Ninth Circuit Rules Deadly Force Justified in the Fatal Shooting of a Knife-Wielding, Mentally Ill Man
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 “brisk walk” or a “slow run,” covering about 30 feet in approximately six seconds, while “holding the knife out towards them.” The officers did not warn Kyle that they would shoot. As he continued to approach them while still holding the knife, the second officer fired her Taser at him. One Taser probe struck Kyle on the left side of his head while the other missed, making the Taser ineffective in that both prongs must hit their mark.
At the same time (or immediately thereafter), as Kyle was eight to 10 feet from the officers and still approaching, the lead officer shot at him five times, hitting him in the upper torso with three rounds. Kyle fell to the ground at the lead officer’s feet and within five feet of the second officer.
Transported to the hospital by paramedics, Kyle was pronounced dead upon reaching the emergency room. In April 2021, plaintiffs Kristen Hart and her children filed a civil lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in federal court, alleging a violation of constitutional and state law rights. Both plaintiffs and the defendant officers filed cross-motions for summary judgment, which the district (trial) court denied except as to certain claims asserted by the plaintiffs.
Specifically, the district court determined that the lead officer was not entitled to qualified immunity from civil liability. In making this determination, the district court relied upon the rules as previously laid out by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Deorle v. Rutherford (9th Cir. 2001) 272 F.3rd 1272, at page 1285: “Every police officer should know that it is objectively unreasonable to shoot...(1) an unarmed man who: (3) has committed no serious offense, (3) is mentally or emotionally disturbed, (4) has been given no warning of the imminent use of such a significant degree of force, (5) poses no risk of flight, and (6) presents no objectively reasonable threat to the safety of the officer or other individuals.” The city and the officer appealed.
