— or distance back from the intersection proper. He looked to his left, he checked that, then they proceeded into the intersection; he didn’t stop. I believe he’s not required to stop, but he’s required to slow. They slowed down the vehicle, and then without checking left again he proceeded into the intersection in pursuit of the motorcycle, and that’s when he was struck by Mr. Sparks. Baxter’s testimony confirms that as Hal-lett approached the intersection, he slowed down and looked to his left. Baxter offered no evidence regarding how far Hal-lett was from the intersection when he looked left, and no evidence that Hallett was so far away when he looked left that he was unable to determine whether he could proceed safely through the intersection. See Hudson, 179 S.W.3d at 702 (<HOLDING>). We hold that Baxter’s conelusory statements
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 the plaintiff who was undisputedly not resisting arrest was dragged to the front of the police car slammed against the hood of the vehicle and forcibly handcuffed  and placed in very tight handcuffs even though they were quickly adjusted raised an issue of fact for the jury whether the force used against him was excessive holding that there was no good cause to raise an untimely suppression issue where the defendant could have with due diligence discovered the information necessary to timely raise the issue holding that a fourth amendment excessive force analysis requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case including the severity of the crime at issue whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight holding conelusory observation that fire truck slammed into plaintiffs ear full force does not raise fact issue about drivers regard for the safety of others or whether he slowed as necessary