Page 22 - May2021

Good news from the courts
One of the most vexing issues in officer- involved shootings is how quickly these types of incidents play out. Most times, when an officer is required to use deadly force, the
officer has seconds to assess the danger
and make the decision to discharge his or
her firearm. The judiciary nationally have
been less and less open to the incredible stresses officers are put through in needing
to make a life-or-death decision in a matter of seconds. In fact, there has been a trend to try and
slow down the event and analyze the discharge from the sani- tized bench of the courtroom and not from the chaotic scene of the discharge. Our Police Board have become experts at slow- ing down videos and critiquing every decision of police officers in their quest for termination. However, a recent United States Appellate Court decision chastised a federal judge for engaging in that type of analysis.
To understand the benefit of the decision, we must first ana- lyze the precedent. The seminal case for officer-involved shoot- ings is the 1989 United States Supreme Court case of Graham v. Connor. In Graham, the court stated that all excessive-force claims must be analyzed under an objective reasonableness standard. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged by the point of view of the officer.
With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies. Not ev- ery push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the law. The deter-
mination of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The reasonable- ness inquiry in an excessive-force case is an objective one: The question is whether the officers’ actions are “objectively reasonable” in light of the facts and cir- cumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20
vision of hindsight.
This language has proven to be a great tool for the defense
of police officers since Graham’s inception. However, the civil rights crowd and COPA have twisted and turned this language and at the least marginalized it and at the most ignored it. How- ever, it appears the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth District has reinforced the mandate of Graham. In April, the Sixth District rendered an opinion in the case of Cunningham v. Shelby County, an officer-involved shooting out of western Tennessee. In the case, three Shelby County sheriffs responded to a call of a woman who was having a mental health crisis and was armed with a .45 caliber pistol. When they got on scene, and while squad videos were running, she was seen exiting her front door with a handgun in her hand. Unbeknownst to the officers, she was holding a BB gun, but this was not determined until later. She pointed the gun at the officers, and after giv- ing verbal commands, the officers discharged their weapons
TIM GRACE
The Law Firm of Grace & Thompson Specializes in Representing Chicago Police Officers
James E. Thompson, Partner JThompson@ggtlegal.com
Timothy M. Grace, Partner connorgrace@aol.com
We pride ourselves in maintaining a small-firm feel by treating each case with care and consideration.
Seasoned trial attorneys representing Chicago Police Officers in matters before the Chicago Police Board, Internal Affairs, COPA, Inspector General, and Civil and Criminal Courts.
The Law Firm of Grace & Thompson also provides professional legal services in other areas:
• Personal Injury
• Divorce
• Criminal and Civil Defense Litigation
Contact us today for a free consultation! 312-943-0600 • GGTlegal.com
311 W. Superior Street, Suite 215 • Chicago, IL 60654
22 CHICAGO LODGE 7 ■ MAY 2021