Officers who are found to be operating within the parameters of their jobs should not be liable for civil suits. The victim had an advocate in the local prosecutor, who was unable to obtain a criminal indictment, much less a conviction.
They obviously feel this was not “justice”, so they are trying to use the civil court to get “justice”, when a grand jury has already decided that “justice” should mean the officers are not punished.
Now, the officers were not working as city employees at the time, it seems, they were employed by the theater. That may make a difference, although suing the theater would be more appropriate, with the theater then being able to sue the employees if the theater thinks the employees did their job incorrectly.
On a broader note, why do we think that a “non-violent” person has an absolute right to maintain an illegal position without any physical altercation? If a person sits in the middle of the street, do you expect officers should not touch them if his mother is coming?
It is perfectly reasonable to pick someone up if they are engaged in civil disobedience, and sitting in a seat in a theater that you are not entitled to is that (unless this theater was being sold out for the movie, the theater was STUPID, and obviously should have let the kid watch again for free). The patrons who had tickets to the next showing were all being held hostage by this child’s actions.
It is of course a tragedy that a simple hold-down move turned deadly. Sometimes, actions that have no expectation of harm end up causing harm, and we don’t sue people everytime a perfectly normal and legal action ends up unexpectedly causing harm.
Agree whole-heartedly.
BTW, he is technically not a “child”, but a man.
It really is a shame, either way. The owner I think should’ve had more compassion.