were compliant ■with the officers’ demands at all times. Notwithstanding this compliance, Todd holstered his weapon and punched Gurley in the jaw without provocation. Thereafter, Todd called out for a taser, and Epperson came around the corner of the house, yelled “Stop!,” and immediately shot Gur-ley twice. Thus, the “factors identified in Graham weigh against [the officers] and in favor of finding excessive use of force.” Id. Though the officers believed the suspects were committing a burglary—a crime that could be considered severe in Missouri given that it is a felony, see Mo. Rev. Stat. § 569.160(2)—the nature of any crime that the officers suspected is overshadowed by the suspects’ compliance, see Bell v. Kansas City Police Dep’t, 635 F.3d 346, 347 (8th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The two suspects exited the house when
holding that an officers use of force against a plaintiff was objectively reasonable considering the force the plaintiff herself exercised in resisting police custody holding that whether an officers force was reasonable must be analyzed under the reasonableness standard of the fourth amendment recognizing that police officers may use reasonable force to make a lawful arrest holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force was reasonable