to serve the master; and (d)if force is intentionally used by the servant against ano the force was (allegedly) excessive and the arrest was (allegedly) unauthorized and improper. See Javier v. City of Milwaukee, 670 F.3d 823, 832 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he scope of employment concept recognizes that an officer can exceed or abuse his authority— even intentionally or criminally—and still be acting within the scope of his employment.”); Coleman v. Smith, 814 F.2d 1142, 1149 (7th Cir. 1 enough to. put an officer’s acti -63 (allowing a Section 9-102 claim to proceed where “an off-duty- deputy Cook County sheriff’ shot a motorist on Interstate 94 “near 29th Street,” which is in Cook County); Bauer v. City of Chicago, 137 Ill.App.3d 228, 91 Ill.Dec. 863, 484 N.E.2d 422, 423-24, 426 (1985) (<HOLDING>); Fuery v. City of Chicago, 2014 WL 1228718, at
holding that a police officers rape of an arrestee was outside the scope of his employment holding that a suspended chicago police officer was not acting within his scope of employment when discharging his weapon in the neighboring municipality of cicero holding that scope of employment was an issue for the jury where a chicago police officer was off duty but within the city limits when he shot the plaintiff holding as a matter of law that a police officer was not acting within the scope of his employment when assaulting an acquaintance of a woman he had detained holding that a reasonable jury could find that an offduty chicago police officer acted within the scope of his employment during a roadside altercation on interstate 55 near the damen street exit which is in chicago