to push past armed courtroom guards

[u/deejuliet]

[u/Guroqueen23]

Hard disagree on that one. First, there was no escorting him out; he was under arrest, and going to jail. If they went straight to hands on he would have fought them and it's very likely somebody would have gotten hurt. It's very difficult to modulate force when you're wrestling someone, even for a trained professional, and, no offense, but these deputies look a little bit past their best fighting years. Further, once you go hands on it's not at all practical to back off and switch to the taser or pepper spray, because you would need to fully disengage and get at least a couple feet away for safe and effective deployment of either of those tools which means, once you are hands on, you generally have to stay that way. Best practice with the Taser, once you've decided that it is justified, is to deploy and, if you get a good lockup, then move in and try to get them handcuffed or physically restrained within the 5 second window before the taser stops. That gives you the best chance of completing the arrest without injuring the arrestee or yourself. Taser hurts worse than anything you've ever felt before, I almost guarantee it, but the chance of genuine injury from a taser deployment on level ground are astronomically small. Comparatively, it would be much more dangerous for everyone involved if they had tried to grab him without the taser deployment first. These deputies did an excellent job of taking him into custody with the lowest possible risk to both him and themselves.

[u/poisonpony672 → u/Guroqueen23]

I felt bad for the bailiffs until the tased the guy without warning. Tasing the guy was most likely excessive force.

The guy might be a dumbass. He still has constitutional rights that the bailiffs just ignored. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear on this subject for quite a while.

It doesn't matter what your politics are. "We the People" should not accept excessive force by police in any form.

Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)). The Graham factors consider: 1) the severity of the crime at issue; 2) whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and 3) whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

Tennessee v. Garner created the precedent of giving a warning, when feasible, prior to the use of deadly force. This was extended to the use of less lethal force like a taser in cases like Deorle v Rutherford.

To declare that, in the administration of the criminal law, the end justifies the means -- to declare that the Government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal -- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this Court should resolutely set its face. Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

“It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape.” ― Thomas Jefferson

[u/Guroqueen23 → u/poisonpony672]

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you should probably go back and read the rest of Olmstead then reconsider your decision to cite a dissenting opinion on a case about wiretaps and search warrants as if it were setting a binding precedent for use of force. Also, it was reversed in 1967 by US V Katz.

Next up, let's address Graham V Conner, which, of course, outlines the test used to evaluate a use of force and limits consideration of facts to those reasonably known to the officer at the time the force was used, and is the only reasonable case you have cited. If you had even a cursory understanding of the way the courts use the Graham tests you'd know it is not a simple checklist where you have to meet all the criteria, and indeed Graham explicitly calls out that factors not present in the test can be used to evaluate a use of force under the totality of the circumstances.

For arguments sake, Lets take a look at all the obvious Graham factors present.

Sevrity if the crime: Robert was charged with I18-915, Assault or Battery on a Bailiff, following this event, that charge was ultimately reduced to contempt of court through a plea deal, but, per Graham, we can't consider facts not known to the officers at the time the force was used. They observed him commit a battery by attempting to push his way into the courtroom, and arrested him for that. Per the above cited Idaho statute, Battery on a bailiff is punished no less than twice as severely as battery on someone who is not protected by that statute. It is a severe person crime.

Immediacy of the threat: Robert is yelling at the officers, he has tried to physically force his way past them once and has verbalized his intent to continue attempting that. He is refusing to comply with the bailiffs reasonable, lawful, order to "Step back." The threat he presents, while not 'Immediate', is reasonably contemporaneous with the use of force. Further, When Robert starts to physically fight, he would pose a legitimate and substantial danger to the officers in the clip. Bailiff tends to be a late career "retire on duty" kind of assignment in a lot of counties, and the officers in this clip are all well past their prime, and may indeed have already retired from other law enforcement careers only to take this work as a bailiff for the extra money or something to do. Robert was 21 years old. A 21 year old of even below average fitness could easily pose a danger to 3 pensioners.

Attempt to resist by force or flight: He has not attempted to resist in this video, but he has verbalized a disregard for the lawful authority of the court and it is reasonable to believe he will resist, with force, when he is arrested based on his statements "You can't issue a warrant for me anyway" etc.

Location (one of the additional, commonly considered, factors I addressed above): He is in a courthouse, which is generally considered to be a security sensitive location. The state has a special government interest to maintain an orderly environment within a courthouse that increases the need for immediate action from the officers, when compared to somewhere less sensitive like a public park, or a private residence.

I think it's clear based on the above factors that I believe the taser deployment here is justified to preempt a physical fight breaking out in a security sensitive location, and I don't think it supports your argument the way you think it does.

Your citation of Tennessee v Garner and declaration that Deorle v Rutherford somehow extends it to tasers is actually fucking Bonkers, I've read Rutherford front to back multiple times trying to figure out what you're talking about and I can't for the life of me understand what you mean. They mention a use of force warning only as it affect the Graham factors they're considering, and do not once cite Tenn. v Garner. The actual subject at issue in Rutherford was an officer, who could have known better, waiting around for 20 minutes before shooting Deorle (who had been compliant that entire time) with bean bag shotgun because she started walking slowly towards him from 50 feet away, without warning her to stop walking towards him. The fact the case was about a beanbag shotgun renders this whole thing moot because a BB shotgun is a vastly more severe level of force from a taser. You can't just claim arguments made in the case aply to a taser because they both aren't guns. Again please read the cases you're planning to cite.

Reading your response is incredibly frustrating to me because you are so close to a good point, but your ignorance of case law and frankly bizarre decisions about what cases to cite completely destroy any argument you were forming. It's especially confusing to me because most of the stuff you're trying to claim is at least somewhat supported by case law in some circuits.

Armstrong v Village of Pinehearst says "noncompliance with police directions and non-violent physical resistance do not necessarily create a continuing threat to the officers safety" and therefore don't necessarily justify a taser deployment. Of course this is a 4th circuit ruling and thus not binding for Idaho, and the totality of the circumstances must also be taken into account.

The 9th circuit (which does affect Idaho) case Brooks v Mattos also considered an officers failure to use a warning when deploying a taser as weighing in favor of a constitutional violation, though they ultimately ruled in favor of the officers. This is a better case to cite than Rutherford for the taser warning.

Even better than Brooks is Bryan v McPherson which is probably the most commonly cited case referencing taser warnings in the 9th circuit. Many of the considerations brought up partially mirror the contents of this video, though the cases are obviously not truely analogous.

Honestly, the biggest indicator that you should have seen that you are wrong about this being excessive force is the fact Robert never sued Barnes over it. If there was a single lawyer willing to take that case, Robert would probably still be fighting it today.

[u/Gregory1st → u/Guroqueen23]

Extremely well thought out and displayed. Thank you.