U.S. Marshal deploys Byrna less-lethal kinetic rounds; suspect thought he was shot with lethal 

Hey easy on the explanation you act as if any one cares ?

The point being that the articulation exhibits misconduct which irrepairably tarnishes the name and reputation of the brand in such a way that one might not want to be advertising this as a poster child for the brand, unless we assume the brand supports police misconduct and unreasonable / exccessive force. Rather this is going to get the same bad reputation taser has. For that much this is certainly a PR blooper for the record books.

@@Harlem55 He had 12 arrest warrants on him, one for escaping prison, so clearly he wasn't a nice guy. The US Marshals were well within their rights to take him down using whatever methods necessary to do so. They warned him to stop and he refused to do so which then opened him up to being shot if necessary to stop him. He was lucky they used a less than lethal option. I'm so glad you as a couch cowboy wannabe feel you have more knowledge of how they should have handled the situation since you weren't there. Go back to playing Call of Duty...

@@Joreel Having 12 arrest warrants is but a single factor under the test articulated in Graham v. Connor as to establish reasonableness. Because these devices fall under intermediate weapons under the use of force continum, the officer must be able to factually articulate that there was actual active resistence (e.g. actively resisting arrest by means of other than pulling away or mere refusal to follow verbal commands) or else poses an imminent threat of the use of unlawful actual force by means of having comitted an assault -e.g. the verbal threat of force coupled with an apparent ability to carry out said threat. OC spray might have been reasonable but the Byrna would not by virtue of being an impact weapon and hence semi-deadly force, as compared to OC spray which being non-impact is considered a much lower amount of force. (Here in oklahoma the byrna is considered a deadly weapon for purposes of aggravated felony assault with intent to kill, where the legislature amended the law recently to define all gas fired projectiles of any kind as deadly weapons, including the taser). Hence, the byrna, like the taser, may not be used merely to apprehend a person from flight or to prevent flight - rather Graham requires there must be an articulable, reasonable, and imminent risk that the officer is about to be physically harmed if force is not used in that instant in time. As applied to the case here, does "agressive" mean the subject flipped you the bird, or does it mean that the subject threw a punch, or is it whatever shade in between? That question is going to be what the federal district judge is going to consider as the bread and butter in civil use of force cases. Hence, when we see opinion words like agressive, Plaintiff in 1983/Bivens is going to do a civil deposition to find out to determine if there is a viable case because the factual question is what the officer did or did not do that caused the subject to come at them agressively. Hence, using these sorts of words in reports or elsewhere can get you sued where Plaintiff is actively looking for a 1983/Bivens action that will stick because the U.S. supreme court last term ruled that Graham must always be construed in the favor of Plaintiff as the general rule, where there is any question of law. Also, where you say something in the media, on youtube, or anywhere else that contradicts what you wrote up in the report, it can be used to impeach witness credability. Hence, how a 1983/Bivens plaintiff can make a cop lok like a liar in front of a jury. Once proven a liar in any facet, no matter how minor- always a liar where sworn documents and testimony are concerned. However, an officer who knowingly escalates the situation unecessarily then automatically looses a civil excessive force claim under Graham because uncessarily creating the need for force which would have otherwise been unecessary force but for the officers knowing escalation, and is hence an eigth amendment violation. The eigth amendment requires that law enforcement take all reasonable steps to avoid the use of force, and requires the selection of the bare minimum amount of force reasonably necessary, because the initial presumption of law is that use of force is an assault and battery such that Graham is properly an affirmative civil defense to excessive force, similar to how self defense is generally an affirmative defense in the criminal context, such that the burden of proof shifts to the government due to the eigth amendment being subject to the strict scrutiny standard of judicial review under Washington v. Glucksburg.

@@Harlem55 you don’t know all the facts to the story too , so simmer down there big daddy😅. First off he’s the person they came to arrest. He’s coming at an officer aggressively they used non lethal over lethal force and you still bitching. 😅😅geez some ppl