9th Circuit Decision on Use of Force Has Implications for Church Security

A Ninth Circuit court ruling on a deadly force case involving a deputy sets a critical precedent for armed church security teams.

What Happened in Lake Elsinore

In April 2016, a sergeant from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department responded to a call in Lake Elsinore, California. A man was reportedly smashing property with a club-like object. When the sergeant arrived, he found the subject—Clemente Najera-Aguirre—standing in a driveway with a baseball bat resting on his shoulder. Glass was shattered nearby, and several people stood about 15–20 feet from Najera (Estate of Aguirre v. County of Riverside, decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on March 11, 2025, and published at 131 F.4th 702.).

The sergeant issued verbal commands for Najera to drop the bat and get on the ground. Najera didn’t comply. Instead, he walked toward the deputy. At roughly 10 to 15 feet, the sergeant pepper sprayed him. The spray failed, likely due to wind. Najera turned toward the sergeant, still holding the bat. Without issuing a warning, the sergeant fired multiple times in two volleys. Najera was hit four times—twice in the back—and died on the scene.

The Lake Elsinore Station for the Riverside County SO. Lake Elsinore is a contract city for the SO. Photo courtesy of the Riverside SO.

A jury found the sergeant liable in a federal civil rights lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—which covers California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, and Hawaii—upheld the $10 million judgment. The court ruled that deadly force was not justified under the Fourth Amendment. Najera, while armed, never raised or swung the bat and appeared to be turning away when the fatal shots were fired. The court emphasized that deadly force is unconstitutional when the subject poses no immediate threat, even if they’re holding a weapon.

Why This Matters for Church Security Teams

This case involved a sworn peace officer with formal training, department policies, and the legal shield of qualified immunity. Church security volunteers have none of those protections (although some states are starting to pass legislation to give you immunity in such cases). If you use deadly force in your role at church, you can be sued or criminally charged just like this deputy—only with fewer legal defenses.

Some may dismiss this as a law enforcement problem, but the standard used by the court applies to everyone under the Fourth Amendment. The court didn’t just say the sergeant made a mistake—it said he violated clearly established constitutional law. And that same legal framework is what you’ll face if your actions are ever questioned.

If a man walks onto your church campus with a baseball bat or pipe but doesn’t swing it—just holds it or walks toward you slowly—what would your team do? If you shoot him without a clear, immediate threat to life, you could be found liable in civil court or face criminal prosecution (at least in the 9th circuit). Even if your intent was to protect others.

Also note: while the officer in this case had pepper spray and used it, most church security teams only carry a pistol. That’s a major gap. If you don’t have less-lethal options like pepper spray, a Taser, or even a baton, you’re left with two extremes—verbal commands or lethal force. That’s not a defensible position in today’s legal environment.

---

Key Takeaways for Armed Volunteers

There are several clear lessons here that every church security team member—especially those carrying a firearm—needs to take seriously.

• Deadly force must match the level of threat. Holding a weapon is not the same as using it. If a person has not made a move to strike, lunge, or raise their weapon in a threatening manner, pulling the trigger could land you in legal trouble, regardless of your intentions.

• Verbal warnings matter—but only when safe. The court highlighted the absence of a warning in this case. If time and distance allow, issuing a command like “Drop the bat!” or “Don’t come any closer!” can demonstrate restraint and help justify your actions later. That said, you are not required to speak if doing so puts you or others in greater danger. Your safety and the safety of the congregation must come first.

• Carry less-lethal options. Most volunteers are only armed with a pistol, but that’s not enough. Every team should have someone equipped with pepper spray, a Taser, or another tool that fills the gap between shouting and shooting. Not every threat requires a bullet.

• Train to assess threats, not just shoot. Your decision to fire will be judged after the fact by people with time, distance, and hindsight. What you perceived at the moment has to be backed by clear, observable behavior that justified the force you used.

This case shows that bad decisions in the field—even by trained officers—can result in devastating legal and financial consequences. You’re not immune just because you meant well.

Biblical Responsibility and the Call for Discernment

This isn’t just a legal issue—it’s a spiritual one. Scripture never tells believers to respond to evil with recklessness or vengeance. In fact, the Bible teaches proportionality in the use of force.

Exodus 22:2–3 shows us that context matters in the use of force. It says, “If a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck a fatal blow, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed; but if it happens after sunrise, the defender is guilty of bloodshed.”

The key principle here is discernment. At night, danger is uncertain—it’s harder to see if someone is armed, attacking, or alone. But in daylight, the situation is clearer, and unjustified force becomes inexcusable. The passage isn’t about the time of day—it’s about whether the defender could reasonably assess the threat.

This reflects a broader biblical principle: force must be tied to the nature of the threat. In church security, that means making decisions not from fear, but from wisdom and preparation. If someone is armed but not attacking, God’s standard—and the law’s—call us to pause, evaluate, and act with restraint unless the threat is truly immediate.

Proverbs 18:13 warns, “He who gives an answer before he hears, it is folly and shame to him.” The principle applies to use-of-force decisions: don’t act without understanding the situation.

As protectors in God’s house, we are called to be measured, disciplined, and righteous in our defense of others. That includes preparing in advance—through training, equipping, and praying for discernment—so we don’t act out of fear or impulse when real danger comes.

Church security isn’t about aggression. It’s about restraint under pressure, guided by truth and justice. The law will hold us accountable—and more importantly, so will God.