Human Rights

125 Seattle Cops Sue for Constitutional Right to Use Excessive Force

Fortunately, they were shot down.

Photo Credit:

Wow... who could've foreseen this happening in our nation?

But some 125 Seattle police officers responded by filing a lawsuit challenging the new laws. In their view, the new policies infringe on their rights to use as much force as they deem necessary in self-protection. They represent about ten percent of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild membership. The police union itself declined to endorse the lawsuit.

This week, a federal judge summarily rejected all of their claims, finding that they were without constitutional merit, and that she would have been surprised if such allegations of excessive force by officers did not lead to stricter standards.

The officers claimed the policies infringed on their rights under their Second Amendment and under the Fourth, claiming a self-defense right to use force. Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman pointed out that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms — not the right to use them — and that the officers “grossly misconstrued” the Fourth Amendment when they claimed that it protects them, and not individuals who would be the subjects of police force or seizures.

Again, folks... it's all about the police constantly, bogusly claiming their lives are threatened; whether it's by someone carrying a sandwich, a stick, or NO weapon at all as with the Michael Brown case.

Thankfully the presiding federal judge threw this nonsense out, but the cops could appeal the ruling.

It's way past time for some firm definitions of when a police officer can and cannot use excessive, deadly force.



Sign Up!
Get AlterNet's Daily Newsletter in Your Inbox
+ sign up for additional lists
Select additional lists by selecting the checkboxes below before clicking Subscribe:
Election 2018