The facts in this case to fall into the area between
Cupp on the one hand and
Freland, Scott, and
Brosseau on the other. While Murray does not appear, on anyone's version of the facts, to have been as clear a danger as the victims in the latter cases (or at least
Freland and
Scott), neither does he appear to have been as unthreatening as the victim in
Cupp, insofar as Murray's actions did, at the very least, give rise to a reasonable fear that he was a danger to the lives of the officers on the scene, something the victim in
Cupp never did. Thus, the question whether Passinault was reasonable in continuing to fire on Murray's truck out of fear for the safety of others in the area depends largely on whether Murray's behavior up to that point gave rise to a reasonable belief that he presented the requisite level of danger. This, in turn, depends on the answers to a number of factual questions in dispute, such as how fast, and how recklessly, Murray had been traveling, both when he was in the vicinity of the officers and when he had passed them and was heading into the public roadway; how much time had elapsed between his endangerment of the officers and his entry into the public roadway; and what basis, if any, might have supported a belief that others were likely to be in the path of danger.