Chesterfield officer who shot, killed schizoaffective man appeals qualified immunity decision
VENN
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, Va. (WRIC) -- The Chesterfield County police officer who shot and killed a schizoaffective man in crisis in July 2023 is continuing to argue that his actions should be protected under qualified immunity.
On July 8, 2023, 34-year-old Charles Byers was shot and killed by officer Gordon Painter of the Chesterfield County Police Department. During an encounter with Byers that lasted about 90 seconds, Painter shot at Byers seven times, with five of those shots hitting him.
Byers' family has repeatedly stated their belief that Painter used excessive force, claiming his death was wrongful and Painter's actions unnecessarily severe.
They have also accused the city of Richmond and HCA's Chippenham Hospital of contributing to his death, saying that Byers -- who was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and mid-crisis at the time of the deadly shooting -- was neglected by them in his time of need.
Byers' family filed a $35 million lawsuit on their loved one's behalf, which named Painter, the Chesterfield County Police Department, the city and the hospital. They have since settled with all involved parties except for Painter.
In January, federal judge Roderick Young ruled that, while some of the lawsuit's allegations against Painter could not stand, the claims of excessive force and willful and wanton negligence could proceed -- meaning Painter could see trial.
This is despite Painter arguing that his actions should be protected under qualified immunity, which prevents some officials from facing the consequences of actions taken while serving in their role.
Young disagreed, saying that he believed that "a reasonable officer would not have perceived Mr. Byers to present a risk of imminent harm." Per past precedent, qualified immunity does not apply if an officer violates a clearly established right that would be clear to a reasonable officer in the moment.
“Accordingly, by alleging that Officer Painter shot Mr. Byers without a justifying ‘signal,’ [the Byers’ family] state[s] a clearly established constitutional violation upon Officer Painter’s very first shot,” Young wrote in his 16-page opinion. “However, the allegations do not stop at the very first shot. As [the Byers’ family] describe[s] it, Officer Painter continued to shoot as Mr. Byers turned and ran. Given that [past precedent] condemns Officer Painter’s first shot, it goes without saying that [past precedent] and its underpinning body of law clearly condemn Officer Painter’s subsequent shots.”
ALL COVERAGE: Deadly Shooting of Charles Byers
Painter and his attorneys have since appealed the judge's decision and have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fourth Circuit to review the case.
In the related filing, they state that they want the court to decide if Young was correct in saying the officer's actions are not protected by qualified immunity.
They also want the court to rule on whether or not Young "failed to consider the totality of the circumstances" and "the critical events preceding the use of deadly force" in his decision-making.
Oral arguments will be heard on this case at 9 a.m. on Friday, Sept. 26.
