Case: 24-10755           Document: 65-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit                                              United States Court of Appeals
                                  ____________                                             Fifth Circuit

                                                                                         FILED
                                    No. 24-10755                                  December 10, 2025
                                  ____________
                                                                                    Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                         Clerk
Juanita Ramirez, Personally and as the Personal Representative of the
Estate of Estevan Ramirez,

                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Jonathan Granado,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 4:22-CV-930
                  ______________________________

Before Dennis, Oldham, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      Plaintiff-Appellant Juanita Ramirez brought an excessive-force claim
against Lake Worth Police Department (“LWPD”) Officer Jonathan
Granado after he shot and killed her son, Estevan Ramirez, as he fled from
pursuing officers. The district court granted summary judgment to Officer
Granado, concluding his use of deadly force was reasonable and, as a result,

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
 Case: 24-10755         Document: 65-1          Page: 2      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                      No. 24-10755


that qualified immunity shielded his actions from suit and liability. For the
reasons that follow, we REVERSE and REMAND for further proceedings.
                                            I
        On September 3, 2021, at approximately 2:06 AM, Officer Granado,
on duty in his marked police vehicle, heard fellow LWPD Officer R. Watson
report over the police radio that he was engaged in a high-speed pursuit of a
white Volkswagen Jetta whose driver failed to yield to a traffic stop for
speeding. Officer Granado responded by joining the pursuit as a backup unit.
At Officer Watson’s request, LWPD dispatch ran the suspect vehicle’s
license plate and informed both officers that the fleeing vehicle was “not
stolen” but that it previously evaded pursuit by a different police agency and
that the “occupants are considered armed and dangerous.” Importantly,
however, and contrary to Officer Granado’s later assertions, the transcripts
of the dispatch and radio communications contain no indication that either
officer received information suggesting that the vehicle or its occupants were
involved in any “drive-by shootings.” 1
        At 2:18 AM, Officer Granado located the ongoing pursuit and began
following Officer Watson as the secondary chase unit. A few minutes later,
the suspect vehicle made a sharp turn, struck a curb, and sustained significant
damage. The suspect vehicle continued on for a short distance before coming
to a stop at 2:22 AM. Officer Watson stopped his patrol car near the disabled
vehicle. When the suspect vehicle came to a stop, four unidentified
individuals (including Ramirez) exited and fled in different directions.
Officer Watson, who had also exited his patrol car, observed Ramirez

        _____________________
        1
          To the extent Officer Granado’s allegations are disputed by Plaintiff-Appellant,
we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff-Appellant and draw all
factual inferences in her favor. Tolan v. Cotton, 

 (2014) (per curiam).




                                            2
Case: 24-10755        Document: 65-1       Page: 3    Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


emerging from the rear-left passenger door of the suspect vehicle. As
Ramirez emerged from the vehicle, he held a handgun in his left hand and a
cell phone in his right, though it is disputed when law enforcement learned
that fact. After taking only a few steps, Ramirez dropped the cell phone and
briefly paused to retrieve it. Officer Watson saw Ramirez “trying to flee” but
“did not see a gun” at that point.
       The following events unfolded over the span of approximately eight
seconds. As Officer Watson approached Ramirez from the opposite side of
his police cruiser, he “touched” or “grabbed” Ramirez and, for the first
time, saw that Ramirez was holding a handgun “in a downward motion.”
Upon observing the handgun, Officer Watson “pushed off of” or “back[ed]
away” from Ramirez to create distance as he attempted to unholster his own
weapon. At the same time, Officer Granado stopped his patrol car to the right
of Officer Watson’s, exited it while drawing his service weapon, and shouted
“he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun!” Officer Granado fired a single shot in the
direction of Officer Watson and Ramirez—a shot that Officer Watson later
recalled passed “right by [him].” Ramirez then “r[an] away” from Officer
Watson “in a southwest direction” and “continued to flee away from him
across the street” and into a nearby intersection.
       The officers’ accounts diverge as to what happened next. Officer
Granado later claimed that Ramirez “was swinging his pistol in the direction
of Officer Watson and [him]” as he fled. Officer Watson, however, stated
that “Ramirez never pointed the gun toward me or while he was running
away[.]” As Ramirez continued to flee from the officers, Officer Granado
fired his service weapon at Ramirez six more times without warning. Four of
his bullets struck the back of Ramirez’s head and shoulders. Ramirez
collapsed face-first on the street in the direction he had been running. Officer
Watson, who had attempted to unholster his weapon, never “cleared




                                       3
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1        Page: 4   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                 No. 24-10755


leather” before the gunfire ended. Seconds later, Officer Granado asked
Officer Watson, “did he have a gun?” Ramirez died at the scene.
       Plaintiff-Appellant Juanita Ramirez, individually and on behalf of
Estevan Ramirez’s estate, brought an excessive-force claim against Officer
Granado under 

. Officer Granado moved for summary
judgment on the basis of qualified immunity. The district court granted
Officer Granado’s motion, concluding his use of deadly force was objectively
reasonable under the circumstances and, as a result, he was entitled to
qualified immunity. The district court entered final judgment dismissing
Plaintiff-Appellant’s suit with prejudice. This timely appeal followed.
                                      II
       We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on
qualified immunity de novo. Crane v. City of Arlington, Tex., 

 (5th Cir. 2022) (citing Aguirre v. City of San Antonio, 

(5th Cir. 2021)). “When a defendant official moves for summary judgment
on the basis of qualified immunity, ‘the burden then shifts to the plaintiff,
who must rebut the defense by establishing a genuine fact issue as to whether
the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.’”

 (quoting Aguirre, 

). “All facts must be viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmovant and all justifiable inferences must be drawn
in his favor.” 

 (citing Darden v. City of Fort Worth, 

 (5th
Cir. 2018)).
                                     III
       We conclude Plaintiff-Appellant has established genuine disputes of
material fact that preclude the grant of summary judgment on qualified
immunity.




                                      4
 Case: 24-10755          Document: 65-1         Page: 5       Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                      No. 24-10755


                                            A
         Whether an officer is entitled to qualified immunity involves two
inquiries: (1) “whether the officer’s conduct violated a federal right,” and
(2) “whether that right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

 at 463 (citing Tolan, 572 U.S. at 655–56). “Under the first step, to state a
violation of the Fourth Amendment prohibition on excessive force,” the
plaintiff must show: “(1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the
use of force that was excessive to the need, and (3) the use of force that was
objectively unreasonable.” Bush v. Strain, 

, 500–01 (5th Cir.
2008).
         “[T]he ‘reasonableness’ inquiry . . . is an objective one,” Graham v.
Connor, 

 (1989), and “requires analyzing the ‘totality of the
circumstances.’” Barnes v. Felix, 

 (2025) (quoting Cnty.
of Los Angeles v. Mendez, 

, 427–28 (2017)). While objective
reasonableness is “not capable of a precise definition or mechanical
application,” the Supreme Court in Graham v. Connor outlined a few
considerations that inform the need for force: (1) the severity of the crime at
issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of
officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or
attempting to evade arrest by flight. 

 (quoting Bell v. Wolfish,

 (1979)).
         Importantly, the “threat-of-harm factor typically predominates the
analysis when deadly force has been deployed[.]” See Crane, 

. 2
         _____________________
         2
         On the first Graham factor—the severity of the crime at issue—Officer Granado
contends that Ramirez was involved in a high-speed pursuit, had been identified by dispatch
as “armed and dangerous,” and resisted arrest while armed with a handgun. It is
undisputed that LWPD dispatch informed both officers that the suspect vehicle had
previously fled from police and that its occupants should be considered “armed and
dangerous.” But nothing in the record suggests that Ramirez was individually suspected of




                                            5
 Case: 24-10755          Document: 65-1          Page: 6       Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                       No. 24-10755


Officer Granado asserts that, when he stopped his police cruiser, he “saw
that [Ramirez] had a pistol in his hand,” and “believed [Ramirez] was going
to shoot and kill Officer Watson and [him].” It is undisputed Officer Granado
observed Ramirez move toward Officer Watson, who briefly made physical
contact with Ramirez in what Officer Watson later described as a fleeting
altercation. But this speaks to the first unsuccessful shot Officer Granado
fired in the direction of Ramirez. Officer Granado admits that, after this first
shot, he “stopped firing so as not to hit Officer Watson [who] was
momentarily between me and [Ramirez].”
        The issue here, then, is whether a genuine dispute of material fact
exists as to whether Ramirez continued to pose an immediate threat to the
officers or others when Officer Granado fired six more rounds as Ramirez ran
away down the street without warning. See Mason v. Lafayette City-Par.
Consol. Gov’t, 

 (5th Cir. 2015) (reversing grant of summary
judgment on qualified immunity after distinguishing between initial and
subsequent shots in excessive force analysis); Roque v. Harvel, 

 (5th Cir. 2021). After all, “an exercise of force that is reasonable at one

        _____________________
criminal conduct before the stop. Officer Granado observed Ramirez exit from the rear-left
passenger door of the suspect vehicle, demonstrating that he was not the driver and
therefore not responsible for the high-speed pursuit. See Tex. Transp. Code
§ 545.421(a). Moreover, the characterization of the occupants as “armed and dangerous”
is not itself indicative of any criminal offense and bears more directly on the second Graham
factor—whether the suspect poses an immediate threat—rather than the severity of any
crime. See Smith v. Lee, 

 (5th Cir. 2023). The only offense Officer Granado
could reasonably attribute to Ramirez based on his observations was evading arrest on foot,
which is relevant to the third Graham factor. Evading arrest, however, cannot alone justify
the use of deadly force absent an objectively reasonable belief that the suspect poses an
immediate threat of serious harm to officers or others. Tennessee v. Garner, 

(1985) (“Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to
others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly
force to do so.”). Accordingly, our analysis turns primarily to the second Graham factor,
which we recognize as the predominant factor in this inquiry. See Crane, 

.




                                             6
 Case: 24-10755            Document: 65-1         Page: 7    Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                         No. 24-10755


moment can become unreasonable in the next if the justification for the use
of force has ceased.” 

 (quoting Lytle v. Bexar Cnty., Tex., 

(5th Cir. 2009)); Barnes, 

 (“[T]he situation at the precise
time of the shooting will often be what matters most; it is, after all, the
officer’s choice in that moment that is under review.”). Although Officer
Granado does not dispute that Ramirez was fleeing at the time of the
subsequent shots, he seeks to justify his continued use of deadly force by
claiming that Ramirez “was swinging his pistol in the direction of Officer
Watson and [him]” as he ran.
        That justification turns on two disputed material facts: (1) whether
Officer Granado perceived that Ramirez was armed with a handgun, and (2)
whether Ramirez, while fleeing, swung that handgun in the officers’
direction. As to the first, Officer Granado was generally aware that police
dispatch had advised that the suspects in the vehicle should be considered
“armed and dangerous.” And as Officer Granado exited his patrol car “with
adrenaline pumping, lights flashing, confusion of the scene, the fog of danger,
and fog of night,” 3 he claims that he “saw that [Ramirez] had a pistol in his
hand,” prompting him to shout: “he’s got a gun, he’s got a gun!” Officer
Watson—who was standing next to Ramirez—first noticed Ramirez holding
a handgun at that same moment. Yet, viewing the evidence in the light most
favorable to Plaintiff–Appellant, Officer Granado’s own words immediately
after the shooting cast doubt on his asserted perception. Moments after firing
the fatal shots, he turned to Officer Watson and asked: “did he have a gun?” 4

        _____________________
        3
            See Oral Arg. 22:38–22:44.
        4
         Officer Granado claims he made this statement merely “to confirm that what he
perceived was accurate . . . .” The sincerity of this explanation is not one that we may
resolve on summary judgment. See Deville v. Marcantel, 

 (5th Cir. 2009)
(“Summary judgment is not appropriate when ‘questions about the credibility of key
witnesses loom . . . large’ and the evidence could permit the trier-of-fact to treat their




                                              7
 Case: 24-10755          Document: 65-1          Page: 8      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                       No. 24-10755


A reasonable jury could find that this contemporaneous question sufficiently
disputes Officer Granado’s claim that he saw Ramirez armed before and
during the shooting.
        Next, contradictory evidence undermines Officer Granado’s claim
that Ramirez threatened the officers or swung anything in their direction as
he fled. First, Officer Granado’s own body-camera footage does not depict
Ramirez “swinging his pistol in the direction” of either officer. Second,
Officer Watson, who was closest to Ramirez, unequivocally stated that
“Ramirez never pointed the gun toward me or while he was running away[.]”
Third, the findings of Ramirez’s autopsy are inconsistent with Officer
Granado’s account. The medical examiner concluded that each of the four
bullets that struck Ramirez—including the fatal shot to the back of his head—
traveled through his body from “back to front.” 5 The trajectories of these

        _____________________
testimony with ‘skeptical scrutiny.’” (quoting Thomas v. Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co., 

 (5th Cir. 2000))). In any event, we must view the summary judgment
evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiff-Appellant and draw all reasonable
inferences in her favor. Darden, 

. Accepting Officer Granado’s explanation
as true at this juncture would turn that standard on its head.
        5
          Officer Granado argues that Ramirez’s autopsy report “actually indicates wounds
in the rear right side [of his head], which is consistent with the video evidence and with
Officer Granado’s perception that Ramirez would have been swinging the gun toward him
and Officer Watson.” He cites to an investigative report by the Fort Worth Police
Department (“FWPD”) that describes the head-wound’s trajectory as “right to left.”
That same report, however, notes “[a]n entrance gunshot wound to the back of the head
on the right side, behind the ear[.]” The autopsy report likewise describes the path of that
bullet as traveling from “right to left, back to front[.]” Viewing the evidence in the light
most favorable to Plaintiff-Appellant, that Ramirez was shot in the rear right side of his
head and body is consistent with the summary judgment evidence that he fled in a
southwest direction—and it is not undisputed fact that Ramirez had swung his handgun in
the direction of Officers Watson and Granado. Indeed, the autopsy report tends to show
that Ramirez did not turn toward the officers as he ran down the street. Had he done so, it
is unlikely that he would have been shot in the back of his head and shoulders by Officer
Granado.




                                             8
 Case: 24-10755          Document: 65-1          Page: 9      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                       No. 24-10755


bullets contradict the claim that Ramirez turned his torso, head, or weapon
toward the officers as he fled. See Baker v. Putnal, 

 (5th Cir.
1996) (“The nature of the wounds indicate that [the suspect], was not facing
[the officer] when he was shot . . . rais[ing] a serious question as to the
reasonableness of his conduct, more of a question of fact than a court may
dispose of on summary judgment.”).
        In response, Officer Granado relies on the general principle that an
officer need not wait “until a defendant turns towards them, with weapon in
hand, before applying deadly force to ensure their safety.” See, e.g., Salazar-
Limon v. City of Hous., 

, 279 n.6 (5th Cir. 2016), as revised (June
16, 2016). But this principle applies to cases in which a suspect reaches into
areas where a gun could be hidden out of an officer’s line of sight or makes
other types of furtive gestures such as suddenly reaching into their waistband.
See, e.g., Ontiveros v. City of Rosenberg, Tex., 

 (5th Cir. 2009);
Reese v. Anderson, 

 (5th Cir. 1991); Young v. City of Killeen,
Tex., 

, 1352–53 (5th Cir. 1985). Here, Officer Granado never
lost sight of Ramirez as he fled, and it is firmly disputed whether Ramirez
made any threatening gestures that reasonably evince a risk to officers or
others, or that Officer Granado knew Ramirez was armed at all. 6
        At bottom, Plaintiff-Appellant and Officer Granado offer genuinely
conflicting narratives as to what occurred and what was perceived on the
night of September 3, 2021. The accuracy of these competing narratives is

        _____________________
        6
            Officer Granado disputes Plaintiff-Appellant’s contention that Ramirez was
“simply attempting to flee.” Officer Granado argues that Ramirez “pick[ed] up his gun
after having dropped it,” which “is fundamentally inconsistent with ‘simply fleeing’ the
scene.” But the FWPD investigative report disputes that Ramirez ever dropped his
handgun: “[Ramirez] emerged [from the suspect vehicle] holding a black handgun . . . in
his left hand and a cell phone in his right hand,” and “[a]fter just a few steps, he dropped
the cell phone and stopped to pick it up.”




                                             9
Case: 24-10755        Document: 65-1         Page: 10    Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                   No. 24-10755


precisely the kind of question that cannot be resolved at summary judgment.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

 (1986) (“Credibility
determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge[.]”). And
“[o]f course, if an excessive force claim turns on which of two conflicting
stories best captures what happened on the street, Graham will not permit
summary judgment in favor of the defendant official.” Saucier v. Katz, 

, 216 (2001) (Ginsburg, J., concurring). “[I]t will be for a jury,
and not judges, to resolve the[se] competing factual narratives . . . as to
[Plaintiff-Appellant’s] excessive-force claim.” Cole v. Carson, 

 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc), as revised (Aug. 21, 2019). Plaintiff-Appellant
has established genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Officer
Granado unreasonably employed deadly force against Ramirez in violation of
the Fourth Amendment.
                                         B
       The remaining issue is whether Plaintiff-Appellant’s version of the
disputed facts constitutes a violation of clearly established law. As we
explained in Lytle, “[i]t has long been clearly established that, absent any
other justification for the use of force, it is unreasonable for a police officer to
use deadly force against a fleeing felon who does not pose a sufficient threat
of harm to the officer or others.” 

; see also Baker, 

. Under Plaintiff-Appellant’s version of the disputed facts, Officer
Granado did not know Ramirez was armed, observed Ramirez flee from the
officers with his back turned, and never saw Ramirez turn toward the officers
during his flight. His use of deadly force in this context violates the Fourth
Amendment under clearly established law.




                                        10
Case: 24-10755    Document: 65-1        Page: 11   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                              No. 24-10755


                                  IV
      For the foregoing reasons, we REVERSE the judgment of the district
court and REMAND for further proceedings not inconsistent with this
opinion.




                                   11
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1        Page: 12    Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


James L. Dennis, Circuit Judge, concurring:
       I concur in the majority opinion without reservation. I write separately
to address the dissent. Despite its protestations that the majority is wrong to
hold that a jury, not judges, must resolve the genuine disputes of material fact
here, the dissent ignores the abundant evidence establishing those disputes.
And the authority it musters? A mile-wide string of citations, with scarcely
an inch deep of relevance. The dissent’s error thus runs on two tracks:
(A) disregarding or resolving factual disputes that belong to a jury, and
(B) wrenching caselaw so far from its moorings as to strip it of all meaning.
                                       A
       At summary judgment, the question is not whether a judge can craft a
tidy narrative from selected fragments of the record; it is whether a
reasonable jury, crediting the nonmovant’s evidence and drawing all
reasonable inferences in her favor, could find for her. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 

 (1986). The dissent’s account falters on three
fronts: it (1) resolves competing inferences—a job that belongs to a jury;
(2) treats assertions untethered to the record as undisputed fact; and
(3) omits context that materially bears on objective reasonableness.
       First, the dissent makes choices among competing inferences that a
jury must resolve. The dissent says that “during the chase,” Officer Granado
learned that the vehicle’s occupants “had been involved in drive-by
shootings.” Post, at 21. The first time this detail appears in the record is in
Officer Granado’s post-shooting written statement: “During the pursuit, I
heard Officer Watson state on the radio that per White Settlement PD, the
suspect vehicle had been involved in drive by shootings . . . .” ROA.554
(emphasis added). But the dispatch and radio transcripts in the record
contain no such statement, nor do Officer Watson’s report or recorded
interview speak to such a critical detail. ROA.576–77; ROA.582; ROA.931




                                      12
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1         Page: 13   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


(“Watson Interview”) at 6:00–6:13; ROA.1013. Officer Watson pursued the
vehicle only because of the driver’s speeding violation. Whether Officers
Watson or Granado had any information to suspect Ramirez, as a passenger,
of a crime is a question for the jury at trial. The dissent also leans heavily on
the compressed timeline, emphasizing that about eight seconds elapsed
between Officer Granado’s shout—“he’s got a gun!”—and Officer
Granado’s final shot to Ramirez’s back as he ran away. Post, at 23. But the
fact that events unfolded quickly is not dispositive, for we must still view the
evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Tolan v. Cotton, 

, 657–58 (2014) (per curiam). And here, immediately after Officer
Granado’s gunfire ceased, Officer Granado asked Officer Watson, “did he
have a gun?” Granado Body Camera (“GBC”) at 14:55–14:56. A jury could
hear that unguarded question and disbelieve that Officer Granado actually
saw Ramirez holding a gun before and while shooting him in the back.
       The dissent also implicitly accepts as true Officer Granado’s post-
shooting justification for his use of deadly force: that, as Ramirez fled, he
“was swinging his pistol in the direction of Officer Watson and [Officer
Granado].” ROA.502 ¶¶ 14–17. The record disputes this. Officer Watson—
the officer closest to Ramirez—flatly stated “Ramirez never pointed the gun
toward me or while he was running away,” and the video evidence does not
depict Ramirez “swinging” or pointing his handgun toward either officer.
ROA.594; ROA.529; GBC at 14:42–14:44. The autopsy likewise found that
four bullets struck Ramirez and that each traveled through Ramirez’s body
from back to front, including a fatal shot to the back of his head. ROA.975–
76, 979. Finally, the still image reproduced below—taken from Officer
Granado’s body-worn camera at the moment he began firing the fatal shots—
shows both officers behind Ramirez. GBC at 14:42–14:44. At the left of the
frame, Officer Watson stands with his service weapon still holstered. Officer
Granado is to the right of and behind Officer Watson, and Ramirez is shown




                                       13
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1        Page: 14    Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


fleeing with his back to both officers. This is the critical frame the dissent’s
cherry-picked selection omits:




       Second, many of the dissent’s assertions are unsupported by the
record. For example, the dissent’s suggestion that Ramirez fled “with his
finger on the trigger,” post, at 22, finds no footing in the record. Neither
investigative nor police reports make this claim, and the videos do not
support it; they show only that Ramirez held a handgun in his left hand.
ROA.524; ROA.554; ROA.588; ROA.885; GBC at 14:42–14:44.
       Third, the dissent omits context that materially bears on
reasonableness. The dissent says Ramirez was “involved in a high-speed,
120-mph car chase,” post, at 21, but that invites the impression that Ramirez
was the driver who precipitated the pursuit. He was not. Ramirez was a
passenger who exited from the suspect vehicle’s rear-left passenger door.
Watson Dash Camera–Wide (“WDCW”) at 16:16–16:20; Watson Interview
at 10:40–10:50. And before the stop, nothing in the record indicates Ramirez
himself was suspected of any specific crime. The dissent also notes that the
chase ended in a “residential neighborhood,” post, at 21, but the intersection



                                      14
Case: 24-10755         Document: 65-1        Page: 15   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


where the shooting occurred—Horne Street and Houghton Avenue—was
bordered by a gas station, a commercial building, a vacant lot, and one
residence. The gas station and residence were located behind both officers
and opposite the direction of Ramirez’s flight and Officer Granado’s shots.
The environment the officers actually faced, and the direction Ramirez was
running—with his back turned—is less developed, context jurors may weigh
in assessing objective reasonableness of Officer Granado’s use of deadly
force. See GBC at 14:35–14:44.
       The dissent’s excerpted narrative, then, rests on disputed facts and
omitted context that a jury could find decisive. We may not declare which
story is true. Instead, we enforce the principle that when “an excessive force
claim turns on which of two conflicting stories best captures what happened
on the street,” we will not “permit summary judgment in favor of the
defendant official.” Saucier v. Katz, 

, 216 (2001) (Ginsburg,
J., concurring). Applying that teaching here, the majority rightly reverses.
                                        B
       That leaves the dissent’s citations, which serve as a reminder that one
can stack citations to the ceiling, but a tower of distinguishable cases is still
no foundation. All of the dissent’s citations fall into two categories not
relevant here: first, cases involving deadly force in response to a suspect’s
overt threatening acts directed at officers; and second, cases where deadly
force followed a suspect’s sudden furtive reach toward a hidden area outside
of the officer’s line of sight that reasonably suggested the suspect was
retrieving a weapon.
       Unlike the present dispute, most of the cases the dissent invokes turn
on overt threatening acts by suspects directed toward officers prior to their
use of deadly force, e.g., raising a hammer as if to throw it at officers (City of
Tahlequah), advancing toward officers while holding a knife (Kisela; Sheehan;




                                        15
Case: 24-10755           Document: 65-1            Page: 16      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                        No. 24-10755


Dimock), pointing firearms at officers during standoffs (White; Maser;
Arnold), setting a house ablaze with officers inside and charging at them with
a club (Waterhouse), threatening officers with an axe or machete (Shaw;
Flores), or a refusal to disarm despite explicit commands to do so by officers
(Garcia; Boyd). 1 Others emphasize similar conduct where the suspect
        _____________________
        1
           City of Tahlequah, Okla. v. Bond, 

, 11 (2021) (per curiam) (“[The
suspect] grasped the handle of the hammer with both hands, as if preparing to swing a
baseball bat, and pulled it up to shoulder level. . . . He then raised the hammer higher back
behind his head and took a stance as if he was about to throw the hammer or charge at the
officers.”); Kisela v. Hughes, 

 (2018) (per curiam) (suspect holding a large
knife “moved to within a few feet of [the officer]; and she failed to acknowledge at least
two commands to drop the knife”); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 

,
605–06 (2015) (armed mentally ill suspect, who “had just threatened to kill” the officers,
twice confronted officers with a knife; after retreat failed and pepper spray was ineffective,
she charged again and was shot); Dimock, Tr. for Heirs of Dimock-Heisler v. City of Brooklyn
Ctr., 

 (8th Cir. 2024) (suspect who had threatened individual with a knife
and hammer resisting arrest, grabbed knife, and ran toward officer); White v. Pauly, 

 (2017) (per curiam) (“[One suspect] stepped part way out of the back door and
fired two shotgun blasts while screaming loudly. A few seconds after those shots, [another
suspect] opened the front window and pointed a handgun in Officer White’s direction.”);
Maser v. City of Coralville, 

, 1006–07 (8th Cir. 2025) (barricaded suspect who
had “threaten[ed] to commit suicide, had shot a hole through the ceiling of his house that
morning, was on a three-day long drinking binge,” emerged from his garage holding a gun
and “raised [it] in an extended position away from his body at about chest level,” and
officers “perceived [the suspect] was pointing the rifle toward other officers at this
moment”); Arnold v. City of Olathe, 

, 787 (10th Cir. 2022) (“Howard was
waiving a .45 caliber handgun in the general direction of the officers. . . . [S]he pointed the
gun toward the officers with her finger on the trigger . . . .”); Waterhouse v. Direzza, 

, 1221–25 (10th Cir. 2025) (use of deadly force reasonable where a “destructive
and violent” barricaded suspect refused to surrender for two hours, then “lit the house on
fire while officers were inside” and rushed toward officers with a club); Shaw v. City of
Selma, 

, 1097–98 (11th Cir. 2018) (mentally ill suspect armed with an axe shot
by officer after he “turned, and began moving slowly towards” the officer and after failing
to comply with twenty-six separate commands to drop the axe); Flores v. Henderson, 

 (10th Cir. 2024) (“Within seconds, [the suspect] rushed from the
bedroom and moved toward the officers with a machete in hand.”); Garcia v. Blevins, 

 (5th Cir. 2020); Boyd v. Baeppler, 

 (6th Cir. 2000) (“[A]n
armed man who had reportedly fired shots, potentially endangering others in the area . . .
did not stop, as ordered, nor did he drop the gun which had been observed in his hand by a




                                              16
Case: 24-10755           Document: 65-1           Page: 17      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                        No. 24-10755


possessed harmless replicas of weapons the officers believed were real
(Strickland; Napouk). 2 Those cases stand for a narrow and unremarkable
proposition that when a suspect aims a weapon at officers or closes distance
while brandishing it despite repeated commands to disarm, the Fourth
Amendment ordinarily does not prohibit deadly force. The dissent attempts
to apply that principle to this very different factual record that lacks the
predicates driving those outcomes. Under Plaintiff-Appellant’s view of the
disputed facts, Ramirez never pointed his weapon at either officer, was
actively fleeing with his back turned away from the officers when he was slain,
and the record reflects that neither officer commanded Ramirez to stop or
disarm.
        Another large tranche of the dissent’s laundry list rests on the “furtive
reach” paradigm where a suspect refuses commands, makes overt threats, or
moves toward officers while suddenly reaching or moving toward a hidden
area outside of the officer’s line of sight, e.g., waistband (Salazar-Limon;
Batyukova; Argueta; Taylor), vehicle floorboard (Young; Reese), or console
(Manis; Benton). 3 Variants involve sudden gestures made by suspects
        _____________________
disinterested witness and by four different police officers at close range.”).
        2
          Est. of Strickland v. Nevada Cnty., 

 (9th Cir. 2023), cert.
denied, 

 (2024) (use of deadly force reasonable where a mentally ill suspect,
armed with a plastic replica gun mistaken by officers as a real gun, “lowered the barrel
toward” the officers); Napouk v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 

, 913–16 (9th
Cir. 2024) (use of deadly force reasonable where suspect repeatedly refused commands to
disarm and advanced towards officers while armed with a “toy sword wrapped in duct
tape” that objectively looked like a machete to officers).
        3
          Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, 

 (5th Cir. 2016), as revised
(June 16, 2016) (resisted arrest and failed to comply with commands); Batyukova v. Doege,

 (5th Cir. 2021) (suspect shouted to officer “you’re going to f**king die
tonight”); Argueta v. Jaradi, 

 (5th Cir. 2023) (“Argueta’s clutching his
right arm to his side as he fled police confrontation was a furtive gesture akin to reaching
for a waistband.”); Est. of Taylor v. Salt Lake City, 

, 750 (10th Cir. 2021)
(suspect explicitly mimicked drawing a weapon from his waistband); Alcala v. Ortega, 128




                                             17
Case: 24-10755           Document: 65-1           Page: 18      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                       No. 24-10755


following shoot-outs or armed standoffs (Franklin; Harris). 4 Those decisions
are animated by an officer’s momentary loss of visual contact with the
suspect’s hands, and the movement reasonably suggested the suspect was
retrieving a weapon, particularly where suspects had already demonstrated
deadly intent. That is why those opinions repeatedly speak in terms of “split-
second” judgments about concealed threats. Again, not our facts in the
present case. Officer Granado’s use of deadly force against Ramirez—who
never pointed, brandished, 5 or fired his weapon—occurred during Ramirez’s
flight as a wide-open target across a broad street and intersection without
warning. Neither officer lost sight of Ramirez, the body-camera shows no
sudden reach, and the back-to-front wound paths through Ramirez’s body
are inconsistent with him having turned-and-aimed. Importing furtive-reach


        _____________________
F.4th 1298, 1308 (10th Cir. 2025) (same); Young v. City of Killeen, 

, 1351 (5th
Cir. 1985); Reese v. Anderson, 

 (5th Cir. 1991); Manis v. Lawson, 

 (5th Cir. 2009) (suspect ignored commands to show hands and was shot after
“repeatedly reach[ing] underneath the front seat” and “appeared to retrieve some object
and began to straighten up”); Benton v. Layton, 

 (4th Cir. 2025) (same).
        4
          Caraway v. City of Pineville, 

, 377 (4th Cir. 2024) (suspect “pointed
his gun at the officers in the moments before the shooting”); Franklin v. Popovich, 

 (11th Cir. 2024) (suspect raised hands “as though he was aiming a gun” after
having “exchanged gunfire with the police and possibly shot one of the officers”); Harris-
Billups ex rel. Harris v. Anderson, 

 (11th Cir. 2023) (suspect shot after
“open[ing] fire on the officers” and again after moving his arms towards his torso).
        5
         For the same reason, Wilson v. City of Bastrop, 

 (5th Cir. 2022), is
inapposite. There, officers responded to reports of an armed confrontation at an apartment
complex involving a specific vehicle. 

. A lone officer stopped that vehicle near an
elementary school as a school bus and other bystanders were present. 

 at 711–12, 714. A
passenger exited holding a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine, ignored
repeated commands to drop the weapon, and ran toward the school, triggering a two-
minute armed chase. 

 at 711–12. While fleeing, he pointed the gun back toward the
pursuing officer and then ran toward another officer. 

. After shots caused the
suspect to stumble and drop the weapon, he picked it up and continued toward a nearby
neighborhood with onlookers, where officers again fired, killing him. 

.




                                             18
Case: 24-10755           Document: 65-1             Page: 19      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                          No. 24-10755


logic into these facts collapses a distinction those cases carefully preserve:
unseen hand movements toward concealed areas versus continuous visual
contact with a suspect intent only on running away. 6
        In the end, the dissent’s mountain of citations cannot bear the weight
it places on them. Most involve the plainest kind of immediate, overt threats
to officers; the rest turn on concealed or furtive movements. None comes to
grips with the facts a jury could find here. And when pressed on these gaps,
the dissent shrugs and says that it need not cite any supporting precedent.
Post, at 26–27. That speaks for itself.
                                      *        *         *
        Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, today’s disposition merely
recognizes that when the record contains genuine conflicts about what an
officer actually knew 7 and what the suspect actually did in the seconds before
the fatal shots—conflicts borne out by contemporaneous statements,
investigative reports, video footage, and physical evidence—we may not

        _____________________
        6
           The dissent’s suggestion that “actually holding a gun while fleeing,” post, at 27, is
itself a furtive gesture justifying the use of deadly force finds no footing in our binding
precedent. See Allen v. Hays, 

, 744 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[A]n officer cannot escape
liability any time he claims he saw a gun. The question is whether the officer’s belief that
he saw a gun was sufficiently reasonable to justify the use of deadly force in light of all the
surrounding circumstances.”).
        7
          Objective reasonableness means that an officer’s subjective intent does not matter;
it does not mean that a court may ignore disputes over what the officer perceived or what
information he possessed when he used deadly force. See, e.g., Garza v. Briones, 

, 745–46 (5th Cir. 2019). After all, “what matters is what [Officer Granado] knew when
[he] shot [Ramirez].” Cole v. Carson, 

 (5th Cir. 2019) (en banc) (first
citing White, 580 U.S. at 76–77; and then citing Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 

(2015)), as revised (Aug. 21, 2019); Kingsley, 

 (“[W]e have stressed that a
court must judge the reasonableness of the force used from the perspective and with the
knowledge of the defendant officer.”).




                                               19
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1        Page: 20   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                 No. 24-10755


resolve them on summary judgment. That is not 20/20 hindsight. It is fidelity
to the summary-judgment standard and to the jury’s constitutional role.
Accordingly, the majority opinion properly reverses the district court’s grant
of summary judgment to Officer Granado and remands under well-
established principles.




                                      20
Case: 24-10755      Document: 65-1        Page: 21   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                No. 24-10755


Andrew S. Oldham, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
       Here are the undisputed (and indisputable) facts that the majority
ignores or incomprehensibly denies. All material facts are captured on video:

   • Estevan Ramirez was involved in a high-speed, 120-mph car chase.
   • During the chase, Defendant Officer Granado learned that the vehicle
       occupants had been involved in drive-by shootings, and that they were
       armed and dangerous.
   • The high-speed chase ended in a residential neighborhood.
   • Ramirez jumped out of the car holding a gun.




                                     21
Case: 24-10755     Document: 65-1        Page: 22   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                               No. 24-10755


  • Ramirez’s cell phone fell out of his hand, and he stooped to retrieve
     it while maintaining his grip on the gun.




  • Officer Granado yelled “he has a gun! He has a gun!”
  • Officer Granado’s colleague was mere feet away from Ramirez when
     Ramirez held the gun with his finger on the trigger.




                                    22
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1        Page: 23   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                 No. 24-10755


   • Officer Granado shot Ramirez.
   • From the moment Officer Granado emerged from his vehicle and
       shouted “he has a gun! He has a gun!” to the moment Officer
       Granado fired his service weapon, the entire episode was merely eight
       seconds.
       The majority somehow holds that Officer Granado is not entitled to
qualified immunity. If you’ve ever read one excessive-force case in the post-
Monroe v. Pape era, you know that is wrong. See, e.g., City of Tahlequah v.
Bond, 

, 11–14 (2021) (per curiam) (officers entitled to qualified
immunity for shooting man holding a hammer); Kisela v. Hughes, 

, 105–06 (2018) (per curiam) (officers entitled to qualified immunity for
shooting woman holding a kitchen knife); White v. Pauly, 

(2017) (per curiam) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting man
through window after man pointed a gun at an officer); Hunter v. Cole, 

, 994 (2016) (order) (vacating Fifth Circuit opinion denying qualified
immunity in which officer shot teenager who was holding a gun to his head);
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Sheehan, 

, 605–06, 617 (2015)
(officers entitled to qualified immunity for shooting a woman with a mental
illness holding a kitchen knife); Barnes v. Felix, No. 22-20519, 

 (5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2025) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for
shooting driver after jumping onto doorframe of driver’s moving car);
Argueta v. Jaradi, 

 (5th Cir. 2023) (officer entitled
to qualified immunity for shooting man holding a gun), cert. denied, 

 (2024); Batyukova v. Doege, 

 (5th Cir. 2021) (officer
entitled to qualified immunity for shooting unarmed suspect who walked
toward officer and reached for waistband); Garcia v. Blevins, 

 (5th Cir. 2020) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting man
who refused to drop his gun); Salazar-Limon v. City of Houston, 

 (5th Cir. 2016) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting




                                      23
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1        Page: 24    Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


unarmed man who allegedly made a furtive gesture toward his waistband);
Thomas v. Baldwin, 

 (5th Cir. 2014) (officer entitled to
qualified immunity for shooting unarmed man who raised clenched hand as if
holding a weapon); Clayton v. Columbia Cas. Co., 

 (5th
Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting
man holding a knife); Manis v. Lawson, 

 (5th Cir. 2009)
(officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting unarmed man who
allegedly reached for something under the front seat of his vehicle); Ontiveros
v. City of Rosenberg, 

, 384–85 (5th Cir. 2009) (officer entitled to
qualified immunity for shooting unarmed man who allegedly reached for
something inside a boot); Ramirez v. Knoulton, 

, 130–31 (5th Cir.
2008) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where armed suicidal man’s
behavior while holding a handgun “could reasonably be interpreted as defiant
and threatening”); Reese v. Anderson, 

, 500–01 (5th Cir. 1991)
(officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting unarmed man who made
no furtive gestures and merely reached down to turn off ignition in vehicle);
Young v. City of Killeen, 

, 1351–53 (5th Cir. 1985) (officer
entitled to qualified immunity for shooting unarmed man who allegedly
reached toward floorboard of his vehicle); Bannon v. Godin, 

, 85–
86 (1st Cir. 2024) (officers entitled to qualified immunity where suspect
reached for gun in passenger seat following high-speed chase), cert. denied,

 (2025), reh’g denied, 

 (2025); Benton v. Layton,

, 288–92 (4th Cir. 2025) (officers entitled to qualified immunity
where driver reached for gun after high-speed chase); Caraway v. City of
Pineville, 

, 383–84 (4th Cir. 2024) (officers entitled to qualified
immunity where suspect reached for gun in his jacket pocket); Boyd v.
Baeppler, 

, 601–02 (6th Cir. 2000) (officer entitled to qualified
immunity where suspect fled holding a pistol and disregarded police
warnings to stop); Klum v. City of Davenport, 

, 912–13 (8th Cir.




                                      24
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1         Page: 25   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


2025) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where suspect fled with a gun to
his own head and disregarded officers’ commands to stop); Dimock ex rel.
Dimock-Heisler v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 

, 553–55 (8th Cir. 2024)
(officers entitled to qualified immunity for shooting suspect holding a knife);
Arnold v. McClinton, 

 (8th Cir. 2024) (officer entitled to
qualified immunity for shooting fleeing murder suspect); Goffin v. Ashcraft,

 (8th Cir. 2020) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for
shooting fleeing suspect even though pat-down revealed no weapons); Kong
ex rel. Kong v. City of Burnsville, 

, 990–93 (8th Cir. 2020)
(officers entitled to qualified immunity for firing 23 shots at man holding a
knife); Napouk v. L.V. Metro. Police Dep’t, 

, 914, 922–23 (9th
Cir. 2024) (officers entitled to qualified immunity after shooting suspect
holding a toy that resembled a knife); Cruz v. City of Deming, 

, 1271–72 (10th Cir. 2025) (officers entitled to qualified immunity when
armed man began to point gun toward officers); Alcala v. Ortega, 

, 1303–04, 1313 (10th Cir. 2025) (officer entitled to qualified immunity
where unarmed man pretended to brandish a gun); Waterhouse v. Direzza, 

, 1222–25 (10th Cir. 2025) (officer entitled to qualified
immunity for shooting suspect he believed was armed with a club); Flores v.
Henderson, 

, 1197–99 (10th Cir. 2024) (officer entitled to
qualified immunity for shooting suspect armed with a machete); Arnold v.
City of Olathe, 

, 792–94 (10th Cir. 2022) (officers entitled to
qualified immunity where armed suspect suddenly brandished gun toward
officers after hours-long standoff); Est. of Taylor v. Salt Lake City, 

, 775–77 (10th Cir. 2021) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where
unarmed man pretended to draw firearm from waistband); Franklin v.
Popovich, 

, 1196–97 (11th Cir. 2024) (officer entitled to qualified
immunity for shooting unarmed and prone suspect who moved as if to draw a
gun); Harris-Billups ex rel. Harris v. Anderson, 

 (11th Cir.




                                       25
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1         Page: 26   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


2023) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting prone suspect who
reached for gun after fleeing from officers); Powell v. Snook, 

,
923–25 (11th Cir. 2022) (officer entitled to qualified immunity where
innocent homeowner began to raise handgun after officers arrived at the
wrong house); Shaw v. City of Selma, 

, 1097–1101 (11th Cir.
2018) (officer entitled to qualified immunity for shooting man holding an
axe); Montoute v. Carr, 

, 185–86 (11th Cir. 1997) (officer entitled
to qualified immunity for shooting suspect when suspect fled with a sawed-
off shotgun and ignored command to stop); cf. Wilson v. City of Bastrop, 

, 711–13 (5th Cir. 2022) (officers did not violate Fourth
Amendment by shooting man holding a gun who fled from police in a
residential area); Maser v. City of Coralville, 

, 1009–10 (8th Cir.
2025) (officer did not violate Fourth Amendment by shooting suspect who
refused to comply with commands and raised a gun “outward from his body”
and “advanced in the general direction of officers”); Est. of Strickland v.
Nevada Cnty., 

, 622–23 (9th Cir. 2023) (plaintiff failed to state
an excessive force claim under the Fourth Amendment when officer shot
suspect waving a toy that resembled a gun), cert. denied, 

 (2024).
                                       *
       Judge Dennis’s concurring opinion warrants three brief responses.
       First, the concurrence appears to think that Officer Granado must
point to some authority to justify shooting Ramirez. See ante, at 15 (Dennis,
J., concurring) (arguing my string citation includes “distinguishable” cases).
This is wrong coming and going. It is the majority, the concurrence, and
Ramirez’s job to point to a case that squarely governs this one. It is not mine,
and it is certainly not Officer Granado’s. The absence of an on-point case
means that qualified immunity applies—not that the majority is free to do
justice as it sees fit. See Laviage v. Fite, 

 (5th Cir. 2022)




                                       26
Case: 24-10755           Document: 65-1           Page: 27      Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                       No. 24-10755


(“[Q]ualified immunity shields officers unless existing precedent squarely
governs the specific facts at issue, such that the question has been placed
beyond debate.” (quotations omitted)). I offered a string cite only to illustrate
just how wildly off base the majority opinion is, and to show that courts
routinely grant qualified immunity in circumstances that are far less
dangerous than those presented here. And even if it was my job to cite a case,
which it is not, I cited two that are materially indistinguishable—and the
concurrence all but ignores them. *
        Second, having reimagined the law, the concurrence then reimagines
the relevant facts. Start with the concurrence’s focus on Officer Granado’s
written statement. Ante, at 12–13 (Dennis, J., concurring). The
concurrence claims the record undermines Officer Granado’s statement
because “the dispatch and radio transcripts” contain no proof “Officer
Watson” told him Ramirez’s vehicle “had been involved in drive-by

        _____________________
        *
           See Wilson v. City of Bastrop, 

 (5th Cir. 2022), and Argueta v. Jaradi,

 (5th Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 

 (2024). In Wilson, an officer
responded to a report that a vehicle’s occupants were involved in an armed confrontation.

. One passenger emerged from the vehicle holding a gun. 

 The passenger
fled, maintaining his grip on his weapon the whole time. 

 The officers gave chase and
eventually shot and killed him. 

. We concluded that the use of deadly force was
justified. 

 at 713–16. Whether the passenger “point[ed] a gun” at the pursuing officer’s
car was “immaterial to the constitutional issue.” 

.
         Argueta is similar. Officers conducted a traffic stop on Argueta’s car. 

. Argueta exited the car and “ran toward a vacant lot across the street,” pressing his
“right arm and hand” against his body. 

 The officer couldn’t see if Argueta had a gun,
but he feared that he “could not, if necessary, react with his handgun in time to stop an
attack” if Argueta turned around. 

 The officer shot Argueta “five seconds after” he
exited his vehicle. 

 The officer gave “no warning” before shooting him. 

. But
concealing his arm “amounted to a furtive gesture” sufficient to make the officer
reasonably believe Argueta “posed an immediate danger,” so our court granted qualified
immunity. 

 at 1093–94. It’s incomprehensible to say, as the concurrence does, that
actually holding a gun while fleeing is somehow less of a “furtive gesture” than holding
one’s arm close to the body while fleeing. Ante, at 17 & n.3 (Dennis, J., concurring).




                                             27
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1         Page: 28   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                  No. 24-10755


shootings.” 

 That is an astonishingly irrelevant quibble: Even if Officer
Watson didn’t tell him that, LWPD dispatch certainly “informed [him] that
the suspect vehicle had previously fled from police and that its occupants should
be considered ‘armed and dangerous.’” Ante, at 5 n.2 (majority opinion)
(emphasis added); ROA.554–55; ROA.576–77; ROA.582; ROA.931 (Officer
Watson Interview) at 6:00–6:13; ROA.1013. It could not possibly matter less
whether Officer Watson told him the occupants had been involved in drive-by
shootings. All that matters is that Officer Granado learned the fact; Officer
Granado testified that he learned the fact before the shooting; and there is
not a single scintilla of evidence to suggest Officer Granado was lying. The
concurrence’s fixation on this facile “discrepancy” is bewildering.
       Other assertions in the concurrence are flatly untrue. I have never
“implicitly accept[ed] as true” Officer Granado’s claim that Ramirez was
“swinging his pistol” at Officers Granado and Watson. Ante, at 13
(Dennis, J., concurring) (quotation omitted). Nor did I misconstrue the
summary-judgment standard by “omit[ting]” that Ramirez was a passenger
in the vehicle or that a “gas station,” business, or “vacant lot” were located
on adjoining streets. 

 at 14–15. These facts are completely irrelevant to
me—and to the qualified immunity question. See Argueta, 86 F.4th at 1087–
89, 93 (whether Argueta “raised the gun” at officers as he fled toward “a
vacant lot” was “immaterial”); Wilson, 26 F.4th at 715–16 (officers lawfully
used deadly force when they shot passenger who fled with a weapon).
       Third and finally, I do have one compliment for the concurrence: It
says the quiet part out loud. The concurrence says that this case turns on
“what an officer actually knew.” Ante, at 19 (Dennis, J., concurring).
Again: wrong. “[G]enuine conflicts about what an officer actually knew and
what the suspect actually did in the seconds before the fatal shots” are
irrelevant if no clearly established law forbids the officer’s conduct under
either version of the facts. 

 And the majority and concurrence point to



                                       28
Case: 24-10755       Document: 65-1          Page: 29   Date Filed: 12/10/2025




                                 No. 24-10755


zero cases that would justify denying qualified immunity under these
“disputed” facts—other than citing the “general principle that deadly force
requires a sufficient threat.” Mullenix v. Luna, 

 (2015) (per
curiam); see ante, at 10 (majority opinion) (“[I]t has long been clearly
established that, absent any other justification for the use of force, it is
unreasonable for a police officer to use deadly force against a fleeing felon
who does not pose a sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others.”
(quotation omitted)).
       We’ve made this mistake before. Our court has previously denied
qualified immunity by second-guessing whether the facts an officer “actually
kn[e]w” created a “sufficient threat of harm to the officer or others” to
justify deadly force. See Luna v. Mullenix, 

, 720–25 (5th Cir.
2014), rev’d summarily, 

 (2015) (per curiam). That inversion of the
qualified immunity standard warranted summary reversal then. And I
respectfully submit it also does now.
                                        *
       For the police officers in our circuit who confront armed-and-
dangerous felons fleeing drive-by shootings, who have mere seconds to make
split-second life-and-death decisions in the middle of the night, and who hope
to get home safely to their families and then also survive this court’s frame-
by-frame NFL-style instant replay review: Today’s decision will make your
already-hard jobs much harder.
       I respectfully dissent.




                                        29