Supreme Court Rules 8-0 for Police in Major Fourth Amendment Case

SCOTUS rejects “provocation doctrine,” says illegal police search must be viewed separately from subsequent police use of force. 

Damon Root May. 30, 2017

In 2002 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit said that the lawful use of deadly force by the police may be ruled unlawful if the police themselves "created the need to use force" by acting in an illegal manner. "Where an officer intentionally or recklessly provokes a violent confrontation, if the provocation is an independent Fourth Amendment violation," the 9th Circuit held in Billington v. Smith, the officer "may be held liable for his otherwise defensive use of deadly force." Otherwise known as the "provocation doctrine"....... by a vote of 8-0, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the 9th Circuit's reasoning and wiped the provocation doctrine off the books........two deputies from the L.A. County Sheriff's Department entered the residence of Angel Mendez and Jennifer Garcia without a search warrant, spotted Mendez holding a BB gun (which he kept on hand to fend off rats), and shot both Mendez and Garcia multiple times in ostensible self-defense. Mendez's right leg was later amputated below the knee as a result of his injuries. Garcia was shot in the back........Of course, if the police had not violated the Constitution to begin with in this case, the police would not have had the opportunity to use any sort of force at all. The indisputable fact is that Angel Mendez would still have the use of his right leg if the detectives had not disobeyed the Fourth Amendment, illegally entered his home, and shot him.......To Read More....

My Take - As a general rule I support police actions because most of the people they deal with are criminals....really.....no matter what letists say......they really are!  And I have little respect for anything that comes out of the 9th Circuit as they've created laws through their decisions instead of ruling on existing law.  However - this is something I find disturbing. 

On the surface I don't like the "provocation doctrine", but I also think there's a reason why this became a standard - police were exceding the authority given to them by society. 

1. Why did they enter this house in the first place? 
2. Why didn't they get a warrent as they must know is required?
3. Why was Mendez really holding a BB gun?  The rat story seems a bit .....well..... strange. 
4. Why did the police have to shoot multiple times? 
5. Why did they have to shoot both of them since the woman apparently didn't have anything resembling a weapon?  
6. What's the back story on all of this? 

I don't like any of this including the SCOTUS decision.  Too much is missing from the account.