1/16
On May 21st 2010, 3 University of Arizona police officers responded to a “welfare check” about a person hacking a tree with a knife. When they arrived on-scene they witnessed a woman, Amy Hughes, emerge from her home carrying a large kitchen knife. #velshi

2/16
Carrying the knife, Amy Hughes walked towards another woman, Sharon Chadwick, with whom she lived. The officers yelled for Hughes to drop the knife. #velshi

3/16
After briefly assessing the situation, 1 of the 3 officers – Andrew Kisela, who was separated from the women by a 5 ft tall chain-link fence, watched as Hughes moved to within a few feet of Chadwick & shot 4 times claiming Amy Hughes raised the knife before he fired. #velshi

4/16
The officers then jumped the fence, handcuffed the wounded Hughes, and called for medical backup. The other two officers and Sharon Chadwick said they did *NOT* see Hughes raise the knife. #velshi

5/16
Witnesses confirmed Hughes was holding the knife at her side with the point down. Chadwick told officers after the shooting that Hughes had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, was taking medication and that she had managed her behavior in the past. #velshi

6/16
She added that if the police had given her the chance, she would have gotten Hughes to drop the knife. Amy Hughes survived the shooting and sued, claiming Officer Kisela violated her Fourth Amendment right by using excessive force. #velshi

7/16
A district court judge disagreed, saying the force used was “not objectively unreasonable in light of all the relevant circumstances.” A federal circuit court of appeals reversed that decision, saying Kisela had no reason to believe that deadly force was necessary. #velshi

8/16
Officer Kisela should have realied Amy Hughes was mentally ill and diminished his use of force appropriately. The court added that Hughes had quote “a constitutional right to walk down her driveway holding a knife without being shot.” #velshi

9/16
The state then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the decision to deny Kisela so called “qualified immunity” was at odds with virtually every other circuit court and the Supreme Court. #velshi

10/16
The Supreme court agreed, and found that quote “even assuming that a Fourth Amendment violation occurred – on these facts Kisela was at least entitled to qualified immunity.” #velshi

11/16
Qualified immunity, like in the Hughes vs. Kisela case, protects law enforcement officers as well as state and local officials from frivolous litigation unless the accused violated a clearly established constitutional right. #velshi

12/16
Establishing that violation is not easy, especially if there's no prior pattern of such behavior - so over the years, qualified immunity has become a kind of shield in thousands of lawsuits seeking to hold officers accountable when accused of using excessive force. #velshi

13/16
Proponents of qualified immunity say it’s essential because police need latitude to make split-second decisions in scenarios that could put lives, including their own, at risk. #velshi

14/16
Last May, a Reuters investigation revealed how qualified immunity has made it easier for police to kill or injure civilians with impunity by shielding them from lawsuits. But the Supreme Court, in recent years, has become more critical of qualified immunity. #velshi

15/16
Comments about it have been made by Clarence Thomas & Sonia Sotomayor, who described qualified immunity as “a ‘shoot first, think later’ approach to policing”. Qualified immunity is 1 of those things that, if altered or removed, could fundamentally change policing. #velshi

16/16
It’s also turning out to be the hill Republican Senators are prepared to die on in exchange for supporting the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act. And for that reason, it deserves our attention. #velshi