Fleeing with a Gun: Sixth Circuit Upholds Officers’ Use of Deadly Force in Convenience Store Shooting

Ward v. Brotzke, No. 25-1653 (6th Cir. June 12, 2026)

TL;DR

The Sixth Circuit held that Detroit police officers were entitled to qualified immunity after shooting a suspect who ignored commands, pulled a handgun from his pocket, and ran toward the exit of a convenience store. The court found that one officer who fired and missed never "seized" the suspect under the Fourth Amendment because the suspect continued fleeing. The officer who struck the suspect acted reasonably under the circumstances because he saw an armed suspect running toward him immediately after hearing gunshots and had only a fraction of a second to react. The court also granted the officers immunity under Michigan law.

Why it matters: This case provides an important post-Torres v. Madrid analysis of what constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure when officers fire and miss. It also reinforces that courts evaluate deadly-force decisions from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing rapidly evolving circumstances—not with hindsight.

What it does not do: The decision does not create a blanket rule authorizing deadly force whenever a suspect possesses a firearm. Instead, the court focused on the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect's refusal to comply, his retrieval of the gun, his flight, and the officers' reasonable perception of an immediate threat.

Facts

In December 2021, Detroit police officers Bailey Rumschlag, Aaron Thompson, and Charles Brotzke arrived at a BP gas station convenience store that officers considered a known narcotics location. Officers Rumschlag and Thompson entered the store while Officer Brotzke remained outside near the front entrance.

Once inside, Rumschlag noticed Jamal Ward. What immediately drew the officer's attention was the grip of a handgun protruding from Ward's pants pocket. Rumschlag approached Ward and asked whether he possessed a concealed pistol license. Ward answered that he did not. The officer then ordered Ward to keep his hands raised and attempted to secure his arms away from the firearm.

The encounter deteriorated quickly. Rather than comply, Ward lowered his arms, began pushing the officer, and ignored repeated commands to stop. As the struggle unfolded, Ward freed one of his arms. According to Rumschlag, Ward's hand immediately moved toward the handgun. Rumschlag shouted warnings that Ward was pulling the gun out and that he had the weapon. Ward then began running toward the store exit while holding the firearm in his hand.

Officer Thompson saw Ward armed and fleeing. He yelled, "I'll shoot you, bro," and fired two shots. Neither shot struck Ward. One bullet hit a cooler inside the store. Ward continued running.

As Ward moved toward the exit, he dropped the handgun. However, the timing would become critical later in the litigation. Officer Brotzke, positioned near the exit, heard the commotion, heard gunshots, saw Ward running with a firearm, and fired approximately four rounds in rapid succession. Brotzke testified that he did not see Ward drop the gun and was unsure who had fired the earlier shots. Ward was struck multiple times and survived.

Ward later filed suit alleging excessive force under federal law and related claims under Michigan law. The district court granted summary judgment to the officers based on qualified immunity, and Ward appealed.

Issues

1. Did Officer Thompson "seize" Ward under the Fourth Amendment when he fired two shots that missed?

2. Did Officer Brotzke use excessive force when he shot Ward as Ward ran toward the store exit?

3. Were the officers entitled to qualified immunity under federal law and official immunity under Michigan law?

Court's Decision (Holding)

Yes, qualified immunity applied.

The Sixth Circuit held that:

• Officer Thompson did not seize Ward because his shots missed and Ward continued fleeing.

• Officer Brotzke did seize Ward by striking him with gunfire, but his use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances.

• Both officers were entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims and official immunity on the state-law claims.

The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of all officers.

Reasoning

1. A missed shot is not automatically a Fourth Amendment seizure.

The court began by examining whether Officer Thompson actually seized Ward.

Under Torres v. Madrid, a seizure occurs either through physical force or through a show of authority coupled with actual control over the suspect. The key point is that there must be either physical contact or successful restraint.

Here, Thompson fired twice but missed both times. Ward never stopped, never surrendered, and never came under Thompson's control. Instead, he continued running toward the exit. Because Thompson neither struck Ward nor gained control over him, the court concluded that no seizure occurred.

The court emphasized a simple but important principle: a fleeing suspect who keeps running after shots are fired has not been seized merely because an officer attempted to stop him.

2. Torres significantly narrows earlier Sixth Circuit precedent.

One of the most important parts of the opinion concerns the continuing impact of Torres v. Madrid.

The Sixth Circuit acknowledged that some of its older decisions suggested an officer could potentially be liable when his actions contributed to another officer's eventual seizure of a suspect. Those cases occasionally treated missed shots as contributing to a later seizure.

But the court explained that Torres clarified there are only two recognized forms of seizure:

1. Physical force; or

2. Acquisition of control.

The court warned that treating missed shots as seizures without physical contact or actual restraint would effectively create a third category of seizure that the Supreme Court has not recognized. To that extent, earlier Sixth Circuit cases are no longer good law.

For law enforcement litigation, this portion of the opinion may prove more significant than the excessive-force analysis itself.

3. Brotzke unquestionably seized Ward because his bullets hit him.

Unlike Thompson, Officer Brotzke actually struck Ward.

That meant the court had to analyze whether the use of force was objectively reasonable under Graham v. Connor and Tennessee v. Garner. The court focused on three familiar factors:

• Severity of the crime.

• Immediate threat to officers or others.

• Resistance or flight.

The court found that all three factors favored the officer.

4. Ward's conduct created a rapidly evolving and dangerous situation.

The Sixth Circuit stressed that Ward was not merely carrying a firearm.

According to the record, he:

• Admitted he lacked a concealed pistol license.

• Ignored officer commands.

• Physically resisted.

• Reached for the firearm.

• Pulled the firearm from his pocket.

• Ran while armed.

• Continued fleeing despite police intervention.

The court noted that carrying a concealed firearm without a permit was a felony under Michigan law, making the underlying offense serious.

The court further observed that Ward escalated the situation by grabbing the weapon and moving it toward officers during the encounter.

5. Officers are judged by what they reasonably perceive in the moment.

Ward argued that Brotzke should not have fired because Ward had already dropped the handgun.

The court rejected that argument.

The video showed that Ward dropped the firearm less than a second before Brotzke began shooting. Brotzke testified that he never saw Ward discard the weapon. He had heard gunshots, seen Ward running with a gun, and had only a split second to assess the threat.

The court relied on prior precedent holding that officers may reasonably use deadly force when they believe a suspect remains armed, even if the suspect discarded the weapon moments earlier and the officer did not perceive it.

The judges emphasized that courts must evaluate force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene rather than through the benefit of hindsight.

6. Split-second decisions matter.

The court repeatedly returned to the timing of the encounter.

Brotzke heard gunshots, saw an armed suspect running toward him, and had only a fraction of a second to decide how to respond. Under those circumstances, it was reasonable for him to believe Ward posed an immediate threat to officers or bystanders.

Because the threat assessment was objectively reasonable, the use of deadly force did not violate the Fourth Amendment.

Street Takeaways

• A shot that misses a fleeing suspect generally does not constitute a Fourth Amendment seizure after Torres v. Madrid.

• Officers who never make physical contact and never gain control over a suspect may avoid excessive-force liability because no seizure occurred.

• Courts continue to evaluate deadly force from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing rapidly unfolding events.

• The fact that a suspect discards a firearm moments before a shooting does not necessarily make deadly force unreasonable if officers do not perceive the weapon being dropped.

• Split-second decisions remain a major factor in qualified-immunity analysis.

• Body-camera footage and surveillance video will often control the factual narrative when courts review excessive-force claims.

• This case may become an important Sixth Circuit citation for defining the limits of a "seizure" following Torres v. Madrid.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for educational and training purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consulting qualified legal counsel. Laws, court decisions, and agency policies change over time. Officers, investigators, attorneys, and agencies should consult current statutes, case law, agency policy, and legal advisors before making operational or legal decisions.