Sez here:
Quote:
Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution a police officer may only use such force as is “objectively reasonable” under all of the circumstances. The standard that courts will use to examine whether ause of force is constitutional was first set forth in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989) and expanded by subsequent court cases. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with 20/20 vision of hindsight. The reasonableness must account for the fact that officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving. The reasonableness inquiry in reviewing use of force is an objective one: the question is whether the officer’s actions are objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them. The officer’s perception may be a consideration, but other objective factors will determine the reasonableness of force. These factors may include but are not limited to:
a. The severity of the crime(s) at issue;
So, if you want to obey the constitution (4th amendment) I guess you would have to ask yourself:
Is it "objectively reasonable" to use deadly force to effectuate an arrest for "trespass" which is posing no imminent threat to anyone?
If it aint, then the attempt to do so is unconstitutional, i.e., illegal, and can be resisted with deadly force, if necessary, it would seem.
Again, I think the best way to test this is to give Montel Williams an assault rifle and let him charge, spraying caps as he comes.
