◆ SpookStack

Be 106 Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 Even if we were to assume arguendo that some of the nonshooters were present when an occupant was mis- treated, on the record we have here, I would not find Byrd applicable. That case on which I was a member of the panel, and the opinion of which was authored by Judge Swygert, reversed a judgment based upon a directed verdict which reversal was predicated upon the fact that the jury could have found nonfeasance, either negligent or intentional, on the part of officers of a par- ticularly egregious nature. In the later case of Bonner v. Coughlin, 545 F.2d 565 (7th Cir. 1976), negligence was eliminated from the picture. In that case, the plaintiff relied upon Byrd, and in the en banc opinion written by Judge Cummings, Judge Swygert dissenting, the significance of Byrd was circumscribed to “purposeful nonfeasance.” Jd. at 568. “Thus defendants’ failure to act in Byrd can be properly characterized as ‘intentional.’ ” Id. at 569. I find absolutely no basis for a viable claim of 2 continued that plaintiffs’ counsel would give us all of the record support available to demonstrate the presence of the nonshooters in the apartment at the time in question and that upon analysis they gave no such.support. Judge Swygert’s added footnote, however, refers to other items of evidence on the question. I see no reason, however, for receding from the position I took on this issue in my dissent. Judge Swygert’s added footnote gives significance to there being fitteen or twenty officers in the kitchen some of them being in policé uniforms. If the number was twenty, this, of course, was six more officers than were in the raiding pari and would seem to indicate that the presence in the kitchen related to a time substantially subsequent to the cessation of the shooting when other officers had answered the call. Further, Officer Harris at least, upon whom the Anderson plaintiffs rested the matter, . was in plain clothes although a nonshooter. The fact that two of the nonshooters entered the apartment at or about the time of the shooting, if that indeed is a fact, does not place them there at the time of the alleged mistreatment of any of the occupants. While this is a situation in which reasonable inferences are permitted to be drawn, there should be something more than Judge Swygert’s added footnote demon- strates to say that there was something to go to the jury on the matter of purposeful nonfeasance on the part of any of the nonshooters.