◆ SpookStack

r' ® e 12 MAIORANA U. MAC DONALD firmly at the risk that action deferred will be futile or constitute virtual abdication of office.’? Scheuer v. Rhodes, supra, 416 U.S. at 246. We also recognize that an arrest may sometimes entail the use of deadly force and that liability under § 1983 will not arise if the-officers involved reasonably believed in good faith that such force was neeessary to protect themselves or others from death or great bodily harm. See, e.g., Clark v. Ziedonis, 513 F.2d ’ 79, 81 (7th Cir. 1975); Willis v, Tillrock, 421 F. Supp. 368, 370-72 (N.D. Ill. 1976). See generally, Butz v. Economou, supra, 98 S. Ct. 2894, 46 U.S.L.W. 4952; Pierson v. Ray, supra, 386 U.S. 547. See also Hebah v. United States, 456 F.2d 696, 709 (Ct. Cl. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 870: Commonwealth v. Young, 326 Mass. 597, 601-02, 96 N.H.2d — 133, 185 (1950). At the time Maiorana left the apartment with Callagy and Fleischman, all officers knew that he was armed with a. .357 Magnum, they had been reliably informed that he - carried this. gun to get.an cdge on the police and that he eould fire it without drawing it entirely out of his jacket. ‘They also had been- reliably informed that when arrested the previous ycar Maiorana had gone for a gun hidden under a pillow. They knew he had a prior criminal record and was a drug user. Based upon all the information the defendants had, they would have been extremely naive to believe that arresting Maiorana was going to be easy or routine. While it might be argued that the defendants over- reacted, this is purely Monday morning quarterbacking. We agree with the-district court that the affidavits lead- inexorably to the conclusion that the defendants acted *fout of a sense of public duty without malice and in gocd faith to effect the safe apprehension of Maiorana.’’ On the defendants’ version of the facts, we find no issue as to their reasonableness or good faith and no possible hasis - lea +