Zorn v. Linton · ¶37

The majority also suggests that Amnesty America considered a “wide range” of conduct, implying that it did not specifically address rear wristlocks like the one at issue here. Ante, at 572. That, too, is inconsistent with the actual opinion, which recognized that each plaintiff had “standing to assert only those constitutional deprivations that they themselves [were] alleged to have suffered” and specifically identified the use of a rear wristlock against some passively resisting protestors as “sufficient to allow a reasonable factfnder to conclude that the force used was excessive.” 361 F. 3d, at 123–124, and n. 6.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.