When police encounter someone experiencing a mental-health crisis, the situation can escalate rapidly. If officers use deadly force and the person dies, surviving family members may question whether the shooting was legally justified and whether they can pursue a civil lawsuit.
A mental-health crisis does not automatically make a police shooting unlawful. Likewise, an officer’s assertion that a person posed a threat does not automatically resolve whether the amount of force used was constitutionally reasonable.
In a potential police shooting lawsuit, attorneys generally examine the entire encounter: what officers knew before they arrived, what threat existed when shots were fired, whether officers had time to de-escalate, whether less-lethal options were available, what commands were given, and what body-camera, surveillance, forensic, and witness evidence shows.
These issues have become particularly important in cases involving people experiencing behavioral or psychiatric crises.
Ben Crump Law has represented families in several separate matters involving allegations that law enforcement used deadly or excessive force against people experiencing mental-health emergencies. Recent examples include Shahzad Gaziani, Steven “Stevie” Jones, Jason Marshall-Haynes, Morris Davis, and Rolin Hill. Ben Crump
Can a Family Sue After a Fatal Police Shooting?
Potentially.
A family may have grounds to investigate a civil-rights or wrongful-death claim when evidence indicates that police used force that was unreasonable under the circumstances.
One common federal vehicle is a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to seek relief when a person acting under color of state law allegedly violates federally protected rights.
In a fatal police encounter, potential claims may include:
- excessive force
- unreasonable seizure
- wrongful death
- survival claims brought through the decedent’s estate
- failure to train or supervise in some circumstances
- claims against a municipality where the required legal standards are met
- related state constitutional or tort claims, depending on the jurisdiction
The viability of each claim depends heavily on the facts and applicable state and federal law.
Does a Mental-Health Crisis Change the Legal Standard?
A person’s mental health condition can be an important part of the factual analysis, but it does not create an entirely separate constitutional standard for police shootings.
The central question in an excessive-force case is generally whether the force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
That means courts and investigators may consider facts such as:
- whether officers knew the person was in crisis
- whether the person was armed
- what type of weapon was involved
- whether the person threatened officers or others
- whether the person was advancing, stationary, or retreating
- how much distance existed between the person and the officers
- whether officers had time to communicate
- whether officers attempted de-escalation
- whether less-lethal tools were available
- whether officers created or intensified the confrontation
- how quickly the perceived threat developed
Mental-health information can therefore matter substantially to the factual context even though it does not, by itself, determine whether the force was lawful.
When Can Deadly Force Be Considered Excessive?
Police officers are permitted to use deadly force in some circumstances, particularly when they reasonably perceive an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury.
Disputes frequently arise over whether that threat actually existed when each shot was fired.
For example, investigators may examine whether the person:
- possessed a weapon
- raised or pointed a weapon
- moved toward an officer
- ignored commands
- was attempting to flee
- had already fallen
- had been disarmed
- was incapacitated when additional shots were fired
The timing can matter considerably.
Ben Crump Law’s current representation in the Shahzad Gaziani case illustrates why. According to the firm, officers responded knowing Gaziani was experiencing a mental-health crisis. The legal team says body-camera video shows officers firing multiple rounds, including shots as Gaziani was falling backward into his apartment. Those are allegations concerning that separate case and remain specific to its evidence and circumstances. Ben Crump
Similarly, Ben Crump Law recently released body-camera footage in the separate Saveion McConnell case and alleges that an officer fired nine rounds, including five after McConnell had fallen to the ground. That matter illustrates why frame-by-frame evaluation of video and shot timing can become central in deadly-force litigation. Ben Crump
What If the Person Had a Knife?
The presence of a knife does not automatically establish that a police shooting was lawful or unlawful.
The analysis can depend on several additional factors:
- how far was the person from the officers
- whether the knife was raised or lowered
- whether the person was advancing
- the speed of the person’s movement
- whether barriers separated the person and the officers
- whether other people were nearby
- whether officers had a safe avenue to retreat or reposition
- whether less-lethal options could reasonably have been used
- the amount of time officers had to make a decision
This distinction may become particularly important in the investigation into the Jamir Cave police shooting in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia police say Cave possessed a kitchen knife and moved toward an officer before officers fired. Cave’s family has disputed that he was armed and has said he was experiencing mental-health problems after recently leaving a hospital. Body-camera and surveillance footage are among the evidence being reviewed. CBS News
Related: Jamir Cave Police Shooting: What We Know About the Fatal Philadelphia Encounter
That developing case does not itself establish whether the shooting was legally justified. It does demonstrate why disputed facts involving weapons, distance, movement, and video evidence often determine whether a viable civil claim exists.
Does Police De-Escalation Matter in a Lawsuit?
It can.
De-escalation generally refers to tactics intended to reduce the intensity of an encounter before greater force becomes necessary. Depending on circumstances, those measures might include:
- creating distance
- using cover
- slowing the encounter
- communicating calmly
- allowing additional time
- requesting crisis-intervention personnel
- using trained behavioral-health responders
- using less-lethal tools when appropriate
Whether an officer violated a department’s de-escalation policy does not necessarily establish a federal constitutional violation.
However, de-escalation evidence can help explain the circumstances surrounding the use of force and may become relevant to other claims concerning training, supervision, policies, or negligence.
Ben Crump Law has handled several cases in which mental-health response and de-escalation have been central allegations.
In the Jason Marshall-Haynes matter, the firm says the 19-year-old was experiencing a mental-health episode and was unarmed when deputies shot him. Ben Crump
In the Steven Jones matter, Crump represents the family of a man who was experiencing a mental-health crisis when a Hartford officer shot him nine times. The firm later reported that the officer was charged with first-degree manslaughter. Ben Crump
And in the Morris Davis case, the family alleges that Davis was disabled and experiencing a mental-health crisis when deputies fatally shot him in Florida. Ben Crump
These cases involve different jurisdictions and factual circumstances and should not be treated as establishing liability in other police encounters.
Can a Police Department or City Be Sued?
Sometimes, claims against a municipality are generally more complicated than claims based solely on an individual officer’s actions.
A city or county typically is not automatically liable simply because it employed the officer involved.
Potential municipal claims can require evidence connecting the alleged constitutional violation to matters such as:
- an official policy
- an established practice or custom
- inadequate training under the applicable legal standard
- inadequate supervision
- deliberate indifference to recurring constitutional violations
- decisions by officials with policymaking authority
These cases can therefore require investigation beyond the shooting itself.
Attorneys may examine previous complaints, officer disciplinary records, departmental policies, training materials, prior similar incidents, internal communications, and other evidence.
What Evidence Matters Most After a Police Shooting?
Families considering a police-shooting lawsuit should expect the evidence to extend far beyond a police incident report.
Important evidence may include:
Body-camera footage
Body cameras can establish what officers saw and heard, but they have limitations. Camera angles, obstructions, movement, and audio can affect what footage shows.
Surveillance and cellphone video
Independent video may provide a different angle from an officer’s body camera.
911 and dispatch recordings
These records can establish what information officers received before arriving, including whether dispatch advised them that a person was experiencing a mental-health crisis.
Forensic evidence
Autopsy findings, bullet trajectories, shell casings, weapon location, fingerprints, DNA evidence, toxicology results, and scene measurements may help reconstruct the encounter.
Witness testimony
Independent witnesses may provide evidence about what occurred before, during, and after the shooting.
Police policies and training
Departmental policies may help attorneys evaluate how officers were trained to respond to armed individuals, behavioral crises, use-of-force situations, and opportunities for de-escalation.
Medical and mental health records
When relevant and legally obtainable, these records can help establish the person’s condition and whether law enforcement had information about it before the encounter.
What If the Family Disagrees With the Police Version?
A conflicting police and family narrative is not unusual after a fatal use-of-force incident.
Families do not have to rely solely on the initial police account.
A civil-rights attorney can seek and independently evaluate evidence, which may include:
- body-camera footage
- surveillance recordings
- dispatch communications
- witness statements
- forensic reports
- autopsy findings
- officer reports
- department policies
- training records
- prior complaints
- expert analysis
Independent investigation can be especially important where the central facts are contested.
What Damages Can a Family Seek?
If a fatal police shooting results in a viable wrongful-death or civil-rights claim, recoverable damages may potentially include compensation for losses such as:
- funeral and burial expenses
- medical expenses before death
- lost financial support
- lost benefits
- loss of companionship
- conscious pain and suffering, where permitted
- emotional or relational losses recognized under state law
Punitive damages may be available against certain individual defendants in some cases if the applicable legal standard is met.
Rules vary substantially by jurisdiction.
Related: Fatal Police Shooting Settlement: What Compensation May Be Available?
That will be Article 3 in this cluster and will address damages, settlement valuation, and factors that can increase or reduce potential recovery.
Ben Crump Law’s Experience With Mental-Health Crisis Cases
Police encounters involving mental-health emergencies are not a theoretical issue for Ben Crump Law.
Recent matters handled by the firm include:
- Shahzad Gaziani — fatal Houston police shooting during an alleged mental-health crisis Ben Crump
- Steven “Stevie” Jones — fatal Hartford police shooting during a mental-health crisis Ben Crump
- Jason Marshall-Haynes — 19-year-old shot by Rockdale County deputies during an alleged mental-health episode Ben Crump
- Morris Davis — fatal deputy shooting where the family alleges Davis was experiencing a mental-health crisis Ben Crump
- James Lanier — an unarmed man whom the firm says was shot while suffering a mental-health crisis Ben Crump
- Sonya Massey — fatal shooting in which the firm has emphasized the family’s concerns about Massey’s mental health and police response Ben Crump
That gives us a very legitimate BCL-experience section, rather than merely attaching the firm to an unrelated trending story.
When Should a Family Contact a Police Shooting Lawyer?
Families do not necessarily need to wait until every criminal or internal police investigation has concluded before speaking with a civil-rights attorney.
Evidence can disappear, surveillance footage may be overwritten, witnesses can become harder to locate, and deadlines may apply to claims against government entities.
An attorney can evaluate the circumstances, preserve evidence, determine applicable filing deadlines, and investigate whether constitutional or wrongful-death claims may exist.
Ben Crump Law represents individuals and families in cases involving alleged police misconduct, excessive force, wrongful death, and civil-rights violations.
If your loved one was killed or seriously injured during an encounter with law enforcement, contact Ben Crump Law for a free case evaluation.
