decedent without objective provocation while he used his walker, with gun trained on the ground, then a reasonable jury could determine that they violated the Fourth Amendment”); Glenn, 673 F.3d at 867-69, 872-78 (while a suspect’s possession of a knife is an important consideration, it is not dispositive on its own; finding that a jury could find that the officers’ decision to shoot an individual holding a pocket knife, which the individual did not brandish at anyone, violated the Constitution); Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1204 (9th Cir.1997) (“Law enforcement officials may not kill suspects who do not pose an immediate threat to their safety or to the safety of others simply because they are armed.”); Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321, 323, 325 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). At the July 26, 2014 hearing, Defendants
holding that instruction on use of deadly force was not required where there was no evidence that decedent had attempted to assault appellant appellant could not retreat or that decedent was armed holding that instruction on use of deadly force was required where appellant was aware of the decedents violent history decedent had a gun in his car and appellant used force only after decedent had made an attempt to approach his car holding that deadly force was unreasonable where according to the plaintiffs version of facts the decedent possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot him holding that where the plaintiffs evidence supported a finding that the defendants had applied force to restrain him the jury must determine not only whether the officers were justified in using force at all but if so whether the degree of force actually used was reasonable holding that officers were not entitled to qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage where there was a triable dispute as to whether they were reasonable in shooting a suspect who was not facing or pointing his gun at them