A man has sued a police officer, alleging that the officer violated the man's civil rights by using excessive force while arresting him. At trial, the officer admits having hit the man in the head with the butt of his gun, but contends that the force was necessary, because the man was resisting arrest. In support of his contention, the officer seeks to introduce evidence that the man had resisted arrest on three prior occasions during the last 10 years. Is this testimony regarding the man’s conduct during the three prior arrestsadmissible?

This argument will only be admissible if he has strong evidence that this actually happened, such as videos and witnesses. In fact, having all this time of resistance to prison and something that will weigh against him, and normally police officers are always seen as victims even if they are not, but he still needs hard evidence that there was resistance during the arrest.

if you have to make a general question and respond to your thoughts, then this isn't really a question someone can you on. read the passage, form your question, and answer using your thoughts. no one else can understand how you interpreted this text if you don't tell us.

bro these r easy u may have to do them urself bro. lol jk the answer is two for nimber one, and for question number two sahel boi xd have fun get rekt m8