Opinion ID: 864341
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether greg elkins is entitled to qualified

Text: IMMUNITY IN THE SHOOTING DEATH OF EDDIE McKENZIE PURSUANT TO 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ¶84. At the very least, genuine issues of material fact exist with regard to whether Elkins is entitled to qualified immunity. In order to be entitled to qualified immunity, Elkins would have to prove that his actions were objectively reasonable. See Glenn v. City of Tyler, 242 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2001). Only a few facts are needed to illustrate why Elkins conduct was not objectively reasonable: (1) When Elkins observed that Eddie had brandished a firearm, he chose not to call for back up; (2) Instead of waiting for more qualified personnel to handle the possible hostage situation, Elkins proceeded to pursue Eddie himself by entering the home; (3) Eddie did not exit his home with his firearm or discharge his firearm at any of the officers outside the home; (4) Eddie never threatened to shoot Elkins or any other officers and at all times was moving backwards away from the officer into his own home; (5) Even under the belief that he wounded Eddie, Elkins continued to discharge his firearm and even had time to re-load; and (6) In his deposition, both justifications given by Elkins for his entering the home after Eddie are not authorized by the police policy manual – those being pursuit of a felon and immediate danger. He even admitted that he never believed that Modener or the children in the home were in any danger. Neither the most reasonable nor uneducated and ignorant of individuals would perceive 45 Elkins's actions as objectively reasonable under the circumstances. ¶85. Additionally, there can be little doubt that the use of deadly force is not warranted or authorized when pursuing a suspect. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S.Ct. 1694, 85 L.Ed.2d 1 (1995). The majority's findings that summary judgment should have been granted in favor of Elkins, essentially goes against all such notions. ¶86. The most probable and logical explanation for why Eddie fired one shot at Elkins is he was protecting himself and his family. Eddie was a seventy (70) year old disabled man who used a cane to walk. For quite a while, Eddie and his family had been dealing with the alleged repeated harassment of Myjellious by the police department. On the day in question, the same officers which Eddie complained about harassing his son came to his house to arrest his son. Not too long before that, these same police officers with guns pulled in hot pursuit had chased an unrelated suspect through the McKenzie home while Modener and the children were inside. Along with seeing his son handcuffed, Eddie was also told that his personal property – the video recorder – was being taken into police custody as evidence, despite his pleas that the camera was his wife's. Police officers continued to stand outside his home. When presented with all of these facts, it is not hard to imagine why Eddie felt the need to retrieve a gun and remain in his own home to protect the safety of himself and his family. To his surprise, a police officer came into his home with a firearm pointed directly at him. Without time to think, Eddie began backing up the hall toward the bedroom where his wife and children were located. In all probability, Eddie fired the one shot to protect himself and his family. This is even more clearer, since Eddie never threatened the officers and never threatened his family. 46 ¶87. Regardless of the characterizations made by Elkins, the City, or the police department, Elkins entered that home in pursuit of what he believed to be a felony suspect. If he was really concerned about his own safety or the safety of the other officers outside, he would have remained outside the home and called the precinct for personnel trained to handle situations of this nature. That is what an objectively reasonable person would have done.