Via David Codrea, this piece at Reason is sad both in its signal tale for where America is, and for further development down the road to tyranny.

… the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a major case that promises to further obstruct people from holding the government accountable when their rights are violated.

In 2017, Euclid Police Department (EPD) Officer Matthew Rhodes shot and killed Luke Stewart, 23, shortly after waking him up in his car around 7 a.m. in Euclid, Ohio. Along with Officer Louis Catalani, Rhodes had attempted to forcefully eject Stewart from his vehicle. Neither officer announced they were law enforcement, nor was Stewart ever informed he was under arrest, as he had not committed any known crime.

After a brief struggle that lasted just over a minute, Rhodes shot Stewart five times.

A jury in civil court could deduce that Rhodes infringed on Stewart’s constitutional rights, said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit last August. One would assume so. But the court then turned around and awarded the officer qualified immunity, barring Stewart’s estate from suing.

[ … ]

That decision—and the high court’s demurral in considering it—could have major implications for how Congress addresses qualified immunity. Sen. Tim Scott (R–S.C.) has been one of the few congressional Republicans willing to come to the table on the issue, proposing a compromise last month to hold cities liable for nefarious actions committed by officers in their individual capacities. Yet if the federal courts now consider those same cities eligible for qualified immunity by association, then that plan may be a dud.

It’s well known to readers here that criminals have been using tactical clothing and gear to pretend to be police, and with the SCOTUS refusal to grant cert, they can now even go plain clothes, beat people up with no way of ascertaining that they are actually police, and people need to lay down and take it.

Cops have shot people through doorways in their own home, and in none of these cases can the police be held accountable for their actions.

That’s because according to precedent, the police aren’t there to protect the public.  They exist as a standing land army of occupation, for the purpose of conducting state stability operations.

The supreme court essentially said this in their refusal to overturn this case.  The case couldn’t even garner four justices to get a hearing.

When the police wonder why people hate they, they should look no further than themselves.  And you can fold the judiciary into this analysis.  If there is justice in the system of justice, it’s only spurious and by accident.