CA5: Police shooting from behind after escalating violent situation was not unreasonable

The police shooting here from behind was not unreasonable on the totality. “When McVae threw the rock, Trooper Perez had to make an immediate reflexive decision of how to protect himself in a rapidly evolving situation against an increasingly violent individual who had repeatedly resisted lesser forms of force. … Plaintiffs’ use of several frame-by-frame screenshots from the body camera footage to dissect events that occurred in less than 2.5 seconds is the ‘sort of Monday morning quarterbacking’ that our precedent proscribes. … [¶] A reasonable officer could have believed that McVae posed a threat of serious harm even if he was running away and unarmed in the exact moment that Trooper Perez shot him.” McVae v. Perez, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 27567 (5th Cir. Oct. 30, 2024).*

Defense counsel’s failure to call as a witness the judge who approved the arrest warrant as a witness wouldn’t change the result on post-conviction. State v. Mayfield, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 727 (Oct. 28, 2024).*

On post-conviction “Mr. Mayfield suggests that his rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment were violated by a ‘failure to conduct [a] pretrial investigation,’” but that’s purely conclusory and shows nothing. State v. Mayfield, 2024 Del. Super. LEXIS 727 (Oct. 28, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading, Excessive force, Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.