No, I am not wrong. Read the regulations and why they were written. And read the Supreme court ruling from this past May 2025 on Barnes vs Felix.
Why would you even fight for cops killing us, breaking the fourth Amendment, when not in imminent danger of death...real death, not some tap by a 5 mph moving car, if that even happened, which I've seen no evidence that he was even tapped.
And why did he fire two more point blank range shots after he was out of the danger, he put himself in?
This needs a real investigation as all killings of civilians by law enforcement get by the civil rights division per protocol....trump said nope! And the civil rights division lawyers, 12 of them, all career prosecutors, quit.
People are misrepresenting and misinterpreting Barnes v Felix
one interesting part is:
The Court does not address a separate question about whether or
how an officer’s own “creation of a dangerous situation” factors into the
reasonableness analysis. The courts below never confronted that is-
sue, and it was not the basis of the petition for certiorari. Pp. 4–9.
91 F. 4th 393, vacated and remanded.
AI Overview: Courts asked to question about whether or how an officer’s own actions “create a dangerous situation”
In 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court explicitly declined to answer the question of whether or how an officer’s own "creation of a dangerous situation" factors into the Fourth Amendment reasonableness analysis for excessive force. While the Court rejected the "moment of threat" rule that ignored prior events, it left open the specific role of pre-seizure officer tactics.
Here is a breakdown of the current legal landscape on "officer-created jeopardy" and "creation of a dangerous situation":
1. The Barnes v. Felix (2025) Impact
In Barnes v. Felix (May 2025), the Supreme Court reversed a Fifth Circuit ruling that only considered the two seconds of danger an officer faced while clinging to a moving car, ignoring the officer's prior actions.
Rejection of "Moment of Threat": The Court established that the Fourth Amendment requires a "totality of the circumstances" analysis, which includes looking at events leading up to the use of force.
Open Question: The Court specifically noted it did not address "whether or how an officer's own 'creation of a dangerous situation' factors into the reasonableness analysis," as that issue was not properly before it.
2. "Officer-Created Jeopardy" Argument
This theory, gaining traction in litigation, argues that if an officer’s unconstitutional or reckless actions (e.g., unnecessary, proactive tactical mistakes) create the danger that requires them to use force, they should lose the right to claim self-defense.
The Conflict: Proponents argue this encourages accountability. Critics argue it forces courts to second-guess split-second, high-stress tactical decisions in hindsight.
Split in Lower Courts: Prior to Barnes, there was a divide where some circuits (like the Fifth) used a narrow "moment of threat" rule, while others included earlier, relevant conduct.
3. County of Los Angeles v. Mendez (2017)
In a similar vein, Mendez rejected the Ninth Circuit's "provocation rule".
The Rule: The "provocation rule" had allowed officers to be held liable for an otherwise reasonable use of force if they "provoked" the incident through an earlier, independent constitutional violation (e.g., entering a home without a warrant).
The Rejection: The Supreme Court held that this improperly "conflates distinct Fourth Amendment claims" and that the proper approach is to focus on whether the force used was reasonable at the time, not whether it was preceded by a separate violation.
4. Current Legal Standards
While the Supreme Court has not fully defined the "creation of a danger" rule, current law operates under these guidelines:
Totality of the Circumstances: Courts must look at the whole picture, not just the instant of the shooting.
Objectively Reasonable: The force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, without 20/20
hindsight.
Qualified Immunity: Even if an officer’s actions contributed to a dangerous situation, they are generally shielded from liability unless they violated a "clearly established" constitutional right.
No Duty to Retreat: Generally, an officer placing himself in a dangerous situation does not alone forfeit the right to use reasonable force to protect themselves.
Barnes v. Felix ensures that officers' pre-seizure actions can be considered, but it does not provide a definitive rule on when those actions constitute a "creation of a danger" that makes the subsequent use of force unconstitutional.
