In April of 2010, five police officers put Michael Kingsley face down on a cement bunk in a holding cell, shocked him with a stun gun for five seconds, then left him alone, writhing in pain with his hands cuffed behind his back, for 15 minutes. Kingsley sued the officers, claiming they violated his constitutional rights by using excessive force. He lost. On Monday, the Supreme Court gave Kingsley a second chance, ruling that the trial court gave the jury bad instructions. In a narrow sense, the decision turns on a technical question of intent. In a broader sense, though, the ruling is a blast of good news for opponents of police brutality—an emphatic declaration that the Constitution bars police from beating and abusing suspects in custody. more . . .
I wonder how many "Libertarians" just shrug their shoulders at these things and just assume that these "criminals" in the hands of our brave public servants deserved the abuse. I mean the cops had them right? They must be guilty of something.
Do you care to embellish on the events and circumstances that preceded him being face down on a cement bunk? No, you probably don't because it wouldn't fit the narrative. When have seen this from shitheads like you in the past. The media spread lies about the events that led to the shooting of Travon Martin. Of course the judicial system relies on the whole truth to the best that it can be determined. When it is put in that light, these cases arent so black and white. They are not even that black and white-hispanic for the matter. We have the case of this Mike Brown and the lies that surrounded that case. We got to see a bunch brain-dead leftist running around saying 'Hands up, Don't Shoot', which of course was completed fabricated. Once again, don't let facts get in the way.
The question you raise, not to me, but I am pleased to answer it anyway, is utterly immaterial in both my opinion, and, now, in the opinion of the court as well.