You could read the Ninth Circuit's 70-page, single spaced opinion as to whether or not there should be qualified immunity for the police shooting at issue here, and decide whether the majority or dissenting opinion seems more persuasive.
Or you could watch the video of the shooting itself and see what you think.
Of course, to be fully informed, you'd probably do both. But that would surely take more time.
The underlying facts involve a confrontation between a police vehicle that's essentially a tank, on one side, and a pickup truck on the other. After a long standoff, involving a guy who's probably drunk but who has not committed any serious crime yet, the police tank rams the pickup, an officer in the tank says that he heard a shot from the pickup truck, so the officers in the tank open up on the guy in the pickup and shoot him 18 times, killing him.
Judge Berzon, in dissent, calls this "a case study in disproportionate law enforcement response." See what you think.
One of the tough things about cases like this one, in my view, is how you resolve factual conflicts on (as here) a motion for summary judgment. The police officer says that he heard a shot from the pickup truck, which is why the police killed the guy. But the video and bodycam footage doesn't show a shot, nor do you hear one. Presumably the guy in the pickup would have testified that there was no shot, but he's very dead at this point. When only one guy's still alive, does that mean you get the benefit of the assumption that whatever the police office said is true?
The traditional answer is: Yes. Though you can see the potential injustice there. As well as an incentive, perhaps, to make sure that you're the only surviving witness.
The other somewhat interesting thing is the video itself. It's cited in a footnote to the majority opinion, and retained on the Ninth Circuit's website. So when I clicked on it, I expected it to be raw footage.
But it's not. It's instead a news report. "Live from Fox 12 Oregon!" (as the video's opening banner declares). There were reporters circling overhead in helicopters at the time, hence the video. Which is actually of really good quality. So I expected (and appreciated) the video; I just didn't necessarily expect to see all the ancillary reporter details as well when I watched the thing.
