Decedent posed a serious threat at the time he was shot with the bean bag rounds, sprayed with the pepper spray, and finally lethally shot. On the other hand, witnesses at the scene stated that the Decedent was not moving toward the officers when he was initially shot with the bean bag rounds; was doubled-over with pain at the time the pepper spray was used; and was merely standing with the knife pointed skyward, stunned, for nearly a full minute before he was shot and killed. Though there is no dispute that the Decedent was armed with a knife throughout this police encounter, “the mere fact that a suspect possesses a weapon does not justify deadly force.” Haugen v. Brosseau, 339 F.3d 857, 862 (9th Cir.2003). See, also Curnow v. Ridgecrest Police, 952 F.2d 321, 324-25 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Rather, whether the amount of force used was
holding that compliance with an officers orders is a material fact when deciding whether the officers use of force 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 holding that deadly force was unreasonable where the suspect possessed a gun but was not pointing it at the officers and was not facing the officers when they shot holding that deadly force was justified where a suspect violently resisted arrest physically attacked the officer and grabbed the officers gun holding that an officers use of deadly force to stop a dangerous car chase did not shock the conscience because an officers poor judgment in using unreasonable force does not automatically convert the officers acts into conscience shocking conduct