The dissenting argument isn’t unreasonable — it’s not that the total event wasn’t cruel, but the restraining bar in and of itself wasn’t obviously cruel. And h

The dissenting argument isn’t unreasonable — it’s not that the total event wasn’t cruel, but the restraining bar in and of itself wasn’t obviously cruel. And his reduction stems from apparently the wrong guards are being sued..? I’m not clear why the gaurds who actually committed the abuse aren’t being sued, rather than two unrelated actors and one whose sole involvement was the attachment to the restraining bar. Presumably they did other things, but not the extreme one pushing the lawsuit as a constitutional violation. It seems to me Thomas’s contention is the selected guards didn’t themselves engage in anything that “severe” — not that no cruelty occurred, or that the event in total was not cruel.