and he's taking off he's coming towards me now hey he's coming right at my patrol vehicle hey stop stop now he's coming at me stop he's still moving he's going to the whole park stop right there stop we got one at gunpoint he's got his hands in the air every police use of force is measured against one constitutional question was the force objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment that standard not emotion and not hindsight governs this analysis and he's taking off he's coming towards me now hey he's coming right at my patrol vehicle hey stop stop now he's coming at me stop get on the curb stop sir he's still moving he's going to the whole park stop right there stop get on the ground stop do not move innocent police do not move do not move get cover here come this way sir do not we got one at gunpoint he's got his hands in the air hey can you hear us chill chill chill hey can you hear us okay he's moving okay we shot I'm pretty sure he's hit so we're probably gonna have to hey keep your hands up hey start crawling out toward us I'm gonna go get a shield all right we're gonna try to get him to crawl out toward us you need to grab the 40 let me go let me go hands who shot I shot I shot hands I shot yeah I shot and Jacob shot okay I will be hands you're gonna stay legal to see if you're gonna stay legal do we have a 40 yeah let me get a 40 get a forty I got one hey keep the keep the no one in there load one in there the controlling authority is Graham versus Conner decided in 1989 the Supreme Court held that reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene at the moment of the decision three factors drive that inquiry the severity of the crime the immediacy of the threat and whether the subject is actively resisting or attempting to flee deadly force adds a further requirement under Tennessee versus Garner 1985 an officer must have probable cause to believe the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm a vehicle can satisfy that threshold in Plumhoff versus Rickard 2014 the court recognized that a vehicle driven to endanger officers presents a grave public safety risk that can justify deadly force Scott versus Harris 2007 reached the same conclusion treating a vehicle used recklessly as a deadly weapon in fact applied to these facts a multi ton front loader driven toward officers is the clearest form of a vehicle as weapon threat the case law contemplates the severity factor is met because driving heavy equipment at a person is itself a violent felony the immediacy factor is met because the threat is not theoretical but moving and the resistance factor is met by sustained noncompliance on these elements the deadly force decision sits inside the constitutional standard we still have one at gunpoint we're giving them commands OK have you got a one shield yeah alright what do you want what do you want here you go shield and then make sure you glove up who's gonna be hands on glove up I'm gonna be hands on alright hey next incoming unit hey what street are we on we're on Taylor hey I need a Taylor shut down north of us all right let's crawl it you're you're lethal you're 40 I'm gonna give him verbal commands Sergeant your backup hands on if you need it yeah I'm gonna get gloves on Megan just sit in the back there stay on lethal Megan all right listen sir you're gonna slowly climb out of the bulldozer go down those steps and get down on your knees you understand let's go hey keep your hands where we can see them get out of the bulldozer slowly I can't hear you climb out of the bulldozer slowly I'll be so give them a Spanish ones can you get a good shot on the 40 from there yeah come over here louder louder Alviso what's he saying hey hey exit hey we got vehicles trying to come down Taylor next year coming we need you to block Taylor at uh Warm Springs keep your hands up keep your hands up hey you need to come this way to us what's he saying get out of the bulldozer slowly the thing yeah we're gonna 40 him but what's he saying come here Nevada law frames the criminal exposure under Nevada Revised Statutes Section 200.010 read with the attempt statute section 193.330 an intentional act to kill that falls short of death supports a charge of attempted murder the deadly weapon enhancement section 193.165 attaches because Nevada defines a deadly weapon by its use and a vehicle driven at people qualifies grand larceny of a motor vehicle arises under Section 205.228 and resisting a public officer under Section 199.280 yeah I I I think we're gonna have to yeah so hey someone I need I want someone on that side in case he goes mobile again and we're just gonna go up there and we're gonna hands up hands up but someone stay lethal can Jacobs can you get lethal listen to me if we're gonna climb up I don't I don't want lethal behind me though just communicate with us yeah that's fine hey if you just watch his hand he's wearing that jacket I don't wanna go with him or what huh hey yeah go ahead take your hand out of your jacket take your right hand out we're still giving commands he's inside the bulldozer bulldozer's not moving his hands are up he's refusing to come out hey give me hey hey Okami come here never mind we got there so he's his hands are up he's just refusing to come out so we're eventually gonna go up there we don't know about any weapons but we're just gonna go he's not ref you want me hands on don't be like that yeah can you be hands on yeah yeah here hands on hey George listen to me George yeah listen to me I got Okami going with you okay Okami you're gonna get shot again if you put your hands down hey watch my fire watch my fire we're moving up we're moving up do not reach for anything the constitutional duty does not end with the last shot once a threat is neutralized the justification for deadly force expires and officers must pivot to containment and medical care the proportionality principle in Graham requires force to track the threat as it changes continued force against an incapacitated subject would convert a lawful seizure into an excessive one the closest legal question is not the shooting but the extraction a force removal from elevated equipment creates a forcible risk of injury to officers and subject alike this is primarily a tactical judgment not a constitutional violation but departments are wise to weigh continued containment against the predictable hazards of a physical extraction at height help help help brown when he comes down I got hands on him come down f*ck him get out get out get the f*ck out hey hey 40 is 40 is 40 up 40 up 40 is *ss bro watch out watch out bro hold it up hold it up lethal down 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 deployed let's go 40 was deployed he's still uncooperative we're working on getting him out 40 again there you go come on bring it come on f*ck my f*cking head hey watch out yeah move out of there get out of here watch your foot Holly hey he's gonna be up watch your foot stand over there relax get him turning to the grades the analysis is as follows the first officer earns an a minus for issuing commands before force firing only against an advancing vehicle and moving off the line of attack the supervising sergeant earns a B+ for justified force and strong scene command tempered by the elevated round count and responsibility for the extraction the department earns a B for disciplined containment undercut by a high risk removal the subject earns an F conduct fully consistent with the attempted murder charges he now faces two lessons stand out from this encounter first a vehicle becomes a deadly weapon the instant it is aimed at a person and the law treats it accordingly second when a subject is contained and no longer mobile patience is often safer than force the injuries here came not from the gunfire but from the rush to extract let us know if there is an interaction or legal topic that you would like us to discuss in the comments below thank you for watching and don't forget to subscribe to our channel for more content on police court interactions