◆ SpookStack

we met gee oe OPINION OF TIE COURT. 17 Butz v. Economou, supra, 98 S. Ct. at. 2911, 46 U.S.L.W. at 4960. Even so, we might be inclined toward leniency had there been some clear sign the plaintiff could have defeated summary judgment with pr operly drafted counter- affidavits. There was not. Even if the plaintiff had somchow shown that Long knew Maiorana could have been arrested earlier while unarmed, we do not think a trial would have been required. The timing of the arrest was primarly geared: to the firearms trafficking investigation. The police cannot be faulted for hoping to get two birds with ‘one stone. They started out on the morning of the 15th hoping to seize a supply of illegal firearms and to arrest Maiorana. The delay, even if inten- ‘tional, did not create an issue as to the officer’s reasonable belief or good faith. Nor, do we believe, would evidence that Guilmette and MacDonald observed Scire holster his gun and go to Long’s . aid after shooting him have made any difference. We do not agree with the plaintiff’s suggestion that this would eut against a finding that the officers reasonably believed in good faith that they were still in danger from Maiorana. It could just as well have meant that Scire felt Maiorana could be handled by Guilmette and MacDonald. We cannot agree with the plaintiff that the statement im one of her affidavits that the bullet that killed her son: entered under his left armpit created an issue of material fact because it showed that he was shot while his arms were raised to surrender. This is a pretty shaky inference. Maiorana could just as well have been in the act of drawing his weapon or moving his arm to do so. Such evidence does not in any way contradict MacDonald’s sworn statement that he saw movement before shooting or create an issue as to whether he reasonably believed in good faith that deadly force was necessary. There as no way that there could have been testimony to the contrary if there were a - 17a -