Green v. City of St. Louis, 2025 WL 1038046 (8th Cir. 2025)
In St. Louis, Missouri, several officers were covertly following a suspected stolen vehicle. The suspects “made” the surveillance detail and fled. The police, including Officer Christopher Tanner, pursued. While other units deployed spike strips, the suspects began shooting at the pursuing officers. The suspects then crashed near the home of Officer Milton Green, an off-duty officer who was visiting with his neighbor in the driveway.
Officer Green saw two suspects get out of the crashed vehicle and run to his neighbor’s gangway. Two of the pursuing officers began chasing the two suspects. Officer Green saw a third suspect climb out of the wrecked car. Hearing gunfire, Green and his neighbor hid behind a vehicle in the driveway. The third suspect briefly dropped to the ground, then got up, grabbed his gun, and ran through Officer Green’s yard. The suspect aimed his gun at the car where Officer Green and his neighbor were hiding. Officer Green aimed his handgun at the suspect and commanded, “Police, put the gun down.” The suspect didn’t comply, running instead toward an alley while keeping his gun aimed at Officer Green.
Officer Green heard someone behind him call out, “Put the gun down.” Assuming the command was directed at him, he dropped his weapon and got on the ground. At this point, gunfire from the direction of the fleeing suspects had ceased. Another officer, Detective Carlson, identified Officer Green and yelled, “There’s a off-duty police officer here, don’t shoot. His name Milton Green. He lives here. Don’t shoot.” Carlson instructed Green to walk toward him. Officer Green stood up, took his gun with his right hand (muzzle pointed downward), and held out his badge in his left hand. Green then took a few steps forward.
Officer Green saw another officer, Officer Tanner, approaching but continued forward. Sadly, Tanner had not heard Detective Carlson identify Officer Green as off-duty law enforcement. In an unfortunate coincidence, Green also happened to be wearing clothing similar in appearance to what the armed suspects had been wearing. Officer Tanner thought Officer Green was one of the suspects from the crashed vehicle — and there he was, walking toward an officer with a gun in his hand!
It was late in the evening, and two officers shone flashlights toward Officer Green. Officer Tanner saw Officer Green stand up, pick up his gun with his right hand while facing away from Officer Tanner, then turn toward Officer Tanner and move toward officers. Officer Tanner commanded Officer Green to drop the gun and then shot Officer Green. Officer Green said he heard one command to drop the gun but could not comply before Officer Tanner fired. Another officer yelled at Officer Tanner, “You shot Milton. I told you not to shoot him. I told you not to shoot him.”
Officer Green sued Officer Tanner and the city. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Officer Green’s defense team appealed, filing motions to alter or amend the judgment and to submit newly discovered evidence. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling, holding Officer Tanner’s use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances, which involved a rapidly evolving and dangerous scenario.
Beyond illustrating the danger of blue-on-blue shooting in a dynamic situation, this case illustrates that an officer may be legally justified in using deadly force before a firearm is aimed at them. The officer who initially recognized Officer Green and called out to other officers should be commended. Could more have been done in the fast-moving, difficult circumstances? A radio broadcast perhaps? Or possibly directing Officer Green to remain on the ground until the scene was fully secured?
Consider, too, badge placement for an off-duty officer. After a 2010 blue-on-blue shooting in Kansas City, Missouri, KCPD Sergeant Ward Smith studied badge placement and its impact on target identification. Smith, a noted firearms master instructor, concluded that center chest placement, such as on a lanyard or chain, is the preferred location. For more information, you can read a summary of the study results from Force Science Institute.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Graham v. Connor (490 U.S. 386 (1989)), held: “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” That standard recognizes officers can and will make mistakes, perhaps even deadly mistakes.
Officer Tanner testified he saw Officer Green on the ground with his gun close. Thinking Green was one of the suspects, he was surprised to see the man stand and pick up the gun in what Officer Tanner perceived as a threatening manner. Officer Tanner admitted he could not see Officer Green’s left hand and he did not see a badge. The court noted that if Officer Green was one of the armed suspects and was approaching officers even with the gun pointed downward, he could still raise the gun and fire it in a split second: “In dangerous situations where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that there is an imminent threat of serious harm, the officer may be justified in using a firearm before a subject actually points a weapon at the officer or others.” The court continued, “even if a suspect is ultimately found to be unarmed, a police officer can still employ deadly force if objectively reasonable.”
The court concluded its opinion by recognizing there may have been other ways the situation could have been handled: “Without doubt, in hindsight the decision to shoot was unnecessary and highly unfortunate. It may appear, in the calm aftermath, that an officer could have taken a different course, but we do not hold the police to such a demanding standard.”
Officers and agencies would do well to discuss this case and the Pipkins v. City of Hoover decision (also in this issue) and ask how they would approach similar situations. These unfortunate outcomes become even more regrettable tragedies if we fail to learn from them.
