Yes, an agent of the state must be allowed reasonable discretion when upholding the law. Yes, his purpose was legitimate. Yes, police officers have every right to defend themselves. But when an innocent young man is murdered in his home after all of the officer’s mistakes, it might not be “clearly illegal,” but it appears that something is “clearly” amiss.
Last week, the entire Eleventh Circuit refused to review en banc a ruling of a panel from the circuit’s Court of Appeals, in which the parents and girlfriend of an innocent man shot and killed by a police officer could not sue the officer because his conduct was not “clearly” illegal.
Andrew Scott was in his apartment playing video games with his girlfriend when four police officers arrived. As David French of National Review pointed out, the police had no search warrant, didn’t turn on their emergency lights, didn’t identify themselves as police, misunderstood a neighbor’s directions, and showed up at the wrong house, but Scott, who was acknowledged by both sides in the case had been retreating when he opened the door for the cops, was shot dead anyway.