Armed But Not Dangerous: 6th Circuit Rules Police Cannot "Shoot First, Ask Later" | Civil Rights / Police Misconduct | The Cromer Law Group PLLC

In a landmark decision released this week, the Federal Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a powerful message to law enforcement across Michigan: possessing a gun is not a death sentence, and "officer safety" is not a blank check for excessive force.

The case, Romero v. City of Lansing, strikes at the heart of a critical issue our Michigan civil rights attorneys fight every day—the abuse of Qualified Immunity to shield officers from accountability.

The Case: Romero v. City of Lansing

On November 18, 2025, the Sixth Circuit reversed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit filed by the estate of Stephen Romero. The facts, as alleged, are chilling.

Lansing police officers responded to a domestic disturbance call. When they arrived, they encountered Mr. Romero. He was not attacking anyone. He complied with orders to get on his knees. He even raised his shirt to voluntarily show officers he had a holstered firearm—an act of transparency, not aggression.

Despite this, officers opened fire. But what happened next is legally critical: after Mr. Romero was already wounded and lying prone on the ground, officers fired a second volley of shots, killing him.

The Legal Victory: Breaking the "Qualified Immunity" Shield

For years, police defense lawyers have argued that if a suspect is armed, any force is justified. The Sixth Circuit rejected this.

The Court applied a legal doctrine known as "segmenting," which requires courts to analyze every distinct use of force separately.

• Volley 1: The Court left open whether the first shots were justified.

• Volley 2: The Court held that shooting a man who is already wounded, on the ground, and no longer posing an immediate threat is a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The Court ruled that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage. This is a massive win for police misconduct victims because it allows the case to proceed to a jury.

Why This Matters for You

Many of our clients come to us believing they have no case because their loved one was armed or "resisted" initially. Romero proves that the timeline matters.

As a Detroit police shooting lawyer, I often see body-cam footage where officers continue to use deadly force long after a threat has ended. The law is clear: force must stop when the threat stops.

Key Takeaways for Michigan Residents

1. Possession ≠ Threat: Merely having a gun (especially in an open-carry state like Michigan) does not justify deadly force.

2. The "Second Volley" Rule: Even if police are justified in firing the first shot, they cannot "finish the job" if the suspect is neutralized.

3. Your Rights are enforceable: Federal Section 1983 litigation remains the most powerful tool to hold local police departments accountable.

4. 
   

Fighting Back Against Police Brutality

At The Cromer Law Group, we specialize in peeling back the layers of police reports to find the truth. If you or a loved one has been a victim of police violence—even if you were armed—you have rights.

Do not let the police write the final chapter of your story.

[CALL TO ACTION] If you need a Michigan Excessive Force Attorney who understands the latest federal precedents, contact The Cromer Law Group today. We are currently reviewing cases involving wrongful death and severe injury across Metro Detroit.