@
saragoodtimes Plumhoff v Rickard: very different circumstances. In that case the offending driver had been stopped by police and refused to exit his vehicle and engaged in a high speed chase which endangered other drivers and officers, they attempted to stop him using non lethal methods and were unsuccessful. This was clearly resisting arrest and reckless endangerment.
Barnes v Felix: the moment-of-threat rule requires asking only whether an officer was “in danger at the moment of the threat that resulted in [his] use of deadly force.” 91 F. 4th 393, 397. Under the rule, events “leading up to the shooting” are “not relevant.” Ibid. Here, the “precise moment of threat” was the “two seconds” when Felix was clinging to a moving car. Id., at 397–398. Because Felix could then have reasonably believed his life in danger, the panel held, the shooting was lawful.
The circumstances of this case are quite different. There was no legal stop, there is no reason that the agents even legally approached the victim, she was not resisting arrest (she was fleeing), if the agent was actually in danger then he placed himself in danger, she attempted to avoid him and posed no threat to him. Any claim that he had limited immunity does not apply.
Trump’s and Noem’s “official statements” (they weren’t really official statements BTW) were packs of lies which misrepresent the video evidence.
This incident is materially different than each of the cases you cited. Indeed, this case may find it’s way to the SCOTUS if the agent tries to claim limited immunity.
