The use of force by law enforcement officers is one of the most scrutinized and debated issues in modern policing. Every department across the nation maintains strict guidelines on when and how force may be applied, always emphasizing de-escalation and the principle that force must be proportional to the threat. However, a recent and disturbing incident in St. Petersburg, Florida, brought this issue to the forefront yet again, resulting in the termination of a relatively new police officer.
The case involves the arrest of a man in a wheelchair, and the subsequent “uncalled for” use of a Taser by the arresting officer, leading the Chief of Police to make a definitive statement on the boundaries of acceptable policing tactics. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the immense responsibility placed on officers and the critical role of accountability in maintaining public trust.
The Initial Call and the Discovery of Warrants
The events that led to the officer’s termination began in June, when the St. Petersburg Police Department received a call regarding a 64-year-old man, identified as Timothy Grant, who was panhandling near a convenience store. The store manager had requested that Mr. Grant be removed from the property.
Officer Matthew Cavender and his partner responded to the call. Upon running Mr. Grant’s name, the officers discovered that he was wanted on a series of outstanding warrants—five warrants in total, including charges for failing to appear at a court hearing. At that moment, the situation shifted from a simple trespassing call to a necessary arrest based on the existing warrants.
Mr. Grant, who was seated in his wheelchair when the officers encountered him, was informed that he was under arrest. According to the police chief, Mr. Grant did not want to go to jil. It was during the ensuing arrest attempt that the situation escalated dramatically.
The Excessive Use of a Stun Gun
Body camera footage from the scene captured the entirety of the incident. It showed the officers attempting to physically remove Mr. Grant from his wheelchair to secure him for transport. The situation, while tense, did not initially involve any signs of physical aggression from Mr. Grant that would justify a violent response.
Police Chief Anthony Holloway, who later reviewed the bodycam footage, stated clearly that Mr. Grant was “not being violent” during the arrest. Despite this fact, Officer Cavender, instead of working with his partner to secure the man using standard, less-forceful methods, chose to immediately deploy his Taser.
The Chief later confirmed that Officer Cavender Tased Mr. Grant four times at close range. It’s important to note that the Taser was used in “drive-stun mode,” meaning the device was pressed directly against the man’s body without deploying the prongs. This application delivers a painful electrical shock but does not typically incapacitate the person from a distance. The Chief lamented that the officer went straight for the non-lthal weapon without attempting any of the de-escalation techniques that every officer in the department is trained on yearly.
“This should not be your first option,” Chief Holloway stated during a subsequent press conference, holding up a Taser as an example of the force used. “This isn’t your first option. And that’s what he did. He made this his first option.”
The Chief’s Stance on Accountability
The immediate and decisive action taken by Police Chief Anthony Holloway highlighted the department’s commitment to internal accountability. The Chief acknowledged that Mr. Grant never filed a complaint about his treatment, nor did anyone at the convenience store. The internal review process was initiated by the officer’s supervisor, who witnessed the incident, reported the improper use of force, and acted in accordance with department standards. Chief Holloway publicly commended the supervisor for his diligence.
Following a thorough internal review by the St. Petersburg Police Command Review Board, Officer Matthew Cavender was terminated from his position. The review concluded that he had violated department policy and procedures through the improper use of his Taser. His tenure with the department had been brief—only about a year—but his actions were deemed unacceptable and beyond the threshold of tolerable error.
Chief Holloway was resolute in his condemnation of the officer’s actions. He stated that the level of force used against a non-violnt, non-ambulatory individual was “uncalled for” and constituted a breach of public trust. “This will not and cannot be tolerated here at the St. Petersburg Police Department, and as long as I’m the chief here, it will not be tolerated,” he asserted.
Resisting Arrest: The Importance of Accurate Reporting
An equally concerning aspect of the case involved Officer Cavender’s initial police report. Following the incident, the officer charged Mr. Grant with resisting with violence. This classification is significant under Florida law, as resisting an officer with violence is a third-degree felony.
Chief Holloway directly contested this charge, saying, “You all saw that tape. Mr. Grant was not resisting with violence.” The body camera footage served as an objective counter-narrative to the officer’s written statement. The Chief took the initiative to have the charge against Mr. Grant reduced to resisting without violence, a first-degree misdemeanor. This act of correcting an officer’s report based on video evidence demonstrates a profound commitment to truth and fairness, especially in cases where an officer’s narrative might be self-serving.
While the resisting without violence charge against Mr. Grant remained due to his failure to comply with the arrest, the Chief’s intervention ensured that the nature of his resistance was accurately reflected, preventing a disproportionately harsh legal outcome. Mr. Grant was still held in custody for his five existing warrants.
Community Reaction and the Need for Oversight
The public response to the firing was one of relief and validation for the need for police accountability. Mr. Grant’s 85-year-old mother publicly commented on the situation, stating that she was “happy to learn that that officer is now out of a job.” Her sentiment reflected a broader community desire to see justice served and to ensure that officers who misuse their authority face swift consequences.
The incident is now being forwarded to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission. This commission will determine whether Officer Cavender will retain his state certification, which is necessary to work as a law enforcement officer anywhere in Florida. The outcome of this review is crucial, as it will decide if the officer is simply out of a job at one department or permanently excluded from the profession in the state.
A Lesson in De-escalation and Professionalism
The St. Petersburg case provides a vital lesson in the necessity of professionalism and restraint within law enforcement. The difference between a routine, non-confrontational arrest and an excessive force incident often comes down to an officer’s training, temperament, and adherence to established de-escalation protocols.
Chief Holloway’s public handling of the matter—praising the supervisor who reported the misconduct, openly refuting the false claims in the officer’s report, and swiftly terminating the officer—sends a clear message: accountability is paramount. It reaffirms to the community that the department will not tolerate actions that violate policy, especially those involving the excessive application of force against vulnerable individuals.
The incident underscores the continuing importance of body cameras, which act as objective witnesses, and the value of strong internal oversight. When protocols fail, and an officer “takes things too far,” it is the swift and transparent action of leadership that restores confidence and reinforces the principles of justice.