
I do not know the facts.
I see no reason for your lib-laced question when the defendant was exonerated by people who studied every facet of the case.
Only Sonhouse gets to make such decisions, exhibiting, for instance, full knowledge of why Trump does things. You and I do not have that innate ability.
You left out that the actions of the cretin gave her no choice but to shoot to kill.
So I naturally assumed that you knew facts.
You corected yourself by knowing nothing. That is okay for me.
1 edit
@Ponderable saidOh god another word-play gamer on the Forum.
It was you I quoted byYou left out that the actions of the cretin gave her no choice but to shoot to kill.
So I naturally assumed that you knew facts.
You corected yourself by knowing nothing. That is okay for me.
Are you into gotchas too?
Hey I sure am glad Trump is doing what he’s doing, given that Caracas is only about 1000 miles away from Florida where I love to bask in the sunshine free from threat. Give them hell Trump. All of those countries need someone like Trump to tie all the problems together and correct them. Not unlike a president of thr United States overseeing 50 states.
Who better but Trump to handle global corrections. Or are you like marauder who thinks nothing should be corrected.
Oh, I’m sorry that is not the issue of this thread. Your issue is more important.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe issue of the thread is a Supreme Court decision, or how would you interpret the title. It had nothing to do with Trump or Venezuela until you wrote about it.
Oh god another word-play gamer on the Forum.
Are you into gotchas too?
Hey I sure am glad Trump is doing what he’s doing, given that Caracas is only about 1000 miles away from Florida where I love to bask in the sunshine free from threat. Give them hell Trump. All of those countries need someone like Trump to tie all the problems together and correct them. Not unlike ...[text shortened]... uld be corrected.
Oh, I’m sorry that is not the issue of this thread. Your issue is more important.
You were the one claiming that the policeperson in question was forced to kill, but you didn't know anything.
So you demonstrate at least your unwillingness to read and mots probablity your inability to understand anything written.