Sixth Circuit agrees with lower court that tasering innocent homeowner was clearly prohibited under law and summary disposition of injury claim was denied

The Plaintiff, Kent, was tasered when he "vehemently objected" to the use of a defribillator in an attempt to revive his deceased father who had allegedly executed a living will denying "life-sustaining procedures."  The Court noted that Kent's actions "did not resemble the 'continued resistance and hostility' often present in ... active resistance cases..." and that it was "clearly established that it is excessive force to tase an individual solely for a refusal to comply with commands to calm down and stop yelling..." Given this clearly established limit on police force and the fact that the incident took place in Kent's home, and given that Kent "was never told he was under arrest, and never demonstrated physical violence, and had his arms in the air and his back to the wall..." Kent had clearly documented a constitutional injury claim sufficient for presentation to jurors.