Est. of D. Bennett v. Wainwright, No. 07-2169. Mentally ill guy off his meds shoots at some cops. Mentally ill guy gets shot by cops.
There issues here of notes. The estate appeared to make a “loss of consortium” argument, but the First says that can’t be based on the liberty or property interest of the defendant. But, really, it seems like the plaintiff just made a bunch of legal-sounding noises (like “substantive due process”) and hoped the courts understood. Also, the First appears to provide some discussion of the difference between a Fifth Amendment taking and a Fourth Amendment taking.
Anyway, the First appears to take the qualified immunity arguments seriously. However, it sides with the cops. Based on the facts, I would say this is a great example of qualified immunity working. However, because courts seem too willing to apply it, I can’t take that too seriously.
They also screwed up the local Rule 56 requirements. Though, while the First delights in saying that lots of arguments are waived, it does pause to mention that one of the cops involved was known as “Deputy Death.”
Comments