
In determining the lawfulness of the use of deadly force, a court is to determine whether the officer’s actions were reasonable under the circumstances at the time. In determining reasonableness, the court is to consider the severity of the crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat and whether the suspect was actively resisting or evading arrest. An officer’s pre-shooting tactics are entitled to little weight, and, by themselves, do not establish that a resulting shooting was unreasonable.
The fact that the person upon whom deadly force is used may be mentally ill is irrelevant to the issue of the reasonableness of the force used to subdue him. An officer is required to warn about the impending use of deadly force only when it is feasible to do so. In an excessive use of force civil case, an officer is entitled to qualified immunity absent prior legal precedent to the contrary, clearly established by preexisting case law.
On Dec. 10, 2018, city of Redwood officers responded to a call concerning a man attempting to kill himself with a knife. They contacted the man’s wife, plaintiff Kristin Hart, who was covered with blood from attempting to stop her husband, Kyle Hart, from cutting himself. She directed the officers to the backyard. Upon heading for the backyard, the officers decided between themselves that the lead officer would “go lethal,” drawing his firearm, while the second would “go less lethal,” openly carrying her Taser.
They found Kyle standing in one corner of the yard, holding a knife, about 37 feet from the officers, either standing behind or on top of a low dirt mound. It was an issue whether he was facing away from the officers and holding the knife down at his side, facing them and holding the knife out at shoulder height, or holding it to his own throat.
Kyle began moving toward the officers and the lead officer told him twice to drop the knife. Kyle continued moving at a ....