◆ SpookStack

Nos. 77-1698, 77-1210 & 77-1370 41 A. Shooters Plaintiffs seek recovery against the shooters on the ground that these defendants, acting under color of state law, made an illegal entry into the West Monroe Street apartment and used deadly and excessive force in addi- tion to committing assault, battery, and other abusive acts on its occupants. Our discussion of the facts concern- ing the propriety of the search warrant which defen- dants assert justified their entry into the apartment is found in our analysis of Groth’s refusal to identify the informant he used to support the affidavit for the warrant. See infra, pp. 61-67. Even if the officers were acting pursuant to a search warrant validly issued, the question remains for the jury’s determination whether the force used by the raiders within the apartment was reasonable under the circumstances. The officers had a right to use some degree of force in executing the warrant and defending themselves. As noted in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 28 (1968), “it would be unreasonable to require that police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of their duties.” The record is replete with factual disputes regarding the activities of the shooters on the morning of December 4. For example, it reasonably could be inferred that Mark Clark’s gun firéd during his struggle with Groth rather than when the police officers first broke through the door. Ad- ditionally, plaintiffs testified at trial that none of the survivors fired a gun during the raid. And Zimmers’ ex- pert testimony corroborated these assertions. Numerous other questions of fact are present in the record, in- cluding the issue of whether Fred Hampton was drug- ged at the time of the raid and shot deliberately after Johnson, Truelock, and Bell had left the bedroom. Assessing the credibility of witnesses and weighing the evidence are matters within the sole province of the jury. In granting the directed verdicts, the trial judge repeatedly usurped this function. For example, the 25 continued . death which a jury could conclude constituted reckless dis- regard of plaintiffs’ civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. See Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1960); Clark v. vedonis, 518 F.2d 79, 80 n. 1 (7th Cir. 1975).