Supreme Court rules for 83-year-old woman forced to kneel at gunpoint by police

Originally published at: 83-Year-Old Woman's Win in Police Brutality Case


yes, high risk. because - even in america, land of the gun - cops are much more likely to hit by gawking drivers than they are to get shot.

brandishing their own guns might make them feel tough - especially when interacting with elderly people - but it’s not going to protect them against the most likely cause of injury and death


did they really think telling her she looked 30 years younger would butter her up enough to drop brutality charges?

and on an unrelated note, why do BB’s comments links frequently not link to the specific comments thread anymore?


ACAB again.

the chino police seem to think what they did is all fine and dandy. time for a completely new team.


professor all cops you say


The Onion always gets it correct:


Police: We just acted according to our training.

Training manual: Pull a gun out for any reason at all.



Brown, police said, appeared to “be in her 50s or early 60s”

So, in all that, nobody even looked at her driver’s license? Isn’t that step 1 of a traffic stop?


Forcing anyone to their knees on concrete (probably including broken glass, etc. as it’s on the side of a major road) could cause significant injury to anyone.


They might look, but can they do the math? As for traffic stop steps, the whole “suspected stolen car” part should be resolved by checking the plates/registration. Drivers don’t need to be removed from the vehicle for that.


Once more for the folks in the back…


… because this awesome software is broken and it can’t be fixed, it’s just impossible, so they gave up


She faired better than this poor lady in Australia recently… Clare Nowland: 95-year-old Australian woman dies after being Tasered by police | Australian police and policing | The Guardian

1 Like

I wish cases like this got reported more accurately. And I’m not talking about the facts of the case, which seem pretty well reported. I mean about what SCOTUS did. SCOTUS did not rule for anyone in this case. They just refused to hear it. The Appeals Court had earlier ruled in favor of the woman, and the cops appealed to the Supreme Court. And SCOTUS just denied cert. That doesn’t necessarily indicate how they might rule if they had decided to hear it. Sometimes, they wait for a case with a more favorable fact pattern to what they would like to do, which over the last 20 years or so has been to consistently expand police powers and erode the 4th and 5th Amendments. This case just didn’t have a good fact pattern in which to do that, largely because of the very sympathetic “suspect”. Had the facts been identical, but the “suspect” a young person of color who decided to push back verbally or physically against these abuses of authority, SCOTUS might have decided to hear the case.

Regardless, because all they did here was deny cert, this doesn’t establish any kind of precedent and so isn’t all that indicative of much of anything.


“only 20 seconds”???

for an older person (like me), it will take way more than 20 seconds to even get DOWN on the ground. and I’m reasonably healthy but I also don’t want to fall or risk injury. Are these cops insane?
Any older person is at risk for falling and it’s not funny.
Trust me, when you get older you will KNOW what I’m talking about


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.