Not a punch. A palm heel strike—legal under Graham v. Connor. Backed by Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014)

Published on July 24, 2025
Duration: 1:04

This video explains that a palm heel strike, not a punch, was used in a scenario, and discusses its legality under use of force guidelines. It references the Supreme Court cases Graham v. Connor and Plumhoff v. Rickard to illustrate that the constitution does not require law enforcement to use the least intrusive means, as long as the chosen method is reasonable under the circumstances.

Quick Summary

Law enforcement use of force is evaluated under the 'objective reasonableness' standard from Graham v. Connor. The constitution does not require officers to use the least intrusive means, as affirmed in Plumhoff v. Rickard, as long as the force used is reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Palm Heel Strike vs. Punch
  2. 00:07Legality under Graham v. Connor
  3. 00:14Plumhoff v. Rickard Case Overview
  4. 00:22Fourth Amendment and Force
  5. 00:35Reasonableness of Force
  6. 00:43Least Intrusive Means Not Required
  7. 00:55Conclusion: Totality of Circumstances

Frequently Asked Questions

What legal standard governs the use of force by law enforcement in the US?

The use of force by law enforcement is governed by the 'objective reasonableness' standard established in Graham v. Connor. This standard requires evaluating force based on the totality of the circumstances from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with the benefit of hindsight.

Does the law require police to use the least intrusive means possible?

No, the U.S. Constitution does not require police to use the least intrusive means available. As affirmed in Plumhoff v. Rickard, the method chosen is considered reasonable as long as it is objectively reasonable under the circumstances, even if other options existed.

Is a palm heel strike considered a legal use of force?

Yes, a palm heel strike is generally considered an acceptable use of force, particularly in passive resistance situations. Its legality is assessed under the same 'objective reasonableness' standard as other force options, considering the totality of the circumstances.

What was the key holding in Plumhoff v. Rickard?

In Plumhoff v. Rickard (2014), the Supreme Court held that officers did not violate the Fourth Amendment by using force to end a dangerous car chase. The ruling emphasized that the fact other means could have been used does not automatically make the force employed unreasonable.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Instructor Mike

View all →