Ignoring Video Evidence, Federal Judges OK Civil Lawsuit Against Police Officer
Two federal judges misrepresent terrifying video evidence in ruling a San Francisco man can seek damages from a police officer for allegedly using excessive force in 2019.
Two San Francisco police officers were investigating reports of burglary and vandalism by a Hispanic male when they spotted a suspect who matched the suspect’s description walking down a street.
They stopped the police car and Officer Sterling Hayes opened the passenger side door. Immediately, the suspect, Jamaica Hampton, ran to the vehicle and began beating Hayes on the head with an empty vodka bottle, causing Hayes to suffer a head concussion.
Hayes tried to use his baton, but Hampton knocked it out of his hand.
Hampton fled, and the officers pursued, calling out, “Get on the ground” multiple times with their guns drawn. Hampton then charged Hayes, prompting the officer to fire six shots. Hampton fell to the ground.
What happened next is at issue.
The video shows Hayes got up off the ground and was in the process of standing, when Hayes’ partner, Christopher Flores, fired a single shot at him.
(Hampton went to the hospital with life-threatening injuries, from which he later recovered, though he lost part of his leg. Hampton is suing the officers for allegedly using excessive force.)
Although the video evidence is clear, two of the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco recently ruled that “objective factors” show that Flores’ used excessive force because Hampton was “unarmed, injured, and unable to get off the ground” at the time Flores fired the shot.
The majority concluded Hayes was justified in shooting at Hampton, but that Flores was not, and can be sued civilly for monetary damages because he failed to “reassess the threat Hampton posed after” after Hayes fired at the suspect.
The video shows Hampton was off the ground, on his feet, and rising to a standing position, when Flores fired.
Except for the two judges in the majority, there does not seem to be any dispute that Hampton was rising to a standing position after being shot by Hayes and represented a potential threat to the police. Even a story broadcast by ABC News in San Francisco states that Hampton was “attempting to stand” when Flores fired another shot.
Did the majority intentionally misstate the evidence to achieve a desired outcome?
The majority repeatedly said the videotape evidence did not “justify a concern in this case because at the time Flores shot Hampton, he was unarmed, injured, and unable to get off the ground.” The majority said a reasonable jury could find Hampton did not pose an “immediate threat” to Flores, and Flores’ use of force was excessive under the Fourth Amendment.
One of the two judges in the majority was Salvador Mendoza, Jr., the first Hispanic judge to sit on Washington’s district court when he was nominated to the 9th Circuit by former Democratic President Joe Biden in 2022. The other judge was Sidney R. Thomas, who was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton in 1995 and is now semi-retired.
The third judge on the panel, Daniel Aaron Bress, who was nominated to the 9th Circuit in 2019 by GOP President Donald J. Trump, filed an incredulous dissent.
Upside Down World
“It is an upside-down world when Hampton violently attacked officers and put Officer Flores to a split-second decision affecting public safety, yet emerges from this episode with the potential for a monetary award,” wrote Bress in his dissent.
Bress states the video “plainly shows Hampton starting to stand up at the time Flores fired his shot,” adding that the lower court judge “accurately described” Hampton as having a “kneeling lunge position.”
“This is not a case where the video is ambiguous and Hampton’s movement is susceptible to multiple interpretations,” wrote Bress. “The parties do not dispute that Hampton was attempting to stand up when Flores fired his shot, the district court acknowledged as much, and this key fact was the central basis for Hampton’s appeal.”
It seems obvious that federal judges should not ignore or misinterpret facts, especially to achieve a pre-ordained outcome.
The Code of Conduct for United States Judges requires judges to “be faithful to the law” and mandates disqualification if a judge has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.”
It is not the first case where 9th Circuit judges invented or ignored facts to achieve a preordained conclusion. And it likely won’t be the last. The federal judiciary has constructed a system that excludes independent review of judicial misconduct complaints, and judges are rarely held to account for even blatantly unethical conduct.
The case is Hampton v. Flores, No. 25-752 (9th Cir. Dec. 5, 2025).
As if “defund the police” hasn't done enough damage to public safety, now judges expect officers to pussyfoot around trying to tone down their very reasonable response to a dangerous man who attacked them? I know I wouldn't take a job where I was expected to risk my life but suddenly switch off the adrenaline like an actor in a movie script who isn't really at risk.
If someone attacks a cop, that's a felony and should be grounds for getting shot dead. A vicious criminal is a danger to everyone if he gets away by attacking the police that way. We can't ask police to be sweet and gentle with someone who is exhibiting violent behavior that puts them and everyone else around them at risk. There was no reason to think that perp wouldn't have kept attacking or running. If he got away, who would be his next victim?
Also, gotta love that community response what after this POS did. They “painted a different picture” of the criminal who we can see with our own eyes deliberating smashing a cop in the head.
He “dreamt of working in foster care.” Aww, what a sweet guy.
Maybe the solution is to colorwash these films so that everyone is either black, white or brown. That way a judge with an agenda won't get triggered by his own racism. And let's put all the “community members” who are “disgusted” with the cops all in the same neighborhood, then don't send police in when these sweet men attack them. According to them, this guy is a “kind-hearted, loving human being.”
Notice it's mostly handmaidens propping him up? We should just let them deal with men like him.
Sent you a typo via DM.