police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence”

A mother has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that, while her son was experiencing a seizure in his Tennessee apartment, police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence” on the 23-year-old instead of providing the necessary medical treatment, subsequently attempting to conceal their use of deadly force.

The death of Austin Hunter Turner was among over 1,000 cases nationwide documented by an investigation conducted by The Associated Press, each involving instances where police officers employed physical force or weapons intended to stop individuals rather than take their lives.

The lawsuit, initiated in federal court this week, was prompted by the revelation of police body-camera footage shared with Turner’s parents by AP reporters, footage they were previously unaware existed. This video has led the family to question the official determination that their son died from a drug overdose.

The case underscored a key conclusion from the AP-led investigation revealing that a pervasive absence of accountability exists within the justice system following fatal police encounters that do not involve gunfire.

 Read more of the story here at the Associated Press (don’t believe everything you read there at the AP or anywhere anymore.)

Note: There are more good police than bad. The bad ones make the good ones look bad.

More

• Alaska State Troopers beat, stunned and used dog in violent arrest of wrong man, charges say
• Chicago’s Fourth of July weekend bore the data out, with 109 people shot
• Consumer Price Index Chart (selectable per item)
• Videos show San Bernardino police officer beating gas station
• Cameras capture brutal beating of man by police
• Arkansas police officer fired after being caught on video

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles

Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’

A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a streaming service or mobile application.

The family of a New York woman has filed a lawsuit following her tragic death after dining at a restaurant located in Disney Springs, a vibrant outdoor complex in Florida that offers a variety of dining, shopping, and entertainment options, all under the ownership of Disney.

Disney argues that the lawsuit should be dismissed based on the assertion that the plaintiff, the husband of the woman in question, previously signed up for a trial subscription to the Disney+ streaming service which they claim includes a subscriber agreement requiring customers to settle any legal disputes with Disney through arbitration instead of in court.

Such agreements, which users swiftly accept by clicking I agree while downloading an app or a streaming service, are often so biased against the consumer that providing sound legal advice can be quite challenging according to John Davisson, director of litigation at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

If you agree click here

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles

This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision Tuesday.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled that military-style weapons are not shielded by the Second Amendment as they are intended for prolonged combat scenarios and do not align with the requirements for self-defense.

–  Define self defense and what is one defending, a home, a family. a city, a nation and against whom, a single person, a mob, an invasion? –

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III authored the majority opinion, with the support of eight other justices, while a tenth justice expressed agreement with the outcome.

The 4th Circuit previously upheld the Maryland law in a 2017 decision, but the U.S. Supreme Court rejected part of the appeals court’s approach when it ruled in a different 2022 case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, according to the appeals court.

In the new decision, Wilkinson concluded that the 2013 Maryland law

“fits comfortably within our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

The Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the state, agreeing that AR-15-style weapons are military-style firearms that are not protected by the Second Amendment

even though the second amendment states

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Maryland enacted its assault weapons ban in 2013 after a shooter used a semi-automatic rifle in the 2012 mass killing of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The 2013 law is an example of states regulating “excessively dangerous weapons” when their “incompatibility with a lawful and safe society becomes apparent,” he wrote.

In his dissent, Judge Julius N. Richardson said the Second Amendment “is not a second-class right subject to the whimsical discretion of federal judges. Its mandate is absolute and, applied here, unequivocal.” His dissent was joined by four other judges.

Read it here

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-1255

Read more here

ABA Journal

What’s going on out there…

• Colorado clerk urges Supreme Court to block trial over voting machine password leak
  Former Mesa County clerk-recorder Tina Peters claims she has constitutional immunity from prosecution by “hostile state actors.”
• Montana Supreme Court finds parental consent law unconstitutional
  Montana minors have a right to make reproductive health care decisions privately, without parental interference, the justices ruled.
• No bonus for growing weed
  A marijuana farm worker cannot win his breach-of-contract suit over a $100,000 bonus he says he’s owed for achieving a “healthy harvest of 1,400 pounds of dry cannabis crop.” The contract is void and unenforceable because “manufacturing” marijuana is a federal crime.
• Matthew Perry’s assistant among 5 people, including 2 doctors, charged in ‘Friends’ star’s death

Meanwhile back at the ranch…

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles

Does not amount to “cruel and unusual punishment” under the Eighth Amendment

The Supreme Court has affirmed the validity of ordinances in a southwest Oregon city that restrict individuals experiencing homelessness from utilizing blankets, pillows, or cardboard boxes as protective measures against the elements while sleeping within city limits. In a decision reached by a 6-3 vote, the justices sided with the city of Grants Pass, asserting that the ordinances serve to prohibit camping on public property for all individuals and do not infringe upon the Constitution’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.

Writing for the majority, Justice Neil Gorsuch contended that the Eighth Amendment, which bans cruel and unusual punishment, “serves many important functions, but it does not authorize federal judges” to “dictate this Nation’s homelessness policy.”

Instead, he suggested, such a task should fall to the American people.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, in an opinion joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. She argued that the majority’s ruling “focuses almost exclusively on the needs of local government and leaves the most vulnerable in our society with an impossible choice: Either stay awake or be arrested.”

In Grants Pass, a city with a population of just under 40,000, as many as 600 individuals experience homelessness on any given night, prompting the city’s decision in 2013 to intensify the enforcement of existing laws that prohibit the use of blankets, pillows, and cardboard boxes for sleeping within city limits.

Violators are subject to significant fines starting at 295 dollars, which can increase to 537.60 dollars if not paid promptly. Receiving two citations may result in local police issuing a ban from city property and anyone who disregards this order can be charged with criminal trespass, which may lead to penalties of up to 30 days imprisonment and a fine of 1250 dollars.

Holding: The enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment” prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch on June 28, 2024. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Kagan and Jackson joined.

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Justices uphold laws targeting homelessness with criminal penalties, SCOTUS blog (Jun. 28, 2024, 1:48 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/justices-uphold-laws-targeting-homelessness-with-criminal-penalties/

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles