Firing a Taser at somebody doesn’t make a constitutional violation without hitting him. The shooting of plaintiff’s decedent during a dynamic entry was entitled to qualified immunity. The planning session before the entry showed that the police considered alternatives. “The aim of the plan was to surprise and subdue Gandy before he could harm himself or others. There was nothing before the district court to suggest that Sergeant Pittman knew or should have known that the course of action he chose would in fact lead to the use of deadly force against Gandy. In sum, we conclude that this theory was properly rejected at the summary judgment stage.” Gandy v. Robey, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6817 (4th Cir. April 4, 2013).*
[Note: Twice I've seen files over SWAT team assaults on buildings. Both were rejected. One lead to a near mortal wounding when the sniper's target shot a hostage when the target wasn't killed because the bullet deflected going through a window. The other lead to the almost new house burning down from a teargas cannister left inside when the police never moved in to clear the house after firing it inside, and they weren't even sure the suspect was still there. It is almost impossible to make a case against a SWAT Team that is merely negligent, even if they were. In the examples above, the sniper wasn't negligent. In the second, who ever decided to fire in the teargas cannister, knowing it could burn down the house without intending to go in after it, was negligent. But negligence doesn't state a § 1983 claim.]
↧