Kirkman

facts are disputed, we must accept Plaintiffs’ version of events unless “blatantly

contradicted by the record.” Scott v. Smith, 109 F.4th 1215, 1222 (9th Cir. 2024)

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

Because the video evidence in this case does not blatantly contradict

Plaintiffs’ version of the facts, we resolve all factual disputes in Plaintiffs’ favor.

See id. Viewed in that light, a reasonable jury could conclude that Silva’s actions

constituted an excessive use of force. Further, the law is clearly established that it

25-1889 is unconstitutional to use deadly force against an unarmed individual who poses no

threat to the officer or others. See Espinosa v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 598

F.3d 528, 533, 538 (9th Cir. 2010); see also A. K. H. by and through Landeros v.

City of Tustin, 837 F.3d 1005, 1009, 1013 (9th Cir. 2016) (Landeros).

To constitute clearly established law, “existing precedent” need not be

directly on point, so long as it “place[s] the statutory or constitutional question

beyond debate.” Rivas-Villegas v. Cortesluna, 595 U.S. 1, 5 (2021) (per curiam)

(citation omitted). Espinosa and Landeros…