re: Border Patrol-involved shooting in Minneapolis; person shot was allegedly armed

quote:

---

That standard was met here.

---

quote:

---

stout

---

quote:

---

This is ridiculous

I’m not even sure I believe it.

That’s some “it’s coming right at us” South Park shite.

---

quote:

---

The statement is true under established Fourth Amendment excessive force jurisprudence (Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), and Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), as applied in numerous cases). Officers may use deadly force when they have an objectively reasonable belief — based on the totality of circumstances — that the suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. This includes reasonable perceptions of a weapon or threat, even if the perception turns out to be mistaken.Key supporting principles from case law:The reasonableness standard is objective and accounts for the "totality of the circumstances," including split-second decisions in tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations (Graham v. Connor).

Officers do not need personal, direct confirmation of every detail of the threat; the law recognizes the realities of dynamic encounters where officers act on reasonable perceptions, including warnings or observations from fellow officers.

Courts have repeatedly held that police may rely on fellow officers' communications or perceptions in assessing threats, particularly in team operations or struggles (this draws from related doctrines like collective knowledge in probable cause contexts, but applies analogously in use-of-force cases).

The law does not require officers to wait until they are actually shot or until the threat is fully "confirmed" — deadly force is justified against a reasonable perception of imminent deadly force (e.g., a suspect appearing to reach for or display a weapon during resistance).

"Freeze-frame" second-guessing (hindsight analysis of a single moment isolated from context) is improper; courts evaluate from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene.

Relevant court cases illustrating these points include:Graham v. Connor (1989) — Establishes the core "objective reasonableness" test for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment, emphasizing that reasonableness "must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight," and allows for split-second judgments without requiring precise calibration of the threat.

Tennessee v. Garner (1985) — Deadly force is permissible if the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury (imminent deadly force standard).

Cases applying these in armed-suspect/struggle scenarios often uphold qualified immunity or lawfulness where officers reasonably perceived a gun or threat (even if no gun was ultimately found), including reliance on team dynamics or shouts of "gun!" Examples include various circuit court decisions (e.g., in the Fifth, Fourth, and others) denying liability where officers acted on perceived threats during active resistance, without requiring individual verification of the weapon.

---

quote:

---

Did the deceased ever have his gun in his hand or reach for it during the altercation?

---

quote:

---

The point is having them admit this, and their motives aren't specifically related to deportations of illegals.

---

quote:

---

But the reality of exercising that right while actively interfering with a law enforcement operation/resisting detainment exponentially increases the likelihood of a very negative outcome.

---