CA6: Shooting a man in the back for lawfully carrying a gun doesn’t get QI [yet D.Ct. bought it]

The district court erred by granting the police officer summary judgment as to plaintiff’s excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment. Accepting plaintiff’s account of the incident, the officer violated plaintiff’s clearly established rights when he shot him six times from behind without warning and without any indication that plaintiff would use his lawfully carried gun to harm officers or others. Redrick v. City of Akron, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33892 (6th Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)* (This is an example of how brazen a qualified immunity argument can become. “I shot him in the back just because he was lawfully carrying a gun.”)

Officers acted reasonably in tackling plaintiff who was resisting arrest and ignored 13 commands. Finally, he was also Tased when resisting, and that was reasonable, too. Charles v. Johnson, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33957 (11th Cir. Nov. 16, 2021).*

This entry was posted in Excessive force, Qualified immunity. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.