PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Cut and pasted excerpt. Downloadable document posted below. The case was allowed to proceed to trial, but the trial is continued per agreement of the parties.]

NOW COMES Plaintiff, LASHAUN MCFADDEN, Personal Representative of the Estate of TYRONE WASHINGTON, deceased (“Plaintiff”), and for her Response to the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendants, KRYSTAL WATSON, DEVON SMITH, SEAN BARBER, GARAN BLAGG and BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS (“Defendants”) states as follows:

I. INTRODUCTION Defendants have filed for summary judgment but they fail to apply the facts of the multiple cases they cite without analysis to the specific circumstances of the instant case. Defendants’ motion should be denied for multiple reasons, primary among them is video of the shooting which shows that Defendant Watson actually ran ahead of the incident involving Mr. Redd and got herself positioned for a headshot, and then shot Mr. Washington in the face. See Video of Shooting, attached hereto as Exhibit 19 at 00:17–01:30; see Tyrone Washington Autopsy Photo, attached hereto as Exhibit 21.

Put another way, she left Mr. Redd’s side (faster than the truck) and went to a vantage spot in anticipation of shooting Mr. Washington even though there was no one in the path of Mr. Washington, a struggling man who engaged in no violence and made no threats.

Mr. Redd was not in need of protection. Indeed, Defendant Watson ran away from Mr. Redd’s side—and ahead of the action—to shoot Mr. Washington without any warning. Thus, the video—along her statements and history of untruthfulness—present not just a question of material fact on whether it was objectively reasonable to use deadly force against Mr. Washington to protect Mr. Redd but also whether Defendant Watson can even be believed. Mr. Redd was not in “deadly force” danger. It seems clear that Defendant Watson simply did not want Mr. Washington to get away.

Regardless, a jury should weigh this evidence. Regardless of Defendants’ failures in handling the mental health crisis experienced by Mr. Washington in the hours before his death, Defendant Watson’s use of deadly force simply does not withstand Graham analysis, and certainly it was not objectively reasonable as a matter of law.

Indeed, the video supports Plaintiff’s arguments that Defendant Watson went out of her way to position herself to shoot Mr. Washington—whose foot was on the brake pedal when he was killed—and failed to warn him that deadly force was imminent, despite more than ample time to do so. These facts—along with evidence showing the officers had foreknowledge that their actions in violation of policy would likely induce a scared, nervous and mentally ill suspect to flee—show the Defendant officers unreasonableness. These facts destroy Defendants’ “split-second” arguments and reveal the inapplicability of their cited cases.

****************

This case came to my attention because my son also had a horrifying experience at UAMS. He survived, but there is no way to gauge how many years UAMS staff took off my son’s life, and what it will do to his quality of life.

Mr. Washington sought treatment for his incapacity and UAMS neglected to treat him, allowing him instead to find a truck with the keys in it, which he used to escape what he perceived as a man with a machete who was after him.

My son was brought to UAMS by ambulance, and after an initial CAT scan to see if brain surgery was warranted, asked to leave. UAMS, under the impression my son had assets but did not qualify for insurance coverage, physically and chemically restrained him in the hopes of collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars for unnecessary and non-consensual treatment.

My son is looking for a licensed attorney to represent him as a plaintiff against the medical providers involved. He is not pursuing medical malpractice. He claims false imprisonment, assault and battery. Feel free to contact me at bohemian_books@yahoo.com if you want to discuss representation.