Officer was justified in shooting plaintiff while he viciously beat two officers

In a rapidly developing fight where the plaintiff hit two cops within seconds and one officer saw the other officer’s eyes roll back, he shot the plaintiff, and it was reasonable under the circumstances. Davenport v. Causey, 521 F.3d 544, 2008 FED App. 0139P (6th Cir. 2008):

Our analysis is not changed by the assumed fact that, when viewing the facts most favorably to the plaintiffs, the off-camera blow did not occur and Officer Causey did not see the whites of Officer Pugh’s eyes. While both would bolster Officer Causey’s decision to use deadly force, the circumstances provided sufficient cause for deadly force absent these two facts. Even though Officer Causey did cite the fact that Officer Pugh’s eyes rolled to their whites as a reason he decided to use deadly force, it was still reasonable for him to shoot Mr. Davenport under the circumstances. Again, as detailed above, Mr. Davenport was a large, violent, and angry man who was unwilling to comply with direction from the police and who had attacked two police officers in quick succession, with only four seconds having elapsed while he delivered at least five blows to the two officers. In those four seconds Mr. Davenport had struck Officer Causey at least twice and knocked him to the ground, and had struck Officer Pugh in the head three times, strikes which Officer Causey had observed. At the time he was shot, Mr. Davenport was preparing to strike Officer Pugh on the top of his head with his fist for a fourth time. As conceded by the plaintiffs, Mr. Davenport had given no indication that he planned on retreating, and, if the fight were scored on points, Mr. Davenport was winning. While Officer Causey may have been mistaken in deciding that deadly force was required and that there was no time to warn Mr. Davenport, we cannot say that, given the rapidly evolving circumstances, his decision was unreasonable.

Officers had reasonable suspicion for stop based on CI based information that was corroborated. United States v. Tijerina, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 7141 (5th Cir. April 3, 2008) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.