Opinion ID: 4563546
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Officers’ Initial Shots

Text: Several witnesses, including Officers Rosen and Bare, Jordan, Anderson, and Alfred, and the forensic evidence indicated that Green pulled his gun and fired at the Officers at some point. Hickman and Newsome did not see Green with a gun, but they had partially obstructed views and were occupied with getting out of the way when the shooting began. -8- No. 19-4048, Adrienne Hood v. City of Columbus, OH, et al. We have held that “an officer may use deadly force whenever he or she, in the face of a rapidly unfolding situation, has probable cause to believe that a suspect poses a serious physical threat either to the police or members of the public.” Williams v. City of Grosse Pointe Park, 496 F.3d 482, 487 (6th Cir. 2007). Even if Green did not fire first, the Officers could still be “acting reasonably under the circumstances known to them [and] in defense of their own safety and the safety of officers through the use of deadly force.” Boyd v. Baeppler, 215 F.3d 594, 600 (6th Cir. 2000). In Mullins v. Cyranek, we found to be reasonable a police officer’s use of deadly force in response to a suspect pulling out a previously concealed weapon and throwing it over his shoulder. 805 F.3d at 767. We noted that the suspect there “had his finger on the trigger of a gun, and at that time, he posed a serious threat to [the officer] and the general public.” Id. And in one of the more recent cases on this subject, the Supreme Court found that an officer who shot a woman engaging in erratic behavior with a knife is entitled to qualified immunity, where the officer assessed in mere seconds that she was a potential danger to another person. Kisela v. Hughes, 138 S. Ct. 1148, 1151–53 (2018) (per curiam). Likewise, objectively reasonable officers could have viewed Green, who pointed and fired a gun at the Officers in close proximity, as a serious and immediate safety threat to themselves and others. The totality of the circumstances—the proximity of Green to the Officers, the fact that he had a gun with him and either shot at or was about to shoot at the Officers, and the split-second decision that the Officers had to make—suggest that the Officers did not violate Green’s constitutional rights when they first fired at Green.