CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, Va. — A panel of federal judges pressed a Chesterfield County attorney Friday as to why a police officer fatally shot a man multiple times in the back as he was running away, with one judge suggesting the officer's decision lacked "common sense."
The case at hand involves the deadly shooting Charles Byers, which occurred in July 2023 in the middle of a neighborhood. As CBS 6 previously reported, two police officers received reports of breaking and entering and arrived on scene to find Byers standing in a yard and holding a hatchet. According to body camera footage, about 45 seconds after arriving, officer Gordon Painter fired multiple shots at Byers as Byers was backing away from them and fired more shots at his back after he turned around. Byers was pronounced dead on the scene.
Local News
Video shows Chesterfield Police shoot, kill mentally ill man holding hatchet
The Byers family sued Officer Painter and the county for excessive force, claiming officers failed to de-escalate the situation and that Byers, who was in mental distress and under an active temporary detention order, was not a threat.
District Court Judge Roderick Young denied qualified immunity to Officer Painter, saying Byers acted "unthreateningly" during the encounter and made "no movement toward the officers" at the time of the shooting, which plaintiff's attorney Paul Curley said was the right call.
“He simply was not a threat. Without being a threat, you cannot shoot someone. Unfortunately, Chesterfield County believes that they can shoot people who are not threats to the officers. It's outrageous," Curley said.
But Chesterfield County filed an appeal, arguing Judge Young erred in denying immunity because he did not consider the totality of the circumstances leading up to the use of deadly force.
On Friday, a panel of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit heard oral arguments in the matter and had the opportunity to question both sides of the legal dispute.
Chesterfield County Attorney Julie Seyfarth asked the court to consider the "historical context of this encounter" and the "nature of the police response."
"There were two 911 calls that there were reported breaking and enterings into two homes and one vandalism to a home, and then it was relayed that the suspect had entered another neighbor's garage," Seyfarth said, adding that this information alerted officers to "dangerous conduct afoot."
Seyfarth pointed to the fact that officers had made their presence known to Byers before the shooting and that he did not comply with 15 verbal commands to drop the hatchet he was holding.
However, much of the judges' questioning centered around the very moment Officer Painter pulled the trigger, and they emphasized the fact that he shot Byers in the back.
Here's an excerpt from the arguments:
“He was running away from the police when he was shot in the back," Judge Barbara Milano Keenan said.
“At the moment he was running, he’s a fleeing felon, which under Tennessee vs. Garner—," Seyfarth responded.
“And you have a right to shoot someone in the back when they’re running away?” Keenan asked.
“Yes, your honor," Seyfarth answered.
Judge Keenan later said, “I don’t see how you get over shooting somebody in the back.”
Judge Roger L. Gregory went down a similar line of questioning with Seyfarth.
“How many times he'd been hit? Three times? And then he turns, he's still running, and you shoot him in the back?” Gregory asked.
“Your honor, he ran for five seconds with a hatchet in his hand. He was still a threat," Seyfarth said.
“He was dying," Gregory said.
“That’s not what appears on camera when he’s running with the hatchet in his hand. He’s still running towards the homes," Seyfarth said.
“He was running up the street," Gregory said.
Seyfarth argued that Byers was a "grave public safety risk" to nearby residences in the direction he was running due to the prior context of him reportedly attempting to break into homes. However, Judge Keenan pointed out that the body camera video shows no bystanders in the direction he was running.
During Curley's arguments, he said Seyfarth was asking the court to "second guess" Judge Young's analysis of the body camera video, to which Judge Gregory added, "and second guess what we can see for ourselves in the video."
“I mean, common sense would be you don't shoot a person in the back after you've shot three times, and then they're turning around, literally dying, and you shoot him again three times," Gregory said.
Judge Keenan said the video made it "quite clear" that Byers was "disoriented," but Seyfarth said officers were not aware of Byers' mental health condition at the time of the shooting. Curley argued they should have known because he was "barefoot, confused" and had "indecipherable speech."
"So often when somebody has a mental problem, and I know this record doesn't elaborate on that, but so often, when you have somebody who is not without those kind of problems, the police don't know how to react, and it just screams out for more training in mental health situations. It absolutely does. That's aside from this case, but to the extent that you represent Chesterfield County, you may want to send that message back," Judge Keenan told Seyfarth.
Byers' parents were present during the arguments and told CBS 6 they were comforted by Judge Keenan's remarks regarding the need for training when it comes to police interactions with mentally ill individuals.
"Somebody in authority recognizes the systemic problem," Peggy Byers said. “Some decisions need to be made. Some training needs to happen. Things need to get better for people who are in the same situation that Charlie was in."
The family said they continue to hold out hope for justice in their favor.
"Like I've said before, it was failure upon failure upon failure that led us to this situation, and now Charlie's gone, and he shouldn't be gone," Peggy Byers said.
Seyfarth declined CBS 6's request for comment following the session, citing ongoing litigation.
Curley said it could take several months until the panel issues a decision on Chesterfield's request to reverse qualified immunity.
As CBS 6 previously reported, a settlement was reached earlier this year to resolve other defendants' involvement in the lawsuit.
Local News
Charles Byers' family accepts settlement; court denies immunity to officer
Because Byers was under an active temporary detention order, which requires a patient to be held at a psychiatric facility for up to 72 hours due to mental illness, the family sued HCA's Chippenham Hospital and Richmond Police. They had alleged the defendants prematurely and improperly discharged and removed Byers from Chippenham's psychiatric unit while he was still in crisis and need of help.
CBS 6 is committed to sharing community voices on this important topic. Email your thoughts to the CBS 6 Newsroom.
📲: CONNECT WITH US
Blue Sky | Facebook | Instagram | X | Threads | TikTok | YouTube
