Thank you for the affirmation, Mr. Wizard. I had posted my opinion after only reading that single summary of the ruling, which really offered no opinion, pro or con.
Last night, while reading something totally unrelated (about the 50th ann of Sgt Pepper), followed the link to the copyright holder of that article ... and found this as the numero uno article. Their headline pretty well summarizes my opinion, and the content of their article.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/on_the_front_lines/unanimous_u.s._supreme_court_refuses_to_hold_police_liable_for_the_reckless
Unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Refuses to Hold Police Liable for the Reckless Shooting of a Homeless Couple During a Warrantless Raid
May 31, 2017
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision and The Rutherford Institute’s amicus brief in County of Los Angeles v. Mendez are available at www.rutherford.org. Affiliate attorney Anand Agneshwar of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, LLP, assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the Mendez brief.
“What we are dealing with is a nationwide epidemic of court-sanctioned police violence carried out against individuals posing little or no real threat, who are nevertheless subjected to such excessive police force as to end up maimed or killed,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “The U.S. Supreme Court has in the past rationalized its support of qualified immunity for government officials (including police officers) on the grounds that these officials might be too cautious in carrying out their duties if there was a risk that they might be held personally liable for wrongdoing on the job. Frankly, we’d be far better off as a nation if all government officials operated under the constant fear that there would be ramifications for official misconduct.”
Couldn't say it better myself. Have added Rutherford.org to my list of favourites.
You might find their history very interesting:
http://www.rutherford.org/about/history_of_the_rutherford_institute
And this article hit very close to home for me - having been personally subject to this tactic multiple times in the past ten years. It is very closely associated with the primary impetus to this thread.
https://www.rutherford.org/publications_resources/legal_features/constitutional_qa_knock_and_talk_police_tactics
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good ...
| 
