To be excessive use of force, the use of force has to be justified in the first place, and here it's not. He wasn't defending himself or using force to try and apprehend the suspect. He simply assaulted the man because he was angry with him. The man was fully cooperating with the officer and even told the officer straight up he would allow himself to be arrested. Several times in the video he offered to let the officer arrest him. Can't get much more cooperative than that.
Don't be so quick to judge. The man was elderly, had cancer and barely spoke English. The officer was speaking gibberish, and all I could glean from the video is that the cop thought the guy had done a u turn and the guy was trying to say he hadn't in fact. Cop straight up refused to take the man's statement and basically obstructed his own investigation. Repeatedly told the guy he was under arrest to only then refuse to arrest him and continue berating him and cutting him off anytime the old guy tried to explain his side of the story. So yes, the old guy reached his limit and got frustrated.
But all that is beside the point. The point is you don't body slam frail old cancer patients for disrespecting you. Period. The ONLY context where that would be justifiable is if the old guy had had a weapon.
Get out of here with that strawman BS.
assume a lot huh?
Never been there done that huh? Easy to call the plays from the sidelines.
That's not how the law works. You can't go around prophylactically assaulting people because of what they might do. You can respond with a reasonable amount of force in self defense, and police can use necessary force to apprehend a suspect who is resisting arrest.
Effectively what you're arguing is tantamount to saying it's okay to shoot someone because they might have a gun.
If you tried to use your argument as a criminal defense, you would effectively be admitting guilt, because what you're arguing is that the cop did indeed make a mistake but should be given a pass because of the "heat of the moment." Basically the case you're making would be admitting to attempted murder in the second degree.
In assaults and self defense pleas, mistakes aren't allowed. Only what a reasonable person in retrospect would have done at the time, based on what the defendant knew at the time.
P.S. IF you want to argue what the old guy did was an assault (no jury would buy it but okay we'll go there), then the cop would have been justified in grabbing him by the arm, which is the necessary amount of force that any reasonable person knows would be required to stop the "assault." IF the cop thought the old man was a potential threat, he would have been justified in detaining him, placing him in cuffs and searching him for weapons.
Oh and btw, the cop letting him get out of the car, roam around freely, turning his back on him, letting the guy touch him, etc. is absolute PROOF to a jury that the cop was not in any way threatened by him. In other words, the cop knew what any reasonable person knows, which is that old man was not physically capable of harming him even if he had wanted to.
Furthermore, what the cop did was use lethal force, which is only legal if you are REASONABLY in fear for your life. Note that lethal force is defined as any force that a reasonable person knows could seriously injure or kill. Any reasonable person knows that body slamming an old man face first onto the pavement could seriously injure or even kill him. The cop had already demonstrated by his own actions throughout the video he was not in fear for his life.
Your Monday morning quarterback argument DOES NOT hold water. Not legally, and not even hypothetically.
Last edited:
HERE HERE
Why not tell the old guy to turn around and put your hands behind your back?
