Reader Ad Slot
Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Fred Hampton — Part 3
Page 238
238 / 251
‘ i,
OPINION OF THE COURT. . 7
Approaching the car from behind, Long and Guilmette
went to the passenger side, and MacDonald and Scire went
to the driver’s side. All had their guns drawn, displayed
police identification, and shouted warnings not to move.
Long reached into the back seat and attempted ‘to restrain
Maiorana’s hands. A shot was fired and Long was hit.
MacDonald heard Long exclaim, ‘‘I am hit,’’ or words to
that effect. He saw movement in the back seat and fired
three times. Scire’s affidavit stated that he fired a single
shot after seeing Maiorana reach for his waist. Guilmette
stated that he shot from a crouched position after realizing
that Long had been hit and seeing Maiorana use his left
hand to grip the butt of the gun he had in his belt. Scire ran
around the car to assist Long. Both Maiorana and Long
were taken to the hospital where Maiorana died. The
parties now agree that Scire’s shot hit Long, Guilmette’s
shot hit Maiorana in the thigh, and one of MacDonald’s
three shots killed Maiorana by piercing his lung and aorta.
After making findings well within the compass of the
affidavits, the court went on to rule that the plaintiff’s
actions survived. her son’s death. Next, it concluded that
there was no genuine dispute concerning the reasonable-
ness and good faith of the officers, who the court found had.
grounds to believe that Maiorana was armed and danger-
ous and who were called upon to act decisively under the
circumstances. The court characterized the plaintiff’s
counteraffidavits as ‘‘mostly conelusory - allegations ...
[about] the state of-mind of the officers ... [and] a specu-
lative, unsupported and self-serving analysis of the circum-
stances surrounding the arrest.’’? It found no competent
evidence to create a material issue of fact as to the reason-
able belief and good faith of the officers.5
‘This ruling applied not only to thé plaintiff’s clainy that the
defendants used excessive force in arresting her son, but also to
her conspiracy to murder claim and her claim as to gross negli-
gence by the defendants in supplying her son with guns and drugs.
- 7a ~-
s
Community corrections
No user corrections yet.
Comments
No comments on this document yet.
Bottom Reader Ad Slot
Bottom Reader Ad Slot placeholder
If you would like to support SpookStack without paying out of pocket, please consider allowing advertising cookies. It helps cover hosting costs and keeps the archive free to browse. You can change this choice at any time.
Continue Exploring
Agency Collection
Explore This Archive Cluster
Broad Topic Hub
Topic Hub
letter
bureau
Related subtopics
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic
Subtopic