It looks like the BPD is in another little pickle again. Something called “excessive force.”
So something also like seven officers used a taser weapon on a guy down at Sprouts because he didn’t immediately comply with their demands to get on the ground, and yet now they’re saying (Burbank) that he was at worst just guilty of a few “misdemeanors.”
But look at what the 9th Circuit cited last year in a note when they denied another police officer qualified immunity on a taser hit of his own:
12 Our sister circuits have likewise concluded that misdemeanors are relatively minor and will generally not support the deployment of significant force. See, e.g., Fogarty v. Gallegos, 523 F.3d 1147, 1160 (10th Cir. 2008); Reese v. Herbert, 527 F.3d 1253, 1274 (11th Cir. 2008). In addition, we have previously suggested that felonies not involving violence provide limited support for the use of significant force under Graham. See Meredith, 342 F.3d at 1063; Chew, 27 F.3d at 1442-43 & n.9.
Tasers are considered to be significant force under the law. And the radical-liberal Marxist 9th Circuit cited the opinion of their “sister courts” as precedent. Not some Communist hippie lesbian from Hawaii or Marin County.
So what was that again about not charging the guy with any crimes right now? If he was just guilty of a misdemeanor then why tase him?
He didn’t do anything that bad. Except … just not comply right away.