Family of man killed by Chesterfield police reaches settlements, but officer could still see trial

CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, Va. (WRIC) -- The family of Charles Byers -- a man who was shot and killed by police in Chesterfield County in July 2023 -- reached settlements with some of those involved in their $35 million lawsuit. However, a federal judge ruled that the involved officer should still be tried for excessive force and some forms of negligence.

On July 8, 2023, 34-year-old Byers was shot and killed by officer Gordon Painter with the Chesterfield County Police Department during an encounter that lasted about 90 seconds, per body camera footage. He shot at Byers seven times, hitting him five times.

In the months and years since Byers' death, his family has maintained that he was wrongfully killed and that excessive force was used. Not only that, but his family has accused other parties of contributing to his death due to the alleged events that preceded Byers' encounter with police.

They have since a $35 million lawsuit on Byers' behalf against those parties: Painter, the Chesterfield County Police Department, the city of Richmond and HCA's Chippenham Hospital.

ALL COVERAGE: Deadly Shooting of Charles Byers

However, as of mid-January, there have been several developments in these legal proceedings, with settlements being reached with some and with charges being maintained against others.

Richmond, Chippenham Hospital's alleged involvement

According to the complaint submitted by Byers' family and obtained by 8News, the events that led to Byers' death began on July 5, 2023, when he was taken to Chippenham Hospital by his mother. Byers, who had schizoaffective disorder, was not doing well mentally and his mother wanted him to receive treatment at the hospital's Tucker Pavillion.

In the hours that followed, Byers was reportedly left unattended and began to wander the halls of the hospital. According to the complaint, a Richmond Police officer called "Lt. Waite" then locked him in a room as part of an emergency custody order.

Waite reportedly contacted the Richmond Behavioral Health Authority to get Byers evaluated for a temporary detention order. He was thusly evaluated and the order was issued at about 2 a.m. on July 6, 2023, per the complaint. It was served about an hour later.

At about 5:30 p.m. that same day, Chippenham staff and security guards tried to move Byers to a different area of the hospital. According to the complaint, Byers said he did not want to take the elevator. He was experiencing paranoia and he believed it would harm him. The staff reportedly proceeded to "bully" Charles with threats of being forced or restrained.

Another Richmond officer, Steven Gibson, then approached Byers and attempted to get him to comply with hospital staff, according to the complaint. Byers' paranoia and fear manifested in a lack of trust in those around him and he continued to say he could not be moved. The complaint then describes the staff and Gibson moving in to "violently wrestle" Byers to the ground to put him in handcuffs.

An involved nurse reportedly claimed Byers kicked her during this struggle -- however, the complaint alleges this was a fabricated assault meant to justify Byers' arrest. Byers was then taken into custody by Gibson and brought to the Richmond City Jail.

According to the complaint, the magistrate at the jail ordered that Byers be released on his own recognizance the evening of July 6, 2023. He then walked about 14 miles, barefoot, trying to search for his Chesterfield home. As he could not find it due to his poor mental state, Byers wandered around, lost, for about 36 hours.

His next known location was Wycliff Court the afternoon of July 8, 2023.

According to court documents obtained by 8News dated Jan. 15 and 17, the Byers family reached settlements with the city of Richmond and Chippenham Hospital, respectively.

The settlement amounts have not been disclosed as of the time of reporting.

Byers' deadly encounter with Painter, his defense

A 911 call was made from Wycliff Court at about 12:49 p.m. on July 8, 2023, with the caller claiming that Byers had attempted to get into her home. According to the complaint, she told the dispatcher that when she asked Byers what he was doing, he apologized and said he "thought this was [his] parents' house."

According to the complaint, other calls began coming in. The original caller described Byers trying to get into multiple other peoples' homes and his successful entry into a neighbor's garage, from which he reportedly took a hatchet.

Painter and another, unidentified Chesterfield officer arrived at the scene shortly after, with the latter getting there first.

Byers' encounter with them in the 900 block of Marblethorpe Avenue lasted about 90 seconds, during which the officers told him 13 times to drop the hatchet.

At no point did Byers lift the hatchet from where he held it at his side.

While Byers walked backward away from the officers, one of them tried to hit him with a stun gun. This was reportedly ineffective.

Soon after, Painter shot at Byers seven times, with five shots hitting him. In the body camera footage, Byers can be seen running away as multiple of these shots hit him.

In a Sept. 9, 2024 motion, Painter and the Chesterfield County Police Department argued that the charges against Painter should be dismissed.

They claimed that his use of force was "objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances" and that he was protected by qualified immunity, which protects some officials from the consequences of actions taken while serving in their role.

Additionally, they claimed that, because his actions were reasonable, they could thusly not be negligent.

Judge disagrees with most of Painter's claims

In a 16-page opinion filed on Jan. 13, the federal judge presiding over this case, Roderick Young, stated he did not agree with Painter's statement that he was justified in his use of force.

"At the 'moment deadly force was used,' the only fact that could have led a reasonable officer to believe that Mr. Byers posed a threat to the officers or others was Mr. Byers’s possession of a hatchet," Young wrote. "The totality of the allegations in the Amended Complaint, however, demonstrate that, despite this possession, a reasonable officer would not have perceived Mr. Byers to present a risk of imminent harm."

Young gave multiple examples as to why he believed Byers did not pose an imminent threat and why he did not support Painter's conduct.

This included Young's belief that, being armed with a hatchet, Byers could only have harmed Painter at a close range or if he was in throwing distance. Per body camera footage, Young said Byers' "confused and unsteady state" and the fact that he was looking away at the time he was shot meant Painter should not have believed he was preparing to throw the hatchet.

As Byers did not make any threatening movements, Young cited past precedent that could indicate that Painter's use of deadly force was not justified.

Finally, Young pointed out that -- per the body camera footage -- only three of Painter's seven shots were fired before Byers turned and ran, meaning Painter continued to shoot as Byers' back as he fled. He could not have been a threat while running away, Young said.

It was the lack of threatening movements by Byers and Painter's shooting at his back that Young said also supported a dismissal of his qualified immunity claim.

Past precedent had dictated that qualified immunity does not apply if an officer violates a clearly established right that would be clear to a reasonable officer in the moment, according to Young.

"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. "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 Knibbs 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."

Regarding the accusations of multiple forms of negligence, Young agreed with Painter in part that officers are immune under Virginia law to claims of ordinary and gross negligence.

However, Young said the claims of willful and wanton negligence could proceed. He said this was because there was evidence that Painter acted "consciously in disregard of another person's rights" or "with reckless indifference to the consequences," despite being aware that his "conduct probably would cause injury to another."

"An actor guilty of willful and wanton conduct must intend his act but need not intend the resulting harm," Young wrote. "Officer Painter contends that, because he exercised some care, the Plaintiffs have again failed to state a claim of willful and wanton conduct. Here, however, Officer Painter’s minimal diligence does not carry the day."

You can read Young's full 16-page opinion below.

On Jan. 15, Painter filed a motion to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals regarding Young's opinion and subsequent order.

Should his appeal process fail, as the Byers family previously demanded a trial by jury, it's possible Painter will indeed see his day in court.