excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 28,549
- 57,745
- 2,290
What many seem to forget. This is how it works.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
shipwreckedcrew.substack.com
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Before anyone can FAIRLY evaluate the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, a THOROUGH understanding of the law on the question of “excessive use of force” is necessary. Facts are evaluated in light of the law, not the other way around — the law is not molded to fit the facts.
Before even looking at the facts — disputed and otherwise — regarding the Minneapolis shooting, what the law considers important must be understood.
There is no shortage of legal precedents on “use of force” claims. The level of force used by law enforcement is irrelevant — the question is always distilled down to whether the use of force was “reasonable” from an objective point of view — would a “reasonable officer” faced with the same circumstances have reacted in the same manner?
Two aspects of this question are of the utmost importance:
The review cannot benefit from the application of “20/20 hindsight.”
In almost every situation there is more than one “reasonable” reaction.
The factual scenario here is that several officers were involved in an effort to subdue a subject while in the process of placing him under arrest. During the course of that conduct, one or more officers resorted to the use of deadly force.
The fact that deadly force was used does not alter the analysis — it is no different than if a level of non-lethal force was used that resulted in the subject suffering a broken arm. The analysis remains “Was the force used reasonable under the totality of circumstances, as viewed from the objective perspective of a reasonable officer?”
In 1989 the Supreme Court decided Connor v. Graham, a case involving a “detention” of Graham where he alleged an excessive level of force was used against him by a collection of officers. Graham suffered a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and injuries to his shoulder. After several minutes in detention, Graham was released when the officers’ investigation revealed he had not been involved in any suspicious activity.
Prior to Conner, excessive force claims were often reviewed as part of a “substantive due process” analysis, one part of that involved the state of mind of the officer — was he acting in “good faith” in the choice of what force to use, or was the level of force used "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."
Connor rejected that approach, eliminated the subjective intentions or motives of the officer involved in the use of force, and substituted a “reasonable officer” standard who is faced with the same set of circumstances — how would that person respond?
...
Before even looking at the facts — disputed and otherwise — regarding the Minneapolis shooting, what the law considers important must be understood.
There is no shortage of legal precedents on “use of force” claims. The level of force used by law enforcement is irrelevant — the question is always distilled down to whether the use of force was “reasonable” from an objective point of view — would a “reasonable officer” faced with the same circumstances have reacted in the same manner?
Two aspects of this question are of the utmost importance:
The review cannot benefit from the application of “20/20 hindsight.”
In almost every situation there is more than one “reasonable” reaction.
The factual scenario here is that several officers were involved in an effort to subdue a subject while in the process of placing him under arrest. During the course of that conduct, one or more officers resorted to the use of deadly force.
The fact that deadly force was used does not alter the analysis — it is no different than if a level of non-lethal force was used that resulted in the subject suffering a broken arm. The analysis remains “Was the force used reasonable under the totality of circumstances, as viewed from the objective perspective of a reasonable officer?”
In 1989 the Supreme Court decided Connor v. Graham, a case involving a “detention” of Graham where he alleged an excessive level of force was used against him by a collection of officers. Graham suffered a broken foot, cuts on his wrists, a bruised forehead, and injuries to his shoulder. After several minutes in detention, Graham was released when the officers’ investigation revealed he had not been involved in any suspicious activity.
Prior to Conner, excessive force claims were often reviewed as part of a “substantive due process” analysis, one part of that involved the state of mind of the officer — was he acting in “good faith” in the choice of what force to use, or was the level of force used "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm."
Connor rejected that approach, eliminated the subjective intentions or motives of the officer involved in the use of force, and substituted a “reasonable officer” standard who is faced with the same set of circumstances — how would that person respond?
...
THE LAW on "Excessive Use Of Force Claims" -- Public Sentiments Do Not Reflect The Realities Of Legal Principles.
"Right" and "Wrong" are only seldomly relevant in the analysis, and the law has a tolerance for alleged "mistakes" by law enforcement in fast moving and confusing situations.
shipwreckedcrew.substack.com
