Opinion ID: 6318081
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Disobedience and Threatening Behavior

Text: When a person does not act “aggressive[ly]” towards an officer, that fact undermines the officer’s claim that the person presented an immediate threat of serious bodily harm. Stewart v. City of Euclid, 970 F.3d 667, 673–74 (6th Cir. 2020). Additionally, “the mere failure of a No. 21-3315 Palma, et al. v. Johns, et al. Page 18 citizen—not arrested for any crime—to follow the officer’s commands does not give a law enforcement official authority to put the citizen in handcuffs,” let alone to use lethal force against him. Wright, 962 F.3d at 868 (quoting Smith, 874 F.3d at 945). Many undisputed facts show that Palma was not acting aggressively towards Johns. Johns admits that Palma “wasn’t walking at a fast pace” when Palma approached him. (Johns Dep., R. 50-1, Page ID #776.) Palma was silent throughout the entire encounter, and he never verbally threatened Johns. Nor did Palma ever make any physically threatening gestures, like raising his fists. On the other hand, the parties agree that Palma walked towards Johns at different points during the encounter and agree that Palma refused to comply with several orders to stop and show his hands. Although Johns says that Palma walked toward him in an “aggressive” and “determined” fashion, (id.; Johns Aff., R. 46-2, Page ID #571, #574), Palma’s parents never characterized Palma’s walk in this way. If there were ironclad evidence controverting the Palmas’ version of the facts, perhaps we could accept Johns’ characterization of Palma’s walk as aggressive. See Mitchell v. Schlabach, 864 F.3d 416 (6th Cir. 2017) (granting summary judgment only because dashcam footage undisputedly showed suspect aggressively charging at the officer after crashing his car during a high-speed car chase). But because we lack the undisputed dashcam footage that uncontrovertibly established the sequence of events in Mitchell, for the purpose of deciding a summary judgment motion, we must believe the Palmas’ characterization of the events of the day. The dissent incorrectly believes that Mitchell should decide this case. The suspect in Mitchell, however, presented an objectively greater risk of harm. After leading officers on a high-speed car chase through residential neighborhoods, the suspect exited the car and “began to charge” at the officer “at more than a walking pace.” Mitchell, 864 F.3d at 421–22. And, as the suspect charged at the officer, he shouted that the officer would “have to ‘f---ing shoot him.’” Id. at 422. Even if this case were on point, the Court in Mitchell noted that its only basis for affirming summary judgment was the dashcam footage that showed “most of the relevant events from a helpful angle.” Id. at 424. Had the “case turned on [the officer’s] after-the-fact testimony,” rather than the video footage, then “summary judgment would likely have been inappropriate.” Id. No. 21-3315 Palma, et al. v. Johns, et al. Page 19 Moreover, as Mitchell itself made clear, deadly force is not justified “whenever a suspect charges at an officer or defies an order.” Id. In the instant case, a jury could reject Johns’ characterizations and conclude that Palma’s walk was neither aggressive nor threatening. See Jacobs, 915 F.3d at 1041 (we do not have to “accept the officers’ subjective view of the facts” on summary judgment). And even Johns admitted that Palma “wasn’t walking at a fast pace.” (Johns Dep., R. 50-1, Page ID #776.) Recognizing this problem, Johns contends that “the way that one describes how [Palma] was walking or advancing at Johns is immaterial.” (Defs.’ Br. at 17.) Simply stated, according to Johns, merely walking towards an officer while defying orders gives the officer probable cause to fear for his safety and justifies the use of deadly force. We have expressly rejected this argument. See Mitchell, 864 F.3d at 424. Johns also says that Palma was walking towards him when he first shot Palma, but Melissa saw Johns shoot at Palma while both Palma and Johns were stopped. Even if Palma were walking when Johns shot, this would not necessarily give Johns probable cause to believe Palma posed an imminent threat. See id. And if Palma was not walking towards Johns when Johns fired the first shots, as we must accept at this stage, then this factor shows that Palma did not pose an imminent threat at the moment Johns decided to shoot.