Not clearly established in 2018 that shooting suspect in stationary car was excessive force, where officer stood in front of car and driver ignored multiple commands; whether second round of shots was reasonable depends upon whether car had already passed the officers.
Clearly established that carrying a weapon, without more, does not justify and officer’s decision to shoot, deadly force may only be used when another person is threatened with the weapon.
Well established in this Circuit that carrying a weapon, without more, does not justify an officer’s choice to shoot”; where jury could conclude that suspect was dropping weapon, not threatening anyone with it, officer would violate clearly established rights by shooting him; court notes that “the intensity of the situation emanated not from [the suspect], but from the volume and vigor of the officer’s commands.
Where subject had access to two guns not far beyond his immediate reach, had
proven his willingness to use guns against officers, and was acting erratically and
displaying frighteningly unstable frame of mind, officer could reasonably interpret a
sudden lurch as commencement of attack and fire at subject.
Where reasonable officer would have known driver was unarmed, driver never reached out of officer’s sight, officer had taser he failed to use, officer never warned driver he would shoot, shooting driver would be excessive force and officer not entitled to qualified immunity.
Suspect's subjective knowledge of whether he is encountering police is not relevant, but question is whether an objectively reasonable officer could conclude, that suspect knew he was pursued by police; deadly force was reasonable where subject was suspected of involvement in two violent felonies where bystanders were threatened with a gun, fled police, ignored warnings to drop his gun, ran around corners where it was possible to ambush officers, had gun out, and picked up gun repeatedly after being told to drop it.
Not clearly established that officer’s use of deadly force was unreasonable against murder suspect who was holding shotgun near civilian who stated she was afraid.
Officer chased person suspected of stealing a cell phone into a parking lot and when suspect got into a car, turned to face officer, and raised his hands to his waist while trying to surrender, officer fired without warning and killed suspect; court goes directly to qualified immunity without determining whether there was a rights violation, and fails to find a clearly established right.
Officers used reasonable force when they shot and killed woman brandishing a gun at them after an extended standoff with hours of negotiations; court recognizes that it is proper to consider whether an officer’s reckless or deliberate conduct “immediately connected” to the use of force created the need to use deadly force, although noting that the Supreme Court has not decided that issue, finding that the officers’ behavior here did not create the need to use deadly force either because it was too attenuated or was not reckless; court finds no case law establishing that it is a violation of
Factual dispute prevented summary judgment; if subject was standing 30 feet from officer and took only a single step toward officer, jury could find he did not pose an imminent and serious risk when officer fired, despite fact that subject had robbed a pharmacy, unsheathed a knife when officers confronted him, disregarded commands to drop it, and told officer to shoot him; under those facts, right to be free from deadly force was clearly established and officer not entitled to qualified immunity.