agree or disagree feedback
The first case I want to discuss is Mullenix vs. Luna. In this case the police were led on an high speed chase with speeds ranging from 85-110 miles per hour. The man who was fleeing from officers was named Israel Leija Jr. During the pursuit Leija would call the police twine and explain that he had a gun on him and would use shoot the police in they did not stop pursuing him. During the two calls, officers had already planned ahead by placing spike strips under the overpass that he would eventually approach. Officer Mullinex sought advice from his supervisor and asked if shooting at Leija's car would to end the chase was worth trying. The supervisor then explained that they needed to wait and see if the strips worked. Mullinex then learned that one of his fellow officers was about to be in danger with Leija approaching so he began shooting at the car, the shots ended up killing Leija and it never once disabled the car. Milliner was sued by Leija's estate saying that he abused the fourth amendment by using extreme force. The judge decided that Milliner would be granted immunity because Leija's conduct was a result of what happened and many would view him as a threat such as Milliner did. I can agree with judge and I can also disagree. Milliner disobeyed his supervisors order and his death could have been prevented, however I can agree because Leija was acting in a way that could have endeared many people on the road, and it could of caused more death than what occurred. Its a sad story anyway you look at it.
The second case ill review is Fisher Vs. University of Texas. Abigail Fisher sued UT Austin when she was denied admission. This woman is a white woman and she was claiming that the universities use of race in the admissions prices violates the fourteenth amendments equal protection clause. Abigail claims that the university needed to be more precise and open with what level of minority enrollment would result in critical mass. The court5 went on to reject her arguments. The court responded on the critical mass situation and stated that the university just doesn't articulate a number. The court state that the school had precise goals about the educational values through its race conscious admission process. Abigail claimed that the use of race had minimal impact on school admission but between 2003-2007 when race was considered the minority enrollment increased. The court ruled that this race conscious program is constitutional. I agree with the court because Abigail did not meet the requirements to get in. She was not in the top 10 percent of her class which automatically gets you in to the university. Her test scores and personal achievement also did not stand up to par with the schools requirements so I feel that the judge was correct in ruling this way. The university parted using the race conscious program in order to bring in more minorities and I think Abigail saw that as a reason she did not get in. I feel like she was upset that she wasn't accepted and tried to find any reason to justify why they did not accept her.