![\"\"](\"https:\/\/stateofthenation2012.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/police-tape-shutterstock_562804337.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nIt is permissible for police officers upset over an alleged speeding violation to use SWAT tactics to surround an apartment at 1:30 a.m., violently pound on the door of an innocent man\u2019s residence and gun him down when he opens the door.<\/p>\n
That apparently is the conclusion of both district and appellate courts in the case Young v. Borders, which now has been presented to the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/p>\n
Multiple interests have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in the case, which was\u00a0brought\u00a0against law enforcement officers who shot and killed Andrew Lee Scott. Amy Young, John Scott and Miranda Mauck filed the wrongful death claim against Gary Borders, sheriff of Lake County, Florida, and his deputy, Richard Sylvester.<\/p>\n
The facts are undisputed, according to 11th Circuit Court of Appeals judges\u00a0Ed Carnes, Gerald Tjoflat, Frank Hull, Stanley Marcus, William Pryor, Adalberto Jordan and Julie Carnes<\/a>.<\/p>\n The\u00a0appeals court, the most recent to rule in favor of the officers, cited \u201cqualified immunity,\u201d which is generally granted to\u00a0law enforcement officers for doing their job.<\/p>\n The appeals judges claimed,\u00a0\u201cNo clearly established federal law gave clear and fair notice that Deputy [Richard] Sylvester\u2019s conduct was unlawful.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n The Rutherford Institute detailed the facts of the case: \u201cOn July 15, 2012, Deputy Richard Sylvester spotted a speeding motorcycle while on patrol in Lake County, Florida. Sylvester pursued the motorcycle in his patrol car but lost sight of it. Subsequent reports caused Sylvester to believe that the motorcyclist might be armed, was wanted by another police department, and had been spotted at a nearby apartment complex. Arriving at the complex around 1:30 a.m., Sylvester and three other deputies began knocking on doors close to where a motorcycle was parked, starting with Apartment 114, where a light was on inside. Apartment 114 was occupied by Andrew Scott and Amy Young, who were playing video games and had no connection to the motorcycle or any illegal activity.<\/p>\n \u201cAssuming tactical positions surrounding the door to Apartment 114, the deputies had their guns drawn and ready to shoot. Sylvester, without announcing he was a police officer, then banged loudly and repeatedly on the door, causing a neighbor to open his door. When questioned by a deputy, the neighbor explained that the motorcycle\u2019s owner did not live in Apartment 114. This information was not relayed to Sylvester. Unnerved by the banging at such a late hour, Andrew Scott retrieved his handgun before opening the door. When Scott saw a shadowy figure holding a gun outside his door, he retreated into his apartment only to have Sylvester immediately open fire. Sylvester fired six shots, three of which hit and killed Scott.\u201d<\/p>\n The noted Second Amendment Foundation said in its brief asking the court to take \u2013 and reverse \u2013 the outcome, that the 11th Circuit ruling suggests \u201cAmericans should reasonably expect to be shot dead by police for possessing guns in their homes.\u201d<\/p>\n That notion, wrote SAF attorney Alan Gura, \u201csets a new record for hostility to the Second Amendment.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Second Amendment means anything, it means that the police must respect people\u2019s ability to keep guns for self-defense \u2013 not shoot them dead over it,\u201d he continued.<\/p>\n \u201cYet the decision greenlights the notion that any American who keeps arms might for that reason alone be subjected to summary, consequence-free extra-judicial killing in his home by agents of the state. \u2026 This decision not only contradicts the people\u2019s right to be secure in their homes against unreasonable seizures, but is incompatible with a legal system that holds the right to keep and bear arms to be fundamental.\u201d<\/p>\n SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb\u00a0said the case \u201cscreams\u201d for Supreme Court review.<\/p>\n \u201cWho among us would not take precautions when answering a pounding on our door in the middle of the night? After all, this is the United States, not a police state.\u201d<\/p>\n The Rutherford Institute also filed a brief.<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough 26-year-old Andrew Scott had committed no crime and never fired a single bullet or lifted his firearm against police, he was gunned down by police who were investigating a speeding incident by engaging in a middle-of-the-night \u2018knock and talk\u2019 in Scott\u2019s apartment complex,\u201d the institute said.<\/p>\n \u201cGovernment officials insist that there is nothing unlawful, unreasonable or threatening about the prospect of armed police dressed in SWAT gear knocking on doors in the middle of night and \u2018asking\u2019 homeowners to engage in warrantless \u2018knock-and-talk\u2019 sessions,\u201d said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute.<\/p>\n \u201cHowever, as Andrew Scott learned, there\u2019s always a price to pay for saying no to such heavy-handed requests by police. If the courts continue to sanction such aggressive, excessive, coercive tactics, it will give police further incentive to terrorize and kill American citizens without fear of repercussion.\u201d<\/p>\n Mark Joseph Stern, at Slate,<\/a>\u00a0pointed out Sylvester had failed to identity himself as a law enforcement officer, had no warrant and no reason to suspect that Scott or his girlfriend had committed any crime.<\/p>\n \u201cHe did not attempt to engage with Scott at all after he opened the door; he simply shot him dead.\u201d<\/p>\n He described \u201cqualified immunity\u201d as a \u201cconstitutionally dubious doctrine\u201d that bars individuals from suing the government for violating their rights unless those rights were clearly established.<\/p>\n A minority dissent in the 11th Circuit argued Scott was innocent and posed no threat.<\/p>\n Judge Beverly Martin wrote: \u201cUnder no standard was it reasonable for the police to kill Mr. Scott when he answered the knock at the door to his home. He was not suspected of any crime (much less a violent crime) and he was standing inside his own house without threatening them.\u201d<\/p>\n The officers\u00a0were not, she said, on a \u201cknock and talk.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cThere was no talk here. This was a knock and shoot.\u201d<\/p>\n