Opinion ID: 772409
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Weighing the Conflicting Interests

Text: 23 Viewing the facts presented by the record in the light we must, even though Rutherford used force that is properly classified as less than deadly, the force used was excessive compared to the governmental interests at stake. Deorle was obviously a deeply emotionally disturbed person. He had suffered such a severe reaction to his prescription medicationthat he begged various officers to shoot him to end the pain. Despite his distraught condition, however, he did not attack anyone. Instead, Officer Rutherford fired the cloth-cased round at him and left him with lead shot impacted in his skull and the cloth-cased round sticking half out his eye. Under the fourth-amendment objective-reasonableness standard, the shooting violated Deorle's right to be free from unreasonable seizures. See Garner, 471 U.S. at 7. 19 We now consider whether Rutherford is protected by the defense of qualified immunity.