Handy v. Jones: The Ninth Circuit Says Officers Don’t Have to Wait to Be Targeted
In Handy v. Jones, decided September 15, 2026, the Ninth Circuit held that officers facing an armed, belligerent, advancing suspect are not required to “wait to be targeted” before using deadly force.
The facts are familiar to anyone who has worked patrol. A reported domestic disturbance. A shotgun. Repeated commands to drop the weapon. An armed man advancing toward officers — but apparently not pointing the shotgun at them when they fired.
The district court said a jury could find he posed no immediate threat, but a unanimous panel of Judges disagreed and vacated the ruling in a published opinion. The court granted the four Anchorage officers qualified immunity.
For FOCUS, the case matters for a specific reason. The court did not decide it on weapon orientation alone. It decided it on a cluster of observable behaviors over time. That is exactly the kind of evidence FOCUS trains officers to recognize, evaluate, and articulate.
What happened in Anchorage
On May 13, 2024, a neighbor called 911 several times about a disturbance between Kristopher Handy and his girlfriend. She reported hearing the woman scream “please stop,” a loud thud against the wall, and what sounded like two shots inside the apartment.
The neighbor then told dispatch that Handy, very agitated, was standing at the end of the driveway holding a shotgun, “waiting for the cops to come around the corner.” Officers relayed that information to the responding officers.
Officers announced themselves and ordered Handy out. He came out carrying the shotgun.
- Officers ordered him multiple times to put his hands up and drop the gun. He refused each time.
- He walked toward officers in the parking lot, waving the shotgun over his head.
- When officers ordered him to raise his hands, he responded with profanity directed at them.
- As he stepped off the curb into the parking area, officers fired nine times. Handy died.
The Anchorage Police Department released a critical-incident video, body-worn and dash-camera footage, and the 911 calls. Because the family’s complaint incorporated that video, the court reviewed the footage directly.
What the district court got wrong
The district court denied qualified immunity by isolating facts that, standing alone, seemed to lower the threat:
- Once Handy left the apartment, he was no longer an immediate threat to his girlfriend.
- He was walking at a “casual pace,” not charging.
- The neighbor never saw him raise the gun.
- Not every officer fired.
- Officers warned about the K-9, but gave no deadly-force warning.
It relied on Ninth Circuit cases which rejected the idea that an armed person is a threat only when brandishing.
The Ninth Circuit said the district court “misconstrued the applicable standard.” The question is not whether a factfinder could conclude Handy posed no immediate threat. It is whether “it would be objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the amount of force employed was required by the situation he confronted.”
The panel then took the district court’s facts one by one. Leaving the apartment may have reduced the danger to the girlfriend, but not to officers. A “casual pace” did not matter when he stayed “armed, agitated, and capable of immediately firing.” And officers who held fire did not prove there was not a threat.
The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning
The court applied the three Graham v. Connor factors and found all three favored the officers.
| Graham factor | What the court found |
|---|---|
| Severity of the crime | Officers reasonably believed Handy may have assaulted his girlfriend while armed with a shotgun, and had waited outside armed for police. |
| Resisting or evading | He refused repeated orders to drop the shotgun, waving it overhead and cursing instead. |
| Immediate threat (the most important factor) | He was belligerently waving the shotgun while continuing to advance toward officers. |
“Fire from the hip”
The court accepted that Handy apparently did not point the shotgun at officers as he stepped off the stairs. It did not matter. He “could have instantly fired the shotgun from the hip.”
That line is the heart of the case. Weapon orientation matters, but it isn’t a prerequisite. A long gun held at the hip or waved overhead can be on target in a fraction of a second.
Totality of the circumstances, with no time limit
The court relied on Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025), in which the Supreme Court rejected the “moment of threat” doctrine. Under Barnes, earlier facts can shape how a reasonable officer reads later ones.
Here, the earlier facts were the domestic assault report, the shotgun, and Handy waiting armed for police. The later facts were refusal, belligerence, and advance. Together, the court said, they showed Handy “was dangerous regardless of where his shotgun was pointed.”
How Handy v. Jones applies to FOCUS
Handy is a court describing, in legal language, what FOCUS measures in behavioral language: a cluster of observable cues building over time, not one frozen frame.
The FOCUS research in brief
The FOCUS study classified behavior before violence across five years of public-domain officer video. Two findings line up directly with Handy:
- Encounters where officers were shot or shot at averaged 4.8 indicators. Violent actions where officers were not hurt averaged 1.5.
- When officers were attacked, an Amplifier was present 94% of the time and Non-Compliance 95% of the time. FOCUS treats these as sentinel cues.
Handy’s behavior, cue by cue
| Observed fact (from the opinion) | FOCUS classification | How the court used it |
|---|---|---|
| Shotgun in hand; dispatch reported possible shots fired | Amplifier: credible weapon information, object already in hand | Severity of crime; capability to fire “instantly” |
| Waited at the driveway armed, “waiting for the cops” | Amplifier / pre-contact context | Earlier fact that shaped later ones under Barnes |
| Refused repeated orders to drop the gun and raise his hands | Non-Compliance (sentinel cue) | Resisting arrest |
| Profanity at officers; belligerent | Declaration; Arguing / Anger (sentinel cues) | Hostility |
| Kept walking toward officers | Assault preparation: closing distance | Immediate threat (most important factor) |
| Waving the shotgun overhead | Weapon manipulation in the officers’ presence | “Belligerently waving” the weapon |
| Neighbor described him as very agitated | Contextual cue: agitation | Part of the totality |
That is five or more indicators, including both sentinel cues — the profile FOCUS research associates with officers being shot or shot at.
Weapon orientation is one cue, not the test
The district court treated “he never pointed it at us” as nearly decisive. FOCUS teaches officers not to let any single cue — present or absent — define the threat. Handy says the same thing: a shotgun at the hip can be fired before an officer can react.
This also fits FOCUS reactionary-gap training. Waiting for the muzzle to come on target leaves the officer reacting to an action already underway.
Takeaways for officers, trainers, and attorneys
- Articulate the whole sequence: what dispatch told you, what you saw on arrival, every command, every refusal, every step closer. Under Barnes, all of it counts.
- Do not write “he pointed the gun at me” unless he did. Write what he actually did with it and why that was dangerous.
- Stop teaching “wait for the muzzle” as a threshold. Teach cue clusters and reaction time.
- Handy is published and precedential in the Ninth Circuit, and it collects supporting authority from the First, Fourth, and Eleventh Circuits.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Ninth Circuit decide in Handy v. Jones?
It held that four Anchorage officers acted reasonably when they shot an armed domestic-violence suspect who refused commands and advanced on them waving a shotgun. It vacated the denial of qualified immunity and ordered immunity granted.
Do officers have to wait until a gun is pointed at them before using deadly force?
No. The court said no precedent requires an officer to wait to be targeted. An armed, belligerent, advancing suspect can pose an immediate threat even when the weapon is not aimed at officers.
How does Barnes v. Felix affect deadly-force cases?
Barnes v. Felix (2025) rejected the “moment of threat” approach. Courts must weigh the totality of the circumstances, including what happened before the final seconds.
Does Handy v. Jones mean any armed person can be shot?
No. The court reaffirmed that being armed alone is not enough. It distinguished cases where the person was not suspected of a crime, showed no hostility, and did not move toward officers.
What is FOCUS?
FOCUS (Field Observable Cues for Unknown Situations) is a research-based system that trains officers to recognize pre-attack indicators and document them with the FOCUS Risk Index. Learn more at TacBehavior.com.
Sources
- Handy v. Jones, No. 25-5105 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2026), published opinion — also via this link
- Ninth Circuit oral argument, Aug. 10, 2026
- Anchorage Police Department critical-incident video, May 13, 2024
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
- Barnes v. Felix, 605 U.S. 73 (2025)
- FOCUS Certification course materials and FOCUS Risk Index documentation