Immunity Denied To Officer Who Claimed A Suicidal Man Pointed A Gun At Him Through His Own Head

Far too many law enforcement officers believe the best way to deal with suicidal people is to kill them. That’s the case here with Washington County Deputy Brian Krook. He came across a suicidal person and decided to make that final decision for them, shooting and killing 23-year-old Benjamin Evans as he knelt on the crosswalk with a gun pointed at his own head.

This followed forty minutes of negotiation with Evans by officers on the scene, so at least it wasn’t instant escalation. During this conversation, Evans repeatedly asked to call his girlfriend, who had earlier that day rejected his marriage proposal. At one point, Evans pulled the clip out of his gun and threw it down the street, leaving him with the single bullet aimed at his own head.

Deputy Krook was called in to help. They shouldn’t have bothered. Krook arrived and was given the plan by the sergeant in charge of the scene. She said the plan was to keep him talking and use less-lethal munitions if necessary. Sergeant Folendorf gave Deputy Krook the shotgun with the less-lethal rounds. Krook leaned the shotgun against the cruiser and pointed his service weapon at Evans instead. He also stepped out from behind the cruiser, placing himself in the (self-proclaimed) “danger” he was about to use as an excuse to kill the suicidal young man.

As the other officers made some progress in talking Evans down, Deputy Krook suddenly had ideas of his own about what was happening, as recounted in the lawsuit filed by Evans’ survivors:

Krook can be heard on the audio saying that he was uncomfortable with the movements that Evans was making. No one acknowledged his comment.

Krook did not warn Evans to stop moving his head or looking around.

No other deputy warned Evans to stop moving his head or looking around.

Evans remained on his knees in the crosswalk with the gun to his head while talking to [Officer] Ramirez.

While Evans was moving his head and looking around, with the gun to his temple and talking to Ramirez, Krook shot him multiple times and without warning.

Krook used his service weapon and not the less-lethal shotgun that was leaning against the car next to him.

Evans slumped to the ground still holding the gun to his temple.

Krook then advanced on Evans and shot him several more times at close range.

Krook is the anomaly. That’s why he’s still being sued. Several officers were on the scene but only Krook felt the need to kill someone for pointing a gun — with a single bullet in it — at their own head.

No other officers fired.

The lower court denied qualified immunity to Krook, which he immediately appealed. The Eighth Circuit Appeals Court says two things to Krook. First, no QI. At least not right now. Second, if you want QI, you need to bring some competing evidence of your own. (h/t Gabriel Malor)

But most importantly, the court says in its very short refusal to discuss Krook’s qualified immunity invocation, you had better bring a better argument than this one, which is an absolute jaw-dropper. From the decision [PDF]:

Here, the availability of qualified immunity turns on whether Krook acted reasonably under the circumstances by shooting Evans because Evans either pointed his gun at another or otherwise wielded his gun in a “menacing fashion.” See Cole, 959 F.3d at 1134. The district court noted that it is “undisputed that Evans never took direct aim at Krook or anyone else . . . .” Krook claims the shooting was constitutionally reasonable because Evans’ gun was pointed in the direction of the officers (through Evans’ own head) when Evans turned his head.

Whew. That is some sort of bullshit. I can understand the desperate moves one might make when being sued, but it’s not as though Deputy Krook is representing himself here. He’s being represented by supposedly competent attorneys, either provided by the county that employs him or by the law enforcement union he belongs to.

Sure, we might expect an officer to say something this stupid and believe it will get them out of trouble. But we certainly don’t expect that from supposedly competent representation. Good luck finding a case on point that deals with officers being hit by bullets fired through someone’s skull. And if it has happened, it’s most likely been friendly fire, considering how many bullets cops fire when they’re “reasonably” scared. If Krook wants immunity, he’s going to need a better argument than that and something more than the “inconclusive nighttime videos” provided by his employer. Back to the lower court it goes and back goes Krook himself, with no immunity to protect him from the consequences of his clearly unreasonable actions.