When The Police Go Too Far

The whole country is rightfully concerned about the death of George Floyd while the police were arresting him. The video of Mr. Floyd begging for his life while being choked by kneeling Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin is absolutely sickening.

We at the Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor want to add our voices to say what happened to Mr. Floyd is wrong and that reforms are badly needed in the way that the police use force. The sad part is there could be a George Floyd every day somewhere in America.

Law enforcement has its share of problems like all other professions. The popularity of shows like the original “Cops!” and now “Live PD” has given the public a better understanding of the stresses and strains of policing the general public daily. The relatively low pay combined with the high stress makes it tough to attract and keep qualified candidates. Budget restrictions make it difficult for some departments to do the necessary training to educate their officers better. We do not expect our law enforcement officers to be perfect, but we, as a society, do expect the officers to stay within bounds.

Unfortunately, some bad officers abuse the public’s trust. These bad officers go too far and go outside of the limitations, exceeding the required level of force. In the past, it was hard to get relief for the victims of police abuse. Bad officers rarely feared being punished by their own departments.

There is typically more than one officer at any given scene, and sometimes officers would coordinate their stories to cover up any abuse. It would be the word of a criminal (since the victim is usually being arrested for committing a crime) against two or more officers. Even good officers might be reluctant to speak out against their corrupt colleagues. It is what is referred to as “the blue wall of silence.” The general public held (and still do mostly) officers in high regard so the officers would be generally believed.

The widespread use of body cameras—occasioned after Walter Scott was shot to death by North Charleston PD officer Michael Slager—has made it easier for a post-incident review to determine precisely what happened.

The unblinking eye of video is impartial and has helped change the dynamic in reviewing these cases. Also, the prevalence of smartphones with cameras has helped provide additional footage of incidents. Footage of that nature proved critical in the Scott case when Officer Slager misrepresented the encounter. It was also cell phone footage that revealed the abuse of Mr. Floyd.

Presumably, Officer Chauvin and the other officers at the scene were wearing body cameras, which will provide more context for the encounter. The context in the use of force decisions and cases is vital. The public has not seen the body camera footage from Officer Chauvin or the other officers at the scene. This footage—if it exists—will show us what was happening before Officer Chauvin put his knee on Mr. Floyd’s neck.

An officer is allowed to use force to make an arrest, but the force use must be proportional to the amount of resistance encountered by the officer. This is called the “Force Continuum,” which helps us understand what level of force is appropriate in particular circumstances.

The five levels of threat (the threat being from the suspect) are:

1. Intimidating demeanor

2. Passive resistance

3. Active resistance

4. Assault

5. Aggravated Assault.

The five corresponding responses to these threats by the officer are:

1. Command Presence

2. Verbal commands

3. Controlling Force

4. Impact force

5. Deadly force.

For example, an officer may use his gun against a suspect attempting an aggravated assault (using a weapon like a gun or a knife) that is trying to harm the officer. An officer would not be allowed to use deadly force against a suspect actively resisting an officer. An officer would be allowed to use “controlling force,” which means using their hands on the suspect, but less than fighting or striking the suspect.

Sometimes the problem is with the use of force policy itself. These are some of the common criticisms:

1. Failing to require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force. Some bad officers have been found to do the opposite to provoke a physical encounter.

2. Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians, in many cases where less lethal force could be used instead, resulting in civilians’ unnecessary death or severe injury. This appears to be the exact situation with Mr. Floyd. Mr. Floyd was subdued, making pinning onto the ground unnecessary.

3. Failing to require officers to intervene and stop excessive force other officers use and report these incidents immediately to a supervisor. There were other officers present with Officer Chauvin, who did nothing to save Mr. Floyd.

4. Failing to restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles is regarded as a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic.

5. Failing to develop a Force Continuum that limits the types of force and weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance.

6. Failing to require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force.

7. Failing to require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting at a civilian.

8. Failing to require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force against civilians.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind as we watch the judicial process play out for Officer Chauvin. There will be a state criminal process for Officer Chauvin and the officers involved. There will also probably be a federal criminal process as well.

Officers who violate the civil rights of a suspect can face prosecution and possible federal prison time.

Finally, there may be a civil wrongful death suit brought by Mr. Floyd’s family against the Minneapolis Police Department. There is a federal cause of action pursuant to 42 USC 1983 for violations of civil rights. However, there are is a major hurdle in a federal 1983 action called qualified immunity. Qualified immunity protects police officers, their departments, and the departments’ insurance companies from liability unless the officer’s actions violated “clearly established” federal law or constitutional rights. Courts have increasingly interpreted this doctrine so broadly that it makes suing a bad police officer extremely difficult. Congress has begun abolishing or curtail qualified immunity, but that legislation faces an uphill battle.

There are also state law causes of action, which may provide the Floyd family monetary relief. Most states have enacted laws to shield themselves from liability for knowingly wrongful acts by their employees. These legal shields are called “the Tort Claims Act” which also make it tough to use state courts to go after bad officers. There are exceptions that knowledgeable counsel can help a victim navigate.

There are things that you can do to help improve the situation of police use of force. Lobby your state and federal representatives for expanded rights of victims of police brutality to receive financial compensation. Qualified immunity is a judicially created doctrine that Congress could abolish. The elimination of qualified immunity would force police departments that harbor bad officers to make changes. You should contact your member of the U.S. House and Senators, urging the passage of a repeal of qualified immunity. Another change would be to make the officer discipline process more transparent and to use non-department persons to act as an oversight.

The continued expansion of availability and the use of body cameras will also expand accountability. You should also contact your state legislators to make sure these legal defenses found in the Tort Claims Act have exceptions so that these statutes are not used to protect officers that go too far.

Finally, to quote abolitionist and civil rights icon Fredrick Douglas: “Agitate! Agitate! Agitate!” Continue to make your voice and opinions heard in public and online. Peaceful protest will bring about the result and change our country desperately needs.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn
Contact Us Today

Free Consultation
Call one of our Operators 24/7
(800) 351-3008

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By entering your phone number, you agree to receive text messages and updates via SMS. Message and data rates may apply.

Practice Areas

Related Posts

Notice of Data Security Event
Updated March 28, 2025

The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor is providing notice of an event that may affect certain individuals’ information. Although we have no indication of identity theft or fraud in relation to this event, we are providing information about the event, our response, and additional measures individuals can take to help protect their information, should they feel it appropriate to do so.

What Happened? On October 28, 2024, The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor identified suspicious activity related to our email system. We quickly took steps to investigate and determined that an unknown actor may have accessed certain emails within our email system between August 7 and November 7, 2024. We then conducted a comprehensive review of the potentially affected emails and attachments to determine what information was contained therein and to whom the information related, which was completed on February 25, 2025. Unfortunately, we were unable to verify the addresses of certain affected individuals, so we are providing this notice to ensure potentially affected individuals receive information about the event.

What Information Was Involved? The information affected may include individuals’ Social Security number, driver’s license and state ID information, financial account number, and health information.

What We Are Doing. We are notifying individuals about this matter and providing guidance about free resources that are available to assist with monitoring relevant accounts, credit reports, and how to place a fraud alert or security freeze on one’s credit file. Further, as with our typical security practices, we will continue to evaluate our policies, procedures, staff training, and technical security measures to reduce the likelihood of an event like this reoccurring.

What Individuals Can Do. We encourage you to remain vigilant against incidents of identity theft and fraud by reviewing your account statements and monitoring your free credit reports for suspicious activity and to detect errors. We also recommend you review the below “Steps Individuals Can Take To Help Protect Personal Information”.

For More Information. If individuals have questions about this matter, we have a dedicated assistance line with agents ready to answer their questions. Please contact our toll-free dedicated assistance line at 1-800-939-4170, Monday through Friday from 9 a.m. through 9 p.m., excluding holidays. You may also write to us at The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor, Attn: Compliance, P.O. Box 2688, Hickory, NC 28603.

Sincerely,

The Law Offices of Jason E. Taylor

STEPS INDIVIDUALS CAN TAKE TO HELP PROTECT PERSONAL INFORMATION

Monitor Your Accounts

Under U.S. law, a consumer is entitled to one free credit report annually from each of the three major credit reporting bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. To order a free credit report, visit www.annualcreditreport.com or call, toll-free, 1-877-322-8228. Consumers may also directly contact the three major credit reporting bureaus listed below to request a free copy of their credit report.

Consumers have the right to place an initial or extended “fraud alert” on a credit file at no cost. An initial fraud alert is a 1-year alert that is placed on a consumer’s credit file. Upon seeing a fraud alert display on a consumer’s credit file, a business is required to take steps to verify the consumer’s identity before extending new credit. If consumers are the victim of identity theft, they are entitled to an extended fraud alert, which is a fraud alert lasting seven years. Should consumers wish to place a fraud alert, please contact any of the three major credit reporting bureaus listed below.

As an alternative to a fraud alert, consumers have the right to place a “credit freeze” on a credit report, which will prohibit a credit bureau from releasing information in the credit report without the consumer’s express authorization. The credit freeze is designed to prevent credit, loans, and services from being approved in a consumer’s name without consent. However, consumers should be aware that using a credit freeze to take control over who gets access to the personal and financial information in their credit report may delay, interfere with, or prohibit the timely approval of any subsequent request or application they make regarding a new loan, credit, mortgage, or any other account involving the extension of credit. Pursuant to federal law, consumers cannot be charged to place or lift a credit freeze on their credit report. To request a credit freeze, individuals may need to provide some or all of the following information:

1. Full name (including middle initial as well as Jr., Sr., II, III, etc.);
2. Social Security number;
3. Date of birth;
4. Addresses for the prior two to five years;
5. Proof of current address, such as a current utility bill or telephone bill;
6. A legible photocopy of a government-issued identification card (state driver’s license or ID card, etc.); and
7. A copy of either the police report, investigative report, or complaint to a law enforcement agency concerning identity theft if they are a victim of identity theft.

Should consumers wish to place a credit freeze or fraud alert, please contact the three major credit reporting bureaus listed below:

Equifax Experian TransUnion
https://www.equifax.com/personal/credit-report-services/ https://www.experian.com/help/

https://www.transunion.com/credit-help
1-888-298-0045 1-888-397-3742 1-800-916-8800
Equifax Fraud Alert, P.O. Box 105069 Atlanta, GA 30348-5069 Experian Fraud Alert, P.O. Box 9554, Allen, TX 75013 TransUnion Fraud Alert, P.O. Box 2000, Chester, PA 19016
Equifax Credit Freeze, P.O. Box 105788 Atlanta, GA 30348-5788 Experian Credit Freeze, P.O. Box 9554, Allen, TX 75013 TransUnion Credit Freeze, P.O. Box 160, Woodlyn, PA 19094

Additional Information

Consumers may further educate themselves regarding identity theft, fraud alerts, credit freezes, and the steps they can take to protect their personal information by contacting the consumer reporting bureaus, the Federal Trade Commission, or their state attorney general. The Federal Trade Commission may be reached at: 600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20580; www.identitytheft.gov; 1-877-ID-THEFT (1-877-438-4338); and TTY: 1-866-653-4261. The Federal Trade Commission also encourages those who discover that their information has been misused to file a complaint with them. Consumers can obtain further information on how to file such a complaint by way of the contact information listed above. Consumers have the right to file a police report if they ever experience identity theft or fraud. Please note that in order to file a report with law enforcement for identity theft, consumers will likely need to provide some proof that they have been a victim. Instances of known or suspected identity theft should also be reported to law enforcement and the relevant state attorney general. This notice has not been delayed by law enforcement.

For District of Columbia residents, the District of Columbia Attorney General may be contacted at: 400 6th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001; 1-202-442-9828; and oag.dc.gov.

For Maryland residents, the Maryland Attorney General may be contacted at: 200 St. Paul Place, 16th Floor, Baltimore, MD 21202; 1-410-576-6300 or 1-888-743-0023; and https://www.marylandattorneygeneral.gov/.

For New Mexico residents, consumers have rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, such as the right to be told if information in their credit file has been used against them, the right to know what is in their credit file, the right to ask for their credit score, and the right to dispute incomplete or inaccurate information. Further, pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the consumer reporting bureaus must correct or delete inaccurate, incomplete, or unverifiable information; consumer reporting agencies may not report outdated negative information; access to consumers’ files is limited; consumers must give consent for credit reports to be provided to employers; consumers may limit “prescreened” offers of credit and insurance based on information in their credit report; and consumers may seek damages from violators. Consumers may have additional rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act not summarized here. Identity theft victims and active-duty military personnel have specific additional rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act. We encourage consumers to review their rights pursuant to the Fair Credit Reporting Act by visiting www.consumerfinance.gov/f/201504_cfpb_summary_your-rights-under-fcra.pdf, or by writing Consumer Response Center, Room 130-A, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20580.

For New York residents, the New York Attorney General may be contacted at: Office of the Attorney General, The Capitol, Albany, NY 12224-0341; 1-800-771-7755; or https://ag.ny.gov.

For North Carolina residents, the North Carolina Attorney General may be contacted at: 9001 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-9001; 1-877-566-7226 or 1-919-716-6000; and www.ncdoj.gov.

For Rhode Island residents, the Rhode Island Attorney General may be reached at: 150 South Main Street, Providence, RI 02903; 1-401-274-4400; and www.riag.ri.gov. Under Rhode Island law, individuals have the right to obtain any police report filed in regard to this event.
STEPS INDIVIDUALS CAN TAKE TO HELP PROTECT A MINOR DEPENDENT’S PERSONAL INFORMATION

Typically, credit reporting agencies do not have a credit report in a minor’s name. To find out if a minor has a credit report or to request a manual search for a minor’s Social Security number each credit bureau has its own process. To learn more about these processes or request these services, consumers may contact the credit bureaus by phone, writing, or online:
Equifax Experian TransUnion
https://www.equifax.com/personal/help/article-list/-/h/a/request-child-credit-report/
https://www.experian.com/help/minor-request.html
https://www.transunion.com/fraud-victim-resources/child-identity-theft

1-800-685-1111 1-888-397-3742 1-800-916-8800
P.O. Box 105788
Atlanta, GA 30348-5788 P.O. Box 9554
Allen, TX 75013 P.O. Box 2000
Chester, PA 19016

To request information about the existence of a credit file in a minor’s name, search for a minor’s Social Security number, place a security freeze or fraud alert on a minor’s credit report (if one exists), or request a copy of a minor’s credit report consumers may be required to provide the following information:
● A copy of their driver’s license or another government issued identification card, such as a state identification card, etc.;
● Proof of address, such as a copy of a bank statement, utility bill, insurance statement, etc.;
● A copy of the minor’s birth certificate;
● A copy of the minor’s Social Security card;
● The minor’s full name, including middle initial and generation, such as JR, SR, II, III, etc.;
● The minor’s date of birth; and
● The minor’s previous addresses for the past two years.

Join our newsletter and get 20% discount
Promotion nulla vitae elit libero a pharetra augue