\u201cAfter defendants took plaintiff to the ground, he still did not comply with instructions to put his hands behind his back. Plaintiff’s hands were beneath him, and defendants reasonably believed that he may have been reaching for a weapon. It was not constitutional error to deploy a taser when defendants reasonably believed plaintiff may have been reaching for a firearm. See, e.g., Hagans v. Franklin Cty. Sheriff’s Office, 695 F.3d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 2012) (finding use of taser reasonable where arrestee refused to be handcuffed); Draper v. Reynolds, 369 F.3d 1270, 1278 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that use of taser reasonably proportionate during a traffic stop when arrestee repeatedly refused to comply with verbal commands).\u201d Hudson v. Pinney, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53529 (E.D. N.C. Mar. 29, 2019).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cAfter defendants took plaintiff to the ground, he still did not comply with instructions to put his hands behind his back. Plaintiff’s hands were beneath him, and defendants reasonably believed that he may have been reaching for a weapon. It … Continue reading