A few minutes later the person who had called 911 flagged down the  officers;  gave  them  a  description  of  the woman  with the knife; and told them the woman had been acting erratically.
- -
Garcia  spotted  a  woman,  later  identified  as  Sharon  Chadwick,  standing  next  to  a  car  in  the  driveway  of  a nearby house.  A chain-link fence with a locked gate separated  Chadwick  from  the  officers.    The  officers  then  saw  
another  woman,  Hughes,  emerge  from  the  house  carrying  a large knife at her side. Hughes walked  toward  Chadwick  and  stopped  no  more  than  six  feet from her.

All  three  officers  drew  their  guns.    At  least  twice  they told  Hughes  to  drop  the  knife.   Viewing  the  record  in  the light  most  favorable  to  Hughes,  Chadwick  said  “take  it  easy”  to  both  Hughes  and  the  officers.    Hughes  appeared  calm, but she did not acknowledge the officers’ presence or drop the knife.  The top bar of the chain-link fence blocked Kisela’s  line  of  fire,  so  he  dropped  to  the  ground  and  shot Hughes  four  times  through  the  fence.    Then  the  officers  jumped  the  fence,  handcuffed  Hughes,  and  called  paramedics, who transported her to a hospital.

First, Hughes committed no crime and was not suspected of  committing  a  crime.    The  officers  were  responding  to  a “check  welfare”  call,  which  reported  no  criminal  activity, and  the  officers  did  not  observe  any  illegal  activity  while  at  the  scene.    The  mere  fact  that  Hughes  held  a  kitchen  knife  down  at  her  side  with  the  blade  pointed  away  from Chadwick  hardly  elevates  the  situation  to  one  that  justi­fies deadly force.

Second,  a  jury  could  reasonably  conclude  that  Hughes presented no immediate or objective threat to Chadwick or the  other  officers.    It  is  true  that  Kisela  had  received  a  report  that  a  woman  matching  Hughes’  description  had  been acting erratically.  But the police officers themselves never   witnessed   any   erratic   conduct.

Instead,   when   viewed  in  the  light  most  favorable  to  Hughes,  the  record evidence  of  what  the  police  encountered  paints  a  calmer  picture.    It  shows  that  Hughes  was  several  feet  from  Chadwick  and  even  farther  from  the  officers,  she  never  made  any  aggressive  or  threatening  movements,  and  she  appeared   “composed   and   content”   during   the   brief   encounter.

Third,  Hughes  did  not  resist  or  evade  arrest.    Based  on  this  record,  there  is  significant  doubt  as  to  whether  she  was  aware  of  the  officers’  presence  at  all,  and  evidence suggests that Hughes did not hear the officers’ swift com­mands to drop the knife.

Finally,  the  record  suggests  that  Kisela  could  have,  but failed to, use less intrusive means before deploying deadly force.  862 F. 3d, at 781. For instance, Hughes submitted expert testimony concluding that Kisela should have used his Taser and that shooting his gun through the fence was dangerous because a bullet could have fragmented against the fence and hit Chadwick or his fellow officers.

Ibid.; see also Bryan v. MacPherson, 630 F. 3d 805, 831 (CA9 2010)
(noting  that  “police  are  required  to  consider  what  other tactics  if  any  were  available  to  effect  the  arrest”  and whether  there  are  “clear,  reasonable,  and  less  intrusive  alternatives”   (internal   quotation   marks   and   alteration  omitted)).

Consistent with that assessment, the other two officers on the scene declined to fire at Hughes, and one of them  explained  that  he  was  inclined  to  use  “some  of  the lesser  means”  than  shooting,  including  verbal  commands,  
because   he   believed   there   was   time   “[t]o   try   to   talk   [Hughes]  down.”    Record  120–121.    That  two  officers  on  the  scene,  presented  with  the  same  circumstances  as  Kisela, did not use deadly force reveals just how unneces­sary  and  unreasonable  it  was  for  Kisela  to  fire  four  shots at  Hughes.
- -
Taken together, the foregoing facts would permit a jury to  conclude  that  Kisela  acted  outside  the  bounds  of  the Fourth Amendment by shooting Hughes four times.