“Wise Latina” MAKES UP FACTS To Defend Knife-Toting Thugstress In “Poorly Reasoned” Dissent

For such a “wise Latina,” Sotomayor seems like sort of a dumbass.

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

………………………………… ……………………………………………………. ………………………………………………….. ……………………

Last week the Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Arizona police officer who non-fatally shot a deranged woman outside her home in 2010. Only two justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented.

After the altercation eight years ago, the injured woman, Amy Hughes, filed a lawsuit against University of Arizona Police Department Corporal Andrew Kisela, accusing him of having used excessive force when he shot her.

Six years later the corrupt U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed the trial court’s decision, thus allowing Hughes’ lawsuit to move forward in the justice system.

Fast forward to last Monday, when the Supreme Court ruled to squash Hughes’ lawsuit on the basis “that Kisela was entitled to qualified immunity protecting him from the litigation because he did not violate any clearly established law,” according to Reuters.

Kisela did nothing wrong, and the evidence proves it.

The court’s official ruling states that the altercation began when Kisela and another officer, Alex Garacia, received a “report that a woman was hacking a tree with a kitchen knife.” When they and another officer, Lindsay Kunz, arrived at the scene, this happened:

Garcia spotted a woman, later identified as Sharon Chadwick, standing next to a car in the driveway of a nearby house. A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated Chadwick from the officers. The officers then saw another woman, Hughes, emerge from the house carrying a large knife at her side. Hughes matched the description of the woman who had been seen hacking a tree. Hughes walked toward Chadwick and stopped no more than six feet from her.

All three officers drew their guns. At least twice they told Hughes to drop the knife. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Hughes, Chadwick said “take it easy” to both Hughes and the officers. Hughes appeared calm, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife. The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s line of fire, so he dropped to the ground and shot Hughes four times through the fence. Then the officers jumped the fence, handcuffed Hughes, and called paramedics, who transported her to a hospital. There she was treated for non-life-threatening injuries. Less than a minute had transpired from the moment the officers saw Chadwick to the moment Kisela fired shots.

Case closed, right? Not exactly.

Attorney Andrew F. Branca of Legal Insurrection noted that, in her “poorly reasoned” dissent, Sotomayor chose “to view the facts as she wishes and with little connection to reality, or the training and experience of the police officers tasked with making use-of-force decisions very quickly, with imperfect information, and with stakes as high as life itself.”

She basically made up facts. I know someone else who often does the same thing …

Examples:

She suggested that Hughes was harmless because the blade of her knife was “facing away from Chadwick.” This proves nothing.

She argued that Hughes “had committed no illegal act.” Disobeying police orders seems pretty illegal to me.

She argued that Kisela never gave Hughes a warning before firing. They drew their weapons and yelled “drop the knife.” What else did she need? A chart!?

She arrogantly criticized Kisela’s tactical decision-making, arguing that he should have used a taser. But nowhere in her biography does it mention any formal police experience, so how would she know what method is best?

Her luridly dumb dissent continues for 15 more pages.

“And more and more and more of the same kinds of nonsense, a full 15 pages of it. As with any Sotomayor dissent, I can recommend that you read it only if you have masochistic tendencies,” Branca opined.

For such a “wise Latina,” Sotomayor seems like sort of a dumbass. I suppose that’s why leftists love her so much.

Personal Note: You are welcome to contribute to my Patreon account or make a one-time submission if you’d like. Or, if you’ve already subscribed but would like to now unsubscribe, that’s totally fine too. Thank you regardless for your continued support!

H/T Townhall