Arkansas Officer’s Actions Questioned as Lawsuit Over Shooting of Suicidal Teen Resurfaces
The actions of an Arkansas police officer are under scrutiny once again as a lawsuit resurfaces regarding the shooting of a suicidal teenager in 2016. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has revived the case, raising questions about the officer’s use of force.
The incident took place on October 17, 2016, when the Benton Police Department received a call from the mother of Keagan Schweikle, who reported that her son had gone into the woods with a gun and was threatening suicide. Three police officers responded to the call, with Officer Ellison positioned about 45 feet away from Schweikle, providing the clearest view of him.
Schweikle was partially turned away from Ellison when the officer commanded him to show his hands. Schweikle then turned to face Ellison, holding a gun at his side. In response, Ellison drew his firearm and yelled at Schweikle to drop the weapon. Instead of complying, Schweikle brought the gun to his temple. Ellison continued to demand that Schweikle drop the gun, but when Schweikle moved the weapon, Ellison fired his own gun, killing him.
Schweikle’s parents filed a lawsuit against the city and the officers involved, alleging excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The defendants, however, argued that Schweikle had pointed the gun at Officer Ellison right before he was shot, a claim supported by officer testimony. The parents, on the other hand, presented a forensic expert who testified that Schweikle never pointed the gun at Ellison.
The district court initially granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, stating that the plaintiffs had failed to provide evidence that Schweikle didn’t point the gun towards the officers. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision in a 2-1 ruling, stating that the factual dispute regarding whether Schweikle pointed his firearm at the officers should be decided by a jury.
The court considered the testimony of a forensic pathologist who found it highly unlikely that Schweikle had pointed the gun at the officers based on the autopsy findings. According to the pathologist, Schweikle’s wrist would have had to make an unnatural movement to aim the gun at the officers. The court concluded that a jury could potentially find that Schweikle never pointed the gun at the officers and instead moved it in compliance with commands to drop the weapon.
In a dissenting opinion, one judge argued that any forward movement of the gun by Schweikle towards the officers should be considered a menacing action justifying the officer’s use of deadly force. The judge disagreed with the majority’s interpretation that pointing the gun directly at the officers was required for the use of lethal force to be justified.
While the opinion does not mention it, a study conducted by Dr. J. Pete Blair at Texas State University revealed that a person holding a firearm to their head can aim and fire at an officer in an average time of just .40 seconds. This study suggests that even a slight movement of the gun towards an officer can pose a significant threat.
In light of the revived lawsuit, the dissenting judge’s perspective seems more aligned with the objective reasonableness of the officer’s actions. According to this view, any movement of the gun towards the officers should be considered a life-threatening situation, justifying the use of deadly force.
As this case moves forward, it remains to be seen how a jury will ultimately decide on the disputed facts surrounding the shooting of Keagan Schweikle. The outcome of this trial will have significant implications for the officer involved, as well as for discussions surrounding the use of force by law enforcement officers in similar situations.
