Before anyone can FAIRLY evaluate the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, a THOROUGH understanding of the law on the question of “excessive use of force” is necessary. Facts are evaluated in light of the law, not the other way around — the law is not molded to fit the facts.
Before even looking at the facts — disputed and otherwise — regarding the Minneapolis shooting, what the law considers important must be understood.
There is no shortage of legal precedents on “use of force” claims. The level of force used by law enforcement is irrelevant — the question is always distilled down to whether the use of force was “reasonable” from an objective point of view — would a “reasonable officer” faced with the same circumstances have reacted in the same manner?
Two aspects of this question are of the utmost importance:
The review cannot benefit from the application of “20/20 hindsight.”
In almost every situation there is more than one “reasonable” reaction.
The factual scenario here is that several officers were involved in an effort to subdue a subject while in the process of placing him under arrest. During the course of that conduct, one or more officers resorted to the use of deadly force.
The fact that deadly force was used does not alter the analysis — it is no different than if a level of non-lethal force was used that resulted in the subject suffering a broken arm. The analysis remains “Was the force used reasonable under the totality of circumstances, as viewed from the objective perspective of a reasonable officer?”
Join the conversation as a VIP Member