I live an hour north/west of Denver. Anyone calling me , from my town, shows up as Denver. Wish all the silly subs could figure out where they they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Printable View
I live an hour north/west of Denver. Anyone calling me , from my town, shows up as Denver. Wish all the silly subs could figure out where they they are.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by cstone
A disturbance is generally police jargon for fight. Sometimes when the police go to calls other crimes occur in front of them. Even though they weren't dispatched to that call, they are still allowed to enforce laws that people didn't call about. Probable cause then existed for some type of crime and the suspect fought the deputy. The deputy gets choked which is lethal force justification. If you have ever been choked to blackout then you will understand why. I'll hand you a can of pepper spray then start choking you if you think lethal force isn't a justification for that type of fight. There is always someone bigger and badder than you are. And I'll top that off with someone wired up on meth or coke and tell me how much they care when they get hit by a fist or club.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
Let me see if I understand this correctly... Because he is a cop, by default he's supposed to be able to physically control anyone he tries to apprehend, but if he can't (his bad, should have had more "skillz"), and is about to be choked out, he's not justified to use lethal force?Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
Seems you have an extremely flawed sense of reality here, and my opinion to you is, if you CCW, you should get some more training on the legal side of things, because your use of force knowledge is lacking...
And the second you start teaching cops all kinds of different hand to hand combat techniques for every situation (which is impossible) someone will scream..."Militarization of the police."Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
OK. But then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
Too bad you weren't there to show him how it's done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
That was posed as a question. Take your time, read it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
You missed the point completely, but I'll buy you a beer so we could talk and better explain myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by hurley842002
I have been choked out to blackout, and quite frankly I would have dropped a nuke in order to get out of the situation.
The officer, hopefully, will make a full recovery. He's doing a dangerous job which I'm not suited for.
I'm sure he's a great person and family man. His life is going to be turned upside down, and psychologically messed up, for a long time. I'll be the first to support him.
My question does relate to lethal force.
In the last two years, two of my cousins each lost a child to unjustified use of lethal force by LEO (as determined by the courts).
So enlighten me, what is the threshold for use of lethal force by officers, and how are officers trained? Are they screened for psychological 'red flags' ?
OK...gimme a minute. Hmmm....Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
Yeah. I read it slowly and carefully. I'm still not seeing the question. I'm seeing a statement as evidenced by the period, not a question mark, at the end of the sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
Now, if that was a simple typo and was meant to be a question then a simple, "Oh, sorry. That was meant to be a question" type response would have made it clear what you meant.
We use a reasonable test based on the Supreme Court Case Graham V. Connor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Duman
The long and short of it is this, would a reasonable officer given the same circumstances acted the same way. The courts have already determined law enforcement situations to be rapidly unfolding and that officers have to act within seconds with the information at hand. The media and the public rarely understand this concept.
Being choked (strangled is technically the more appropriate word) is considered lethal force justification because of how quickly it can kill you or knock you out leaving the ability for additional harm or deadly weapons to be removed from the officers belt and used against him or a third party.
Most agencies, if not all, require some type psychological exam prior to hiring or going to certain special assignments like SWAT.
Graham v. Connor,
490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Annotate this Case
Syllabus | Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Graham v. Connor
No. 87-6571
Argued February 21, 1989
Decided May 15, 1989
490 U.S. 386
Syllabus
Petitioner Graham, a diabetic, asked his friend, Berry, to drive him to a convenience store to purchase orange juice to counteract the onset of an insulin reaction. Upon entering the store and seeing the number of people ahead of him, Graham hurried out and asked Berry to drive him to a friend's house instead. Respondent Connor, a city police officer, became suspicious after seeing Graham hastily enter and leave the store, followed Berry's car, and made an investigative stop, ordering the pair to wait while he found out what had happened in the store. Respondent backup police officers arrived on the scene, handcuffed Graham, and ignored or rebuffed attempts to explain and treat Graham's condition. During the encounter, Graham sustained multiple injuries. He was released when Conner learned that nothing had happened in the store. Graham filed suit in the District Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against respondents, alleging that they had used excessive force in making the stop, in violation of "rights secured to him under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 1983." The District Court granted respondents' motion for a directed verdict at the close of Graham's evidence, applying a four-factor test for determining when excessive use of force gives rise to a § 1983 cause of action, which inquires, inter alia, whether the force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain and restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm. Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028. The Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing this test as generally applicable to all claims of constitutionally excessive force brought against government officials, rejecting Graham's argument that it was error to require him to prove that the allegedly excessive force was applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, and holding that a reasonable jury applying the Johnson v. Glick test to his evidence could not find that the force applied was constitutionally excessive.
Held: All claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are properly analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's "objective reasonableness" standard, rather than under a substantive due process standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 392-399.
(a) The notion that all excessive force claims brought under § 1983 are governed by a single generic standard is rejected. Instead, courts must identify the specific constitutional right allegedly infringed by the challenged application of force, and then judge the claim by reference to the specific constitutional standard which governs that right. Pp. 490 U. S. 393-394.
(b) Claims that law enforcement officials have used excessive force in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen are most properly characterized as invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable seizures," and must be judged by reference to the Fourth Amendment's "reasonableness" standard. Pp. 490 U. S. 394-395.
(c) The Fourth Amendment "reasonableness" inquiry is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The "reasonableness" of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, and its calculus must embody an allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second decisions about the amount of force necessary in a particular situation. Pp. 490 U. S. 396-397.
(d) The Johnson v. Glick test applied by the courts below is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. The suggestion that the test's "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances is rejected. Also rejected is the conclusion that, because individual officers' subjective motivations are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. The Eighth Amendment terms "cruel" and "punishment" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the Fourth Amendment term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. Pp. 490 U. S. 397-399.
827 F.2d 945, vacated and remanded.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. BLACKMUN, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which BRENNAN and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 490 U. S. 399.
Page 490 U. S. 388