This is a simple concept.
Once "Force" has been used by the police, the question of whether or not the suspect complied becomes irrelevant. At that point the only question that really matters is "Was the amount of force used necessary based on the situation."
Comply with the cops/Don't Resist are things you do to minimize the risk of use of force used against you. But once used, it's no longer relevant.
Use an extreme example. A suspect in brief underwear only, is laying on the ground, hands out in front. One hand is brought behind the back and cuffed. The suspect resists putting his other hand back for cuffing. The cop shoots him. There is no way that "he should've put his hand behind his back for cuffing" is relevant to the amount of force used. That's not the question that needs to be asked. The question is "Given the situation, was shooting the suspect the correct amount of force to be applied?"
In the extreme example, the answer is an obvious "No". There is no reason to justify that shooting. Pointing out that the suspect should have just put his other hand back doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. At best, well after the fact you can show that non-compliance makes you more vulnerable to police use of force, but that doesn't do anything to justify that use of force.
Once "Force" has been used by the police, the question of whether or not the suspect complied becomes irrelevant. At that point the only question that really matters is "Was the amount of force used necessary based on the situation."
Comply with the cops/Don't Resist are things you do to minimize the risk of use of force used against you. But once used, it's no longer relevant.
Use an extreme example. A suspect in brief underwear only, is laying on the ground, hands out in front. One hand is brought behind the back and cuffed. The suspect resists putting his other hand back for cuffing. The cop shoots him. There is no way that "he should've put his hand behind his back for cuffing" is relevant to the amount of force used. That's not the question that needs to be asked. The question is "Given the situation, was shooting the suspect the correct amount of force to be applied?"
In the extreme example, the answer is an obvious "No". There is no reason to justify that shooting. Pointing out that the suspect should have just put his other hand back doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion. At best, well after the fact you can show that non-compliance makes you more vulnerable to police use of force, but that doesn't do anything to justify that use of force.
Comment