and Officers Jones and Smith may have been in a position to hear the announcements, it is likely they were paying attention to other matters. Specifically, Melvin Chappell and Jones were talking with each other on the porch. ROA 73, Jones dep. pp. 18-20. And Smith was occupied talking with Dorothy Chappell in the rear driveway. ROA 63-5, Smith dep. pp. 11-12. So, the fact that all three witnesses did not notice the detectives announcing themselves does not necessarily impugn the veracity of the detectives’ account. Second, even if a genuine fact dispute were deemed presented, it is not material, because the events before the shooting are not a factor in determining whether the detectives had probable cause to use deadly force once they entered the bedroom. Livermore, 476 F.3d at 406-07 (<HOLDING>); Claybrook v. Birchwell, 274 F.3d 1098,
holding officers did not have a realistic opportunity to intervene because they were not present at the time of the shooting holding that the assaultbattery exclusion applied to claims for negligence resulting in a shooting death holding that an officer did not employ excessive force in shooting a suspect who turned out to be unarmed because at the time of the shooting the officer had a reasonable belief that the suspect posed a threat and was armed holding the time frame is crucial and evaluating reasonableness of officers use of deadly force at the time of the seizure irrespective of their prior unreasonable conduct in creating the circumstances holding that evidence of recklessness by one officer in events leading up to shooting was immaterial in evaluating objective reasonableness of shooting officers decision to use deadly force in the situation he faced at time of shooting