The Kansas Supreme Court rules that police can be liable when their actions injure a bystander

There is so much that isn't in this article.

Mostly we know that the officer says the dog lunged at him; we know the officer shot at the dog - twice - and missed both times; we know that a little girl was injured by fragments or debris. All in all, those facts don't tell us very much about what happened.

Other articles about this case draw from the same press release by the officer's defense lawyer. THIS article invents a term "statutory immunity" which seems to be a co-mingling of the legal principle of Qualified Immunity together with the defense claim of immunity under the Kansas self-defense law. Other articles make it clear that the Kansas Supreme Court ruling was about the wording of the state law on self-defense, not about the principle of Qualified Immunity.

We also know that the officer has been charged with acting recklessly and is claiming he acted in self-defense. These two facts allow us to reasonably infer a lot more about what happened.

Anyone familiar with police activities has to be surprised that the case is even in court -- almost all cases of an innocent bystander being killed or injured by police don't result in charges against the officer and even those that do result in charges are almost always dismissed on the basis of Qualified Immunity -- which is the legal doctrine that police officers are immune to prosecution for anything they do in the line of duty unless their action is so far outside the norm that no trained police officer could reasonably have made the same decision. Qualified Immunity is a very broad shield that protects police officers in situations even when their actions are objectively unreasonable in hindsight.

So what does that tell us about this case?

The fact that the officer has been charged and especially that the prosecution persisted beyond the initial dismissal, tells us that the prosecutor thinks he has enough evidence to convince a jury that the officer acted not just unreasonably but so far outside what any reasonable officer would so that any trained officer would know better.

The fact that he is a FORMER officer, and his defense isn't citing Qualified Immunity, together suggest that his own police department considers his action as being far outside the training and policies of the department.

The fact that the officer is claiming "self-defense" strongly suggests that there is some reason why he cannot claim Qualified Immunity. The information in the article comes mostly from the officer's lawyer, so it's no surprise that the description sounds reasonable, but there is so very much that we don't know here. Was the dog actually aggressive? How did the officer completely miss the dog twice if the dog was close enough to be a threat? Perhaps the dog was moving that fast, or perhaps the officer panicked and fired wildly? Since the officer did miss the dog both shots, was the officer injured by the dog? Where was the little girl when all this happened? Was she where the officer could easily see her and should have recognized she would be endangered by the shots? These are all things that a jury will have to evaluate at trial.

As a former state-certified concealed carry instructor and as a civilian with an interest in self-defense law, I know that no state self-defense law ever protects someone who acts recklessly when defending themselves. Every shooter knows that they are responsible for each and every round fired -- from the instant it leaves the muzzle until it finally comes to a stop. If a civilian defending himself injures an innocent bystander, they are absolutely responsible. At best, they may not fact criminal charges if they acted reasonably, but they will certainly face civil liability. Any hint of being reckless will result in criminal charges. Some might say that we ought to hold trained police officers to a higher standard, but in fact we actually hold police officers to a much lower standard under Qualified Immunity. The protection of Qualified Immunity is a recognition of the greater risk faced by police officers and their need to make split-second decisions in situations that any sane civilian would avoid.