Determining liability in the court is not the same thing determining sympathy. As I already explained, judges have the uneviable position of determining liability without discrimination to social background. The fact that the person was a criminal and was involved in a crime at the time of the event in question is irrelevent to the question of liability after it has been determined that excessive force has been used.
In regards to Kreskin's question, the relevent section of the criminal code is 25, and 2. 25 details the use of force in making an arrest and section 2 details bodily harm.
There was no sob story involved here, and frankly the judge wouldn't want to hear it. Motive is irrelevent in cases of civil liability, all that needs determining is what wrong has been done and who is responsible for it. This does not justify criminal activity, conflating the decision of the judge with a court sympathy for criminals is absurd. No one has sympathy for criminals, but many people see a point in safeguarding criminals against excessive force. I was once at the receiving end of excessive police force and had committed no crime to receive it. Justifying the action of a security guard (not an official law enforcement agent) in the use of excessive force leads to justifying excessive violence against innocent citizens. You cannot on the one hand say that the force is excessive and on the other hand say that the criminal deserved it. So either you stand by the judges decision, and the reasons are quite clear, or you believe that kicking a person in the face while they are being held down is a reasonable way to subdue someone.
