Police

This Cop Wants Qualified Immunity for Fatally Shooting a Passenger in a Fleeing Vehicle

The unfolding legal saga of City of Hayward v. Stoddard-Nunez

|

On March 3, 2017, in Hayward, California, Officer Manuel Troche fired nine bullets at the fleeing vehicle of a suspected drunk driver, killing a passenger named Shawn Joseph Jetmore Stoddard-Nunez. An excessive force lawsuit filed by the dead man's brother has become the latest front in the ongoing legal battle over the controversial doctrine of qualified immunity.

The brother, Jessie Stoddard-Nunez, suffered an early defeat at the hands of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which said in 2018 that even if Troche was guilty of using excessive force, he was still shielded from being sued because that potential misdeed did not violate "clearly established" law. Under the U.S. Supreme Court's qualified immunity doctrine, police officers (and other state actors) are entitled to immunity from civil suits arising from their official conduct so long as the conduct that they're being sued over "does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights."

Stoddard-Nunez then appealed that loss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which took a different view of the matter in 2020. "At the time of the incident," the appeals court noted, "it was clearly established that officers are not entitled to qualified immunity for shooting at an individual in a fleeing vehicle that does not pose a danger to them or to the public."

The 9th Circuit also cast serious doubt on the reliability of the officer's account of the incident. For example, Troche claimed that he only fired at the vehicle when it veered straight at him. But "the coroner noted that the fatal bullet entered Shawn's right shoulder and passed through the side of his neck," the 9th Circuit pointed out, and "photographs of the front and rear passenger doors of the Honda Civic show bullet holes in the side and rear of the car."

Who to believe? The 9th Circuit said that it should be left up to a jury to weigh the evidence. "A reasonable trier of fact could examine the photographs and conclude that Officer Troche fired his gun from the side and rear of Parkman's car," the court said. And "a jury could conclude that at least one of the photographs depicts bullet holes inconsistent with Officer Troche's account that he fired his gun at only the front of the car." In other words, let the lawsuit proceed to trial.

The saga is not over yet. Last month, Troche and the city of Hayward petitioned the Supreme Court to reverse the 9th Circuit's decision, asserting that the appeals court failed "to provide anything more than lip service to this Court's" qualified immunity precedents.

The Supreme Court receives somewhere around 7,000–8,000 such petitions each term. We'll find out sometime in the coming months if it decides to take this one up.

NEXT: Larry Flynt Made the World Freer for Everybody by Pushing Boundaries

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Shooting at someone for a DWI? Is there more to this?

    1. I quit working at shoprite and now I make $65-85 per/h. How? I’m working fdss online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier.

      Here’s what I do…….. Visit……….. Visit Here

      1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
        on this page……..VISIT HERE

    2. you underestimate just how trigger happy cops can be.

      1. Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…
        You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.
        You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection…VCdw Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom… You can have your first check by the end of this week…

        Lifetime Opportunity This is what I do——STUDENT ONLINE JOBS USA

    3. Hence the cop’s “the car veered at me” claim.

      1. —Anyone Needing An Extra Income—

        After I was fired from my old job 4 months ago, I had the chance to learn about this amazing company online, which is a life saver for me …
        They offer online home-based jobs simply hired. After working with them 3-4 hours a day, my first month payment is 16 485 €.
        The great thing was that the only BGik requirements for the job were simple typing and reliable internet.
        If you think this might be for you, learn more here.

        Just follow instructions on home page.——Part Time Work Opportunity

  2. …asserting that the appeals court failed “to provide anything more than lip service to this Court’s” qualified immunity precedents.

    You’re only allowed to do that with Heller.

    1. I get paid 95 $ each hour for work at home on my PC. I never thought I’d have the option to do it however my old buddy is gaining 65k$/month to month by carrying out this responsibility and she gave me how. . . . .Give it a shot on following website……USA JOBS

  3. Lip service in the form of bullet holes to the side and rear of the fleeing vehicle showing the cop to have lied. Perjury next? So truly the wrong guy was shot.
    The driver, being drunk, could be endangering the public. Why not have that as part of this article?

    1. Should we shoot people that are speeding too?

      1. Wise up. Pigs gonna kill.

        1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection…JHn Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week…

          Lifetime Opportunity This is what I do… JOBS APP

    2. Where are all the cowboys supposed to go now that we care about negligent discharges?

      I thought this was America.

    3. Is it your contention that it would have been an ok shoot to prevent a *theoretical* threat to public safety?

      Ie, if the passenger had not been there and there was no other danger to bystanders from the cop’s shots, the LEO would have been justified to shoot in order to stop the guy because he might, at some indefinite time in the near future, harm someone?

      Personally, I’m thinking that if there was no bystander to be in danger from the cop’s shooting then there was not sufficiently imminent danger to innocent parties to justify shooting at all.

      1. Isn’t it a crime to drive drunk because it is a threat to public safety? I can’t think of any other reason it would be.

        1. Is the penalty ‘summary execution’?

    4. “could be”

      That’s why.

    5. “The driver, being drunk, could be endangering the public.” the policeman didn’t articulate this. His justification for shooting into the vehicle was it was heading in a direction that endangered him. CA has for years had the policy for police to not shoot into moving vehicles except in extreme cases where the vehicle posses an immediate threat to persons not in the vehicle. From the forensic evidence the Alameda county DA should have arrested him for murder & obstruction of justice. Or the DA should have recused the DA’s office from the case & kicked it up to the CA AG’s office. The 9th Circus got this one right.

  4. Reckless spraying of bullets at a fleeing car? This police officer posed an extreme danger to anyone and everyone in the vicinity. Glad tht the higher court has some common sense.

  5. Still no articles in Reason about the anonymous Capitol Police officer who shot and killed unarmed Ashlee Babbitt.

    And no Reason articles revealing the month long lie (all over the international media) that Brian Sicknick was killed after being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher on Jan 6.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/02/the-times-corrects-the-record-on-officer-sicknicks-death-sort-of/

    1. What would any Reason writer have to say about Babbit? It was an easily justifiable shooting. There are no interesting legal issues involved.
      As for Sicknick, the media was reporting the information that it had. The NYTimes does not have access to the body. His true cause of death will come out eventually, but the particular method that the protesters used to kill him is not relevant.

      1. True cause? Don’t be naive.

        Everybody knows Sicknick had his head mercilessly pureed by a Trump dick sucker wielding a fire extinguisher, Negan style (for all the Walking Dead fans out there).

        It was so clear. No autopsy was even needed.

      2. The protesters didn’t kill him though.

        It looks like maybe the stress of that day did – but that could have been triggered by anything.

      3. What would any Reason writer have to say about Babbit? It was an easily justifiable shooting. There are no interesting legal issues involved.

        BLM WAS WORSE! WHY ARE YOU GIVING BLM A PASS?!?!?!

        1. And even sarcasmic defends the killing of unarmed women if they believe mean tweets.

      4. An investigation into police shootings is standard procedure in every podunk town in the country and usually Reason is there to critique the process. Here we have a federal cop fatally shooting an unarmed woman with no investigation whatsoever and Reason doesn’t give a shit. You’ve decided that this was a “good shoot” based entirely on your antipathy to anyone who doesn’t share your political views. Excuse me if I don’t find your argument persuasive. Asshole.

        1. There is most defiantly an investigation, but the final results are not public yet.

      5. Trespassing is a justifiable shooting? In a public building? LOL. All the leftists seem to agree.

        chemjeff radical individualist
        February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
        What is there to talk about?

        From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

        They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

      6. But you are going to assume that he was killed by protesters. You people are sbdolutely disgusting, celebrating the needless killing of a protester and refusing to deviate from your narrative that the mob at the capitol was “murderous”. The only murder that happened there was Babbit’s. I have no love for what happened on Jan 6, but your take is despicable and sickening.

      7. Weird, because they described the bloody gash the officer had as he was rushed to the hospital.

        1. And yet, the doctors who examined him said he showed no signs of trauma. Perhaps you missed it. The NYT took pains that you would.

          https://www.theblaze.com/news/nyt-quietly-updates-brian-sicknick-death

      8. “What would any Reason writer have to say about Babbit? It was an easily justifiable shooting. There are no interesting legal issues involved.”

        So, 2nd degree murder of an unarmed tresspasser by a federal police officer is not “interesting”?

    2. She did an insurrection and deserved to die, on the spot. If she hadn’t been killed, Babbitt would have decapitated AOC and paraded around town with her head on a pike. It is clear. She needed to be stopped. The government has to kill people for trespassing. It’s essential.

      1. She was also breaking and entering which I’ve always held as a legal defense to fire at the scumbag breaking and entering. Of course that held belief was formed from people defending their home from intrusion. I’d need to hear some compelling reasons why I should amended that belief, though.

        1. The home she was breaking into was hers?

          1. No. It wasn’t. Which is why she was shot by the person defending that place.

            1. BLM STORMED FEDERAL BUILDINGS WHICH WAS WORSE! WHY ARE YOU GIVING BLM A PASS!

              1. The fuck are you blathering about?

                1. BLM was worse, and Reason isn’t complaining about it. That totally excuses the cop killing that woman who was climbing over a barricade in the face of a cop telling her to stop. I mean, look at what BLM did! Did you sufficiently denounce it? Can you point to thirty quotes where you denounced it in an outrageous fashion. If you didn’t then you support the riots and have no business talking about the shooting of that unarmed woman. Because BLM was worse.

                  1. Cops didn’t kill BLM protesters so Reason didn’t cover something that didn’t happen. The fuck does that have to do with Ashli Babbitt?

                    1. She is a true martyr to the Trump militia.

                      Let us all sit now and remember Ashli Babbitt. Don’t confuse her with Lorena Bobbitt. It’s Babbitt. She was a true patriot. She stormed the Capital to Prevent The Steal, and alas was murdered by evil Nazi guards. But her spirit will live on.

                  2. We get it. You are glad Babbitt was killed. Your reckoning is well underway, and the people that will line you up against the wall are the same assholes whose water you carry, day after day after day after day.

                  3. Whether or not BLM was worse, the media and political hypocrisy on this is just astonishing.

                    1. Really? I guess.

              2. So again, sarcasmic thinks cops can shoot unarmed protestors if they trespass. Good to know. Saving for later.

                1. She was not shot because the was trespassing, she was shot because she was about to enter an area were many members of Congress were. Had the rioters got there they would have had access to the members of Congress and given they were shouting that they wanted to kill them, it was justifiable to shoot her to stop them.

                  1. If Babbitt wasn’t shot in the face right then and there, she would have broken through the doors and literally murdered AOC, who we all know was right there, watching everything unfold before her eyes.

                    1. Kinda. The police officer who shot her thought that her and the rioters behind her would have hurt or killed members of Congress if they breached that barricade. And his fear was very justified.

                    2. Yea, you’re “kinda” retarded.

                  2. If they were after the members of Congress shouldn’t they have done like the left does and visited their homes and families?

                    1. I suspect that the members of Congress would have preferred that the rioters stand out on the streets and yell at them rather then try to kill them in the capital.

                  3. “Kinda. The police officer who shot her thought that her and the rioters behind her would have hurt or killed members of Congress if they breached that barricade. And his fear was very justified.”

                    You know who was behind her? The four to six tactical-uniformed Capitol police officers who, about 2 minutes before she was shot, move from in front of the doorway to the Speaker’s Lobby, to the stairway adjacent to the hallway that leads to the Speaker’s Lobby.
                    These officers were so close to Babbitt that if her murderer had missed Babbitt, the shot might easily have hit one of these officers. These officers did not seem to think it was justified to shoot her, because they did not.

                    You know who was in front of her, down the hall in the Speaker’s Lobby? 2-4 more plainclothes Capitol police officers. Some had guns drawn, yet none of them thought it was justified to shoot her, because they did not.

                    Only one Capitol police officer thought he should shoot her.

                    When 7-11 fully armed cops see the same act and only one shoots, it’s a BAD SHOOT.

            2. Yes it was her house. It is “the people’s house”. Which is why it’s hard to get my blood up about an occupying protest within said house.

              Again, I have stayed mostly quiet about the circumstances surrounding her shooting because I concede that under the totality of the circumstances, it may have been justified.

              And to just pile on, it’s also doubly important to note that hers was THE ONLY violent death in the whole entire affair, so when we say “deadly attack” it’s important know to whom it was deadly.

              And to further pile on, I was also informed, carefully, by smart, college educated folks with only my best interests at heart, that ANY unarmed protesters injured, let alone killed during a demonstration is a human tragedy on a scale exceeding that of Hitler’s Final Solution.

              1. This is a completely insane to call the death of one person who was attacking the capital worse then the Holocaust.

          2. What if she was an illegal alien. You know, without papers. Then it wouldn’t be her house because she wouldn’t be a citizen. The lack of paperwork would change that cop from a criminal into a hero!

            1. She was not shot because the was trespassing.

        2. In many states, using deadly force against a home intruder that has not threatened an occupant with deadly force is prosecuted as murder. So, you should probably temper your perspective on that ground alone.

          But, also, because the Capitol is not a private residence. The people occupying the Capitol at any given time do not live there. Comparing the Capitol building to somebody’s private residence is absurd on its face.

          1. In many states, using deadly force against a home intruder that has not threatened an occupant with deadly force is prosecuted as murder

            Not in my state.

            My state does not require you to ascertain the mind-state, intentions, and capabilities of someone trying to climb through your window while an angry mob bangs on the door.

            FFS, I actually wonder if this shit isn’t racially biased – people here will defend damn near any cop shooting a black man (oh, he was high, he was charging, he was something) but here we have a mob storming the capitol, someone trying to break into a closed room, who got shot. And I hate thinking that. But people here have said its perfectly justifiable for a cop to kneel on a dude’s neck until he suffocates, because ‘he didn’t know’ and turn around and say ‘it was the drugs in his system which killed him’.

            And everyone is bending over backwards to ignore the circumstances of the shooting. ‘oh, she was unarmed’ – who the fuck cares? Don’t break into people’s offices while part of a mob.

            I’m not going to say she deserved to be shot but I’m not going to pretend this is some serious fuckup on the part of the cop. This is an edge case where I’m comfortable giving the cop the benefit of the doubt – I can’t say I wouldn’t have shot in the same situation.

            1. She is a martyr for the Church of Trump. How dare you question the conservative narrative!

              1. Thought you didn’t read my comment? LOL Stupid faggot.

            2. Oh, and you didn’t sufficiently condemn BLM which means your lack of outrage makes your opinions worthless.

              1. That’s half a dozen comments from sarcasmic apparently defending the shooting of an unarmed protestor. LOL.

            3. Why has this incident not been investigated? If you are correct you will be vindicated. Why have the government and left wing media, including Reason ignored this woman’s death? Your feels are not particularly relevant. Asshole.

              1. It is being investigated, but the results have not been made public yet.

            4. “I’m not going to say she deserved to be shot ….”
              “I’m comfortable giving the cop the benefit of the doubt ….”
              “I can’t say I wouldn’t have shot in the same situation…..”

              It is very clear what your views are, whether you say it outright or not. The rest of your post is a complete non-sequitur.

              1. Oh dear, so – what are my views? Stated or unstated.

          2. I understand the laws of my state (duty to retreat)…doesn’t mean I agree with them or would wait till someone kills me or my loved ones when they attack. And whether it is residence or business, doesn’t matter to me; violent entry is violent entry. I have an expectation that I should be safe and secure and when someone uses illegal, violent means to break in, tough shit. I get it, Babbit shouldn’t have been killed that day but she made the decision to break in to the Capitol and this was a likely outcome.

            1. “And whether it is residence or business, doesn’t matter to me; violent entry is violent entry.”

              Well sure, breaking in to the empty Tru-Value is the same as breaking in to a house full of nuns.

              WTF is wrong with you idiots?

              1. I’ve been to my business @ 2:00 am to respond to an alarm multiple times. I’ve had an employee violently threaten me at my place of work. Neither has been pleasant to say the least and luckily the worst didn’t happen. But now I know that is a place of business and is magically protected, thanks asshole.

                1. Oh shit you were SERIOUS with “Congress is my house”?

                  1. Never said that. Fuck off.

                    1. Sometimes a Great Notion
                      February.16.2021 at 1:49 pm
                      I understand the laws of my state (duty to retreat)…doesn’t mean I agree with them or would wait till someone kills me or my loved ones when they attack. And whether it is residence or business, doesn’t matter

                    2. Sometimes a Great Notion
                      February.16.2021 at 3:17 pm
                      Did I shoot anyone, no. My point is that a home and a business are not magically different

                    3. Cntrl + F “Congress is my house”

                      Search results: 1 written by Farkus.

                    4. I see nothing different in any of those three statements. You said it, and having realized it, think “but not with those exact words” makes him wrong somehow.

                2. I’ve been to my business @ 2:00 am to respond to an alarm multiple times.

                  And that makes it ok to shoot people?

                  I’ve had an employee violently threaten me at my place of work.

                  By climbing through a window?

                  Your trauma doesn’t apply.

                  1. While packed up by about 200 other cops mind you, he would still feel the need to shoot.

                  2. Only applies to the point that the a business is no different then a home in that you have a right to defend it.

                    1. So it doesn’t apply.

                3. I’ve been to my business @ 2:00 am to respond to an alarm

                  So you insert yourself into said situation then think you’d get to shoot people you find there?

                  You’d be in prison you stupid fuck. In every state in the union. Never own or use a gun you god damned moron.

                  1. Did I shoot anyone, no. My point is that a home and a business are not magically different. If I had encountered the intruder, I’d have used appropriate means to defend myself.

                    1. And then gone to jail and deserved it.

                  2. How do you think alarm response is handled?

                    Hint: Cops don’t come to investigate alarms. Either you pay a security company to do so or you come look at it yourself and then call the cops if needed.

                    1. Also, we are libertarians, right?

                      So, if an alarm is going off in my business – that *is my business*. I’m not ‘inserting myself into the situation’. I’m already in it. Because its my property and I am responsible for protecting it.

                      Or are you one of the leftists that say that it should just be left alone to be robbed. After all, insurance will pay for it, right? Like its not doing in cities across the country in the aftermath of looting right now.

            2. If the outcome was likely and justified why is the government stonewalling?

              1. Stonewalling? Are we still talking about Babbit or are we on the officer? I thought they already released a report finding no charges will be filed in the Babbit case?

              2. They’re not stonewalling.

                They’ve already done what passes for an ‘investigation’ in LEO related shootings and decided it was a good shoot.

                You can certainly disagree with that, but there’s no stonewalling. If anything, the outcome was determined with record speed.

            3. The comparison of a public building to a private residence needs to stop. It is a ridiculous comparison. By your logic, capitol police would have been amply justified to gun down everyone that set foot in the capitol that day, even those people that were permitted to enter and stayed within the velvet ropes.

              We get it. You are okay with having those that don’t agree with your political persuasions murdered on the thinnest of justifications.

              We get it. That’s why our response, more often than not, is “Fuck you.”

              1. We get it. You are okay with having those that don’t agree with your political persuasions murdered on the thinnest of justifications.

                That isn’t my case, never made it. I actually stand my position on a founding case, the Boston Massacre. I’d argue that the cap police were in their legal right to defend their post and have a duty to defend their post. I’d also argue that what the Dems are doing now, holding a 9-11 like hearing, is going to blow up in their faces (metaphorically speaking), just like the hubris the British showed toward the colonies. Best to just move on from this tragedy.

              2. A better comparison was if the cops open fire on BLM after they kept protesting after an order to disperse. At that point they are technically trespassing on government roads.

              3. 1. No, that doesn’t follow.

                2. I am *pro-Trump*. I don’t get where you think I wanted these people killed. I am actually kinda thrilled they did this and did it with more restraint and class than BLM could ever imagine.

      2. She would have carried AOC’s head around on a pike? So then why did he shoot her? That isn’t insurrection that is public service.

    3. Right or wrong, justified or unjustified, when a cop is pointing a gun at you telling you to not to something and you do it anyway don’t be surprised if you get shot.

      The woman was stupid.

      1. All it took for sarcasmic to suck off a cop was for one to kill his political enemy.

        Who knew you sold yourself so cheaply?

        (J/K we all knew)

        1. Right or wrong, justified or unjustified…

          Try making an honest comment. Oh, never mind.

          1. Ok, honestly you’d have denounced this in any other context, instead of making your mouth an in-kind contribution to the PBA.

            1. Why is denouncing so important to you guys? It’s like a religion.

              DENOUNCE OR BE BRANDED A HERETIC!

              You’re zealots. You know that, right?

              1. Because it’s all you do in regards to cops until one kills your enemies, at which point the dichotomy becomes obvious.

                If you didn’t want denouncing cops to be your thing, you should blame yourself.

                1. He wants us to pretend we haven’t seen his posts for a decade because they’re suddenly inconvenient.

                2. So you’re saying if cop is pointing a gun at someone and telling them to stop doing something, I better check their party affiliation before being outraged when they get shot?

                  1. No I’m saying you’re an unprincipled hypocrite.

                    1. Oh, that’s cool. That just means you’re stupid or dishonest. I’m going with the latter.

                    2. I appear to have upset you.

                    3. You’re no different than a leftist waving the picture of some child as a plea for gun control! It’s so sad that this… unarmed woman… was killed by evil Nazi guards…. so sad….

                    4. To sarcasmic, pointing out his 180 degree turn on police use of force is a political attack somehow.

                    5. Right. Any other victim and sarcasmic is right there shitting on the cops like he’s the poster boy for Cholera, actual facts of the incident be damned.

                    6. I apologize for mistaking you for someone worth having a conversation with. Sorry.

                    7. sarcasmic
                      February.16.2021 at 2:10 pm
                      Right or wrong, justified or unjustified…

                      Try making an honest comment. Oh, never mind.

                      As that was your first reply to me I think we can all see that your claim that you were “mistaking you for someone worth having a conversation with.” is just another of your rehtorical defense mechanisms.

                    8. Sarcasmic is well known for going full retard when he’s made to look stupid and hypocritical.

                      You should expect something like “you can stop sucking my dick now” because sarcasmic is petulant and requires the last word in any exchange no matter how childish and derivitive.

                    9. LOL. sarcasmic is the victim again.

                3. You’re obviously outraged. I mean, she was a Trump voter! How dare the cops shoot an unarmed Trump voter! She was just part of a mob that was storming barricades and climbing through broken windows in defiance of armed security personnel? That’s an average Saturday to you right?

                  1. “sarcasmic
                    February.16.2021 at 3:19 pm
                    You’re obviously outraged”

                    He says as he fires off his second post in self defense.

                  2. Sarcasmic suddenly thinks trespassing is a death sentence.

                    She was just part of a mob that was storming barricades and climbing through broken windows in defiance of armed security personnel?

                    Now you sound like the cops “testilying” that you constantly bitch about.

              2. When have you ever not denounced a cops actions in these threads? You changed your behavior due to who the victim was dummy.

          2. Why did you need the or?

        2. Basically.

        3. That doesn’t sound like a flattering statement about cops to me. He’s saying that you should not expect them to act reasonably or with restraint.

          1. The one honest person in the room.

            1. Shouldn’t that be the only “other” honest person in the room? Unless you intended to admit you’re dishonest.

          2. Oh fuck you Zeb you know what’s being said so save your stupid fucking games. You always pull this shit.

            Sarcasmic unremittingly hates cops until one kills his people he hates then it’s suddenly, for what could be the first time ever, about the totality of circumstances.

            You KNOW this is a change in his rhetorc but for some stupid fucking reason need to pretend it’s something else.

          3. He’s saying that you should not expect them to act reasonably or with restraint.

            And this is common for him? He has built a reputation of giving such leeway to police in the past? He hasnt been critical to the point of buffoonery when discussing cops in other contexts?

            Maybe sit this one out if you can’t follow along.

            1. You’ll have to forgive Zeb, he abandons reading comprehension and honesty when someone goes after one of his longtime fuckbuddies, even when they deserve it.

      2. Yeah stupid is a capital offense in sarcasmic’s libertarian paradise.

        1. Unless you’re black. In that case, the police have an obligation to allow themselves to be stabbed or shot first.

      3. Again, storing this statement for use in the future. And past, if it comes up.

    4. Let’s be totally honest. Most of Reason writers probably believe that Trump supporters should be murdered by the police.

      I’d more expect an article defending her murder than one criticizing it.

  6. What happened before we got to the Qualified Immunity phase? I’m assuming the department stood behind the officer’s use of force?

  7. No QI
    No police unions
    No records secrecy

    1. Unions are important and the police have a right to have a union if they want, but it would be prudent to limit what can be in the contract to wages, benefits, and working conditions. Protection from crimes does not belong in a union contract.

      1. Join all the unions you want. The state should simply have the right no refuse negotiation. If that results in a strike, then any and all striking officers are fired on the spot.

        If you shoot someone and you’re fired for excessive force, and the union rep comes into the office with a clipboard screeching about arbitration, you tell his ass to leave the building or he’ll be arrested. Enjoy your union, pay your dues, but it doesn’t draw any water here.

      2. Why, precisely, are public sector unions important? What purpose do they serve that is not already answerable through other means that are less susceptible to abuse?

        Private sector unions have a place in society and, at least in principle, serve a useful purpose. I see no such arguments in support of public sector unions.

        1. The massive inequality of power between management and workers is the same in the pubic sector as the private sector. Unions have a place in both.

          1. Unions have no place in the public sector. Private businesses can’t compel their customers to pay for things their neither want nor need. That’s the definition of the public sector. Job security should be enough. Unions are adding injury to insult.

          2. No there isn’t.

          3. There is no “massive inequality of power” between management and workers in a functioning labor market. There is barely any inequality of power in the private sector and none that I can see in the public sector.

            Simply put, there are too many people willing to work to ever create a monopoly. And once you have a society that enables and even values mobility, there are too many employers to ever create a monopsony. Labor unions had a vital role when they were balancing the abuses of company towns. But those no longer exist (in the US, at least).

            Simply put, if you think your employer is a jerk, find someone else to work for. That’s true in both the private and public sectors.

          4. The massive inequality of power between public sector workers and the management that they participate in electing to office? 1 out of 8 workers are public sector workers and they have family and friends to help them get their guy elected.

            The fix is already in you miserable lying twat.

      3. “Our labor is worth more than you say it is worth!”
        “Why?”
        “Well, …”
        “Because you shouldn’t have to compete for a job?”

      4. Public employees do not have a right to a union. Simply because PE unions do not negotiate with the owner (taxpayers) – they collude with management.

      5. Public employees should have no right to form labor unions. Unlike a private business, their pay comes from money extracted under duress. When private sector unions demand more than the customers are willing to pay, the company goes kaput. In the public sector they just raise taxes. Before long their pay and benefits are the envy of the private sector because they can send unruly customers to jail. Or beat them to death.

        1. “Unlike a private business, their pay comes from money extracted under duress.”

          Fucking insurrectionist. Watch yourself.

          1. Oh for fuck’s sake. Beat on him when he’s wrong, but don’t shit on him when he’s right.

  8. The Supreme Court receives somewhere around 7,000–8,000 such petitions each term. We’ll find out sometime in the coming months if it decides to take this one up.

    Apparently, probably not.

  9. Wait wait. They can’t have qualified immunity for shooting someone? Next you will tell me they shouldnt have qualified immunity for stealing $250k

    1. It was not established by an appeals court at the time that theft was a constitutional violation. The officers had to be on notice not just what they were doing was wrong and illegal, but also specifically unconstitutional. If we were to impose liability on police actions that they are just clearly wrong and illegal then that would discourage police from doing their jobs…oh that does not a make sense.

      1. No. I don’t believe it. I must have misread this. Even you aren’t stupid enough to defend cops stealing because they somehow didn’t know it was wrong.

    1. One of things I like most about the Reason commentariat are the more the posting of other excellent articles for review. Usually by the more insightful and reasoned members here (which I include you in)

      Long story short, thanks for posting this. I know it shouldn’t matter, but I’ve wondered quite some time about your particulars based on your name.

      1. It’s fair to assume that any new handle is Tupla’s sock de jour.

          1. you’re a towel

        1. Says the asshole with more socks than anyone can count.

      2. Posts by commenters is the primary reason I bother to come here. I don’t have time to keep up with every issue that interests me so clicking links here is a valuable resource. And Paul manages to inform without wading into the hostility that’s become prevalent here.

        1. Yes, that about sums up my take, though I must admit that I garner more than a few childish laughs at some of the…less productive members here.

          Ras Al Gore is another, whom I appreciate their supplemental contributions. And come on, that handle is gold!

  10. Cop lied. People died. In other news dog bites man and water is still wet.

  11. Jeff probably agrees with this shooting:

    chemjeff radical individualist
    February.9.2021 at 8:56 am
    What is there to talk about?

    From a libertarian perspective, Ashli Babbett was trespassing, and the officers were totally justified to shoot trespassers. Again from a libertarian perspective, the officers would have been justified in shooting every single trespasser. That would not have been wise or prudent, of course.

    They were all trespassers trying to be where they weren’t supposed to be.

    Cops should only shoot if the person is a danger to others as they flee. DUI in a car is probably one of those cases. I would not have shot if other cops were in the area, but it is a grey area.

    1. Um suspected DUI which is .08 BAC. The vast majority of human beings can manage driving at that level without being a danger to anyone. If they hurt someone or damage property they can be prosecuted. But maybe we can delay the execution til after the trial. Ya think?

    2. dui creates an increased chance of danger to others….. it does not remotely meet the “imminent” or “clear” threat conditions. i am good with us enforcing dui laws, but shooting someone for possibly being drunk is past the line.

  12. “ killing a passenger named Shawn Joseph Jetmore Stoddard-Nunez”

    Case dismissed.

  13. And the ROOT of the problem….

    The City of Hayward located in Alameda County, CA —
    https://www.kqed.org/elections/results/alameda

    House [D] 90% of the vote
    House [D] 71% of the vote
    House [D] 71% of the vote

    Is it just me or do all these “gun-em-down” police shootings come out of democratic h*llholes.

    1. It is weird how the racist ‘lawn order’ red jurisdictions with their cops that didn’t even graduate high school don’t seem to be putting as many people in the ground as the highly educated and professional LEO’s in Blue districts.

  14. I can’t remember the name of the person, but Reason writers have misreported on this same issue before by claiming that the shooting was not justified. They basically write the story to make it sound like the officer murdered the suspect and that QI shields them from any repercussions. That is a strawman of the highest order.

    “The 9th Circuit also cast serious doubt on the reliability of the officer’s account of the incident. For example, Troche claimed that he only fired at the vehicle when it veered straight at him. But “the coroner noted that the fatal bullet entered Shawn’s right shoulder and passed through the side of his neck,” the 9th Circuit pointed out, and “photographs of the front and rear passenger doors of the Honda Civic show bullet holes in the side and rear of the car.””

    This is a blatant misunderstanding of whether or not police are currently authorized to use force. In general, they are authorized to shoot when someone is a threat to themselves or others. Someone who is so drunk that they try to run over and kill or injure an officer is a risk to others in a moving vehicle. That’s why the officer is allowed to continue shooting. You guys think this is some aha moment, but it’s nothing but bullshit spin. It’s unfortunate that the suspect died, but play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Don’t drink and drive and frankly, don’t do anything that impairs your judgment if you are an impulsive moron with zero sense of control or delayed gratification.

    This officer will walk. QI is a real problem, but this is not an example of it.

    1. The cop is allowed to continue to shoot without regard for innocent bystanders?

      You seem to be forgetting the guy in the passenger seat – you know, the one who got killed.

      Or does he not count? Guilt by association? Don’t wanna get shot like a drunk driver, don’t ride in a vehicle with a drunk driver?

    2. It’s unfortunate that the suspect died,

      The suspect didn’t die. The passenger did.

      1. I mean, its right in the headline.

    3. You must have touch typing down pat to have managed to write this post with your tongue that far up a cop’s asshole.

  15. This is precedent for reexamining the magic bullet’s nearly horizontal path into JFK’s tie knot travelling downhill on Elm 3º from even with the railroad tracks curving about Dealey Plaza. The shot that hit Connally was clearly downward from up high. The medical drawings coats and shirts ought to be examined by the Alameda coroner who can tell up from down, front from back, and back-shooting killers from First Responders™.

  16. Now talk about Ashli Babbit.

Please to post comments