Time's up


A federal appeals court has ruled that the family of Kevin Peterson Jr. is entitled to a full trial in its civil case against the sheriff's deputies who shot and killed Peterson as part of a small-potatoes drug sting in the 'Couve back in October 2020. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the rulings of a federal trial judge in Seattle that (a) the police are not immune from civil liability as a matter of law, and (b) it's up to a jury to decide whether the police shot Peterson, a penny-ante drug dealer, from behind as he was running away from them. That's certainly what the video from the scene of the killing appears to show.

The fact that the policemen and the Clark County government jerked the fanily around with a fruitless appeal on these points was pretty despicable, but the Ninth Circuit was quick to do the right thing. The appellate judges were supposed to hear oral argument of the case last Friday, but they decided in late June that argument wasn't necessary. The case was submitted for a decision on Friday, and the judges issued their opinion on Tuesday. 

The panel, which was unanimous, consisted of Senior Judges Margaret McKeown and Richard Clifton, and Judge Ana de Alba. McKeown was a Clinton appointee; Clifton was appointed by Bush Jr., and de Alba by Biden.

If the case doesn't settle first, there will be a trial in federal court. The district judge handling the case so far is Barbara Rothstein, but she is something like 85 years old and the trial date is reportedly early next year sometime.

It's time for Clark County to stop stalling and face the music after nearly four years. Peterson had a gun, but he was running away. The cowboy cops shot him from behind, and killed him. And over a baggie of Xanax pills.

Comments

  1. People that weren’t there often have opinions that don’t jive with the facts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And the cops who were there often lie through their teeth. In this case, fortunately, there's video.

      Delete
  2. Man points gun at cops and had a bag of pills. He didn't get shot over the drugs, he got shot over threatening the cops' lives. Bad take.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no evidence (other than the cops, who first falsely said he fired at them) that he pointed the gun at anyone until after he was shot and down.

      Delete
  3. What I can't understand is how a seemingly bright young man, with a promising future, got in such a bind. Clearly, our systems are failing, far more than just rogue cowboys, aka police, with guns.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. This was a societal failure as much as a personal one.

      Delete
    2. I wonder about his family life while he was growing up

      Delete
    3. I wonder about the family life, and training, of the cops who fired 34 times, hitting him four times, over 50 Xanax pills.

      Delete
  4. At least the Ninth Circuit CCofA got this one right.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This is wrenchingly sad. And over a "baggie of Xanax pills."

    In this Spanish Inquisition version of a post Measure 110 environment, the very drugs that previously made life more livable for someone with chronic pain, or anxiety, or depression, or ADHD, are now considered bad or suspect. Medical boards across the country are making providers nervous about prescribing scheduled drugs by threatening sanctions. When a physician feels pressured into not prescribing appropriate medication for someone who is suffering from these conditions, everyone loses and a door opens to an entire domino effect of bad consequences.

    The suffering patient will turn to someone like Peterson to get what they need. They may get arrested for it. Peterson was shot and killed as a result of this domino effect. The physician who used to prescribe a safe amount of this same drug, along with vital education for the patient on how to appropriately use the medicine, can turn their head and say they did nothing that constitutes malpractice in this tragic event, but in the deep dark hours of the night they have to be wondering, what is wrong with this picture?

    Can we, as a society, hold physicians to account for this outcome? Or, more appropriately, state medical boards for the consequences of their over-reaching oversight?

    What is not appropriate is that an individual with anxiety would be unable to get a legal prescription through their provider and would, instead, be forced to seek out this drug (which could possibly be a counterfeit and unsafe version of the real thing) through a street dealer.

    The cops overreacted and by the sounds of it, will have to answer eventually. I do not know Peterson's story but I do know the supply and demand nature of drug dealing gave him an opportunity and whatever his motivation was for participating, he provided customers with a salvation of sorts, one that was made hugely possible thanks to a collapsed and non-existant mental health system in our area. And there is your several second clip and microcosm of the failed drug war: Peterson running away with his baggie of street Xanax, the unseen customer, off-camera, wondering why oh why did his terrified doctor refuse his refill which then caused him to seek out Peterson in the first place, and finally, the cops who see, in Peterson, only a dealer, and nothing of the big picture. Weapons drawn and deployed. When will this stop?


    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

The platform used for this blog is awfully wonky when it comes to comments. It may work for you, it may not. It's a Google thing, and beyond my control. Apologies if you can't get through. You can email me a comment at jackbogsblog@comcast.net, and if it's appropriate, I can post it here for you.