Deadly Force

Firing chemical-filled projectile to stop and restrain protestor in order to form a perimeter where projectile struck protestor constituted a seizure although protestor was not arrested; court (unconvincingly) distinguishes Dundon on ground officer was not dispersing a crowd; projectile struck plaintiff in the face, officer claimed he aimed at torso, court remands for determination of whether officer intended to use deadly force; clearly established that officer was not permitted to use deadly force on individual who previously posed threat to others but no longer presented immedia

Not clearly established that officers violated passenger’s rights by shooting her when returning fire from driver of vehicle; violation of rights was not obvious.

Clearly established that use of deadly force against man walking down street carrying gun in his waistband, posing no immediate threat, and failing to comply with conflicting commands violated Fourth Amendment.

In multiple shooting of knife wielding suspect, court concludes shots one through four were reasonable, but a factual dispute about whether plaintiff was still dangerous precluded summary judgment with respect to shots five and six.

Officer’s use of deadly force against suicidal man was reasonable, even though man had already harmed himself when officers arrived, officers did not attempt to reposition themselves when he approached them, man was not suspected of having committed crime, but he was holding knife, was non-communicative, and failed to respond or comply with officer’s command to “drop the knife,” but instead quickly approached officers, holding knife out towards them.

Clearly established that suicidal individual has right not to be shot unless he poses threat of serious or deadly harm to officers; clearly established by 2018 that officer had an obligation under due process clause to provide adequate medical care after shooting.

Excessive force inquiry is confined to whether the officers or other persons were in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in the officers' use of deadly force; the officers' actions leading up to the shooting are not relevant for the purposes of an excessive force inquiry in the Fifth Circuit.

Officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing armed suspect, pursued only for alleged driving offenses, who, when officers stopped his car, ran in a manner such that his right arm was pressed against his body and could not be seen by officers; court concludes, relying on “furtive gesture” line of cases, that officers could reasonably fear he had a gun and fear for their safety; court concludes it was immaterial whether they could see a gun or whether he made any threatening motions toward them; court holds that whether suspect’s flight posed a risk to officers or public wa

Officers entitled to qualified immunity for shooting and killing suspect in domestic call where suspect, although unarmed and not reaching for a weapon, used aggressive language, ignored an order from officers, and rushed toward officers in small and confined space; dissent by Judge Berzon.

Clearly established in 2018 that unarmed driver who had come to a stop and did not pose a threat to safety of officers or others had right to be free from unreasonable use of lethal force.