The first Supreme Court case I read about occurred in the state of Massachusetts and dealt with stun guns, and the second amendment of the Constitution. Massachusetts, along with a few other states and counties in the United States have banned the use of stun gun on the grounds that when the second amendment was created, stun guns were not yet invented, and therefore were not covered. They also argue that since it is not used in modern warfare by the military that it is not constitutional. The Supreme Court was asked to re-review their judgement since a similar case, District of Columbia v Heller (2008), decided that the right to bear arms includes all arms, even if they were not in existence during the making of the amendments. In this case, I would have to agree the right to bear arms extends to all guns, new or old. A stun gun is not as deadly as an actual firearm, yet it will provide defense to a person in need of it. It is a Constitutional right given to Americans to be able to defend themselves, and there are several new weapons that have been invented since then, therefore the stun gun should be treated no different.
The second Supreme Court case dealt with a police officer that was accused of using excessive force to subdue a criminal that resulted in their death. Israel Leija Jr. resisted arrest and took the police on a high speed chase, threatening to kill police officers with a gun if they did not stop chasing him. A spike strip was set up under an overpass, and when Officer Mullenix asked his supervisor for permission to shoot at the car to disable it, his response was to wait and see if the spike strip worked. Once Leija made it to the underpass, complications led to the endangerment of a fellow officer, so Mullenix pulled out his gun and fires 6 shots at the vehicle, killing Leija, while still not disarming the car. He was then sued for using excessive force, violating the fourth amendment. The courts decided to grant Officer Mullenix qualified immunity for his actions. This case took a little more thinking to come to a conclusion on whether the court made the correct decision or not. The article specifically states that even after the 6 shots the car was still not disabled. This leads me to wonder, where was Mullenix aiming at? However, at speeds in excess of 85 miles per hour, I do not know how hard it would be to disable a vehicle, and when he saw the that the car was still endangering the life of a fellow officer, he continued to shoot. I think the correct decision was made here. Police officers put their lives on the line every day to protect citizens against people just like Leija. He was armed and dangerous, and needed to be stopped, He had several chances to stop the chase, yet he continued to endanger the lives of those around him. Therefore, when he was about to hurt an officer, I think Mullenix acted within his dutiful rights to protect the other officer. His force was not excessive, it was necessary.
agree or disagree explain
I agree with your argument that the stun gun should be treated no different. This is because the stun gun is a tool of... View the full answer