A Hatchet, 25 Feet, and No Immediate Threat: Fourth Circuit Rejects Qualified Immunity in Fatal Shooting

Byers v. Painter (4th Cir. 2026)

Citation: No. 25-1058 (4th Cir. Apr. 17, 2026)

TL;DR

• Holding: Officer not entitled to qualified immunity at motion-to-dismiss stage for fatal shooting of armed but non-threatening suspect.

  
  

• Why it matters: Reinforces that possession of a weapon + noncompliance ≠ automatic deadly force—there must be a real, immediate threat.

  
  

• Key limit: Case is at the pleading stage—facts are viewed in plaintiff’s favor, and video must clearly contradict them to override.

  
  

Facts (Narrative Timeline)

This case unfolds as a tragic collision between mental illness, police response, and split-second decision-making. Charles Byers suffered from schizoaffective disorder and had a long history of psychiatric issues. In July 2023, after being taken to a hospital and briefly detained under a court order, he was unexpectedly released. He then walked roughly 14 miles trying to find his parents’ home.

Disoriented and wandering through a residential neighborhood, Byers attempted to enter multiple homes. A 911 caller reported a breaking-and-entering and vandalism incident.

When officers arrived, they encountered Byers standing in a driveway:

• Barefoot

• Holding a hatchet at his side

• Not actively attacking anyone

Officers repeatedly ordered him to drop the weapon. He refused.

Instead, Byers:

• Walked away from officers

• Backed into the street

• Asked strange, provocative questions: “You got a big enough gun?”

• Told officers: “Come get it.” 

A taser was deployed but ineffective.

At this point:

• Byers was about 25 feet away

• He was backing away, not advancing

• The hatchet remained lowered at his side

Then the shooting began. Officer Painter fired:

• Three initial shots while Byers was turned partially away

• As Byers turned and ran, Painter fired 3–4 more shots, striking him in the back

The entire encounter lasted less than two minutes. Byers died shortly afterward.

Issues

1. Excessive Force:

   Did the officer’s use of deadly force violate the Fourth Amendment?

   
   

2. Qualified Immunity:

   Even if unconstitutional, was the law clearly established such that a reasonable officer would know the conduct was unlawful?

Court’s Decision (Holding)

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of qualified immunity.

• The complaint plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment violation

• The right was clearly established

• Case proceeds against the officer

Reasoning

1. The Legal Framework Changed Mid-Appeal

The Supreme Court’s decision in Barnes v. Felix (2025) required courts to look at the totality of the circumstances, not just the final moment before force. Even applying that broader view, the court still found the shooting potentially unreasonable.

2. Graham Factors Analysis

(1) Severity of the Crime — favors officer

• Reported breaking and entering + vandalism

• Suspect armed with a hatchet

• This factor supports police use of force

(2) Immediate Threat — MOST IMPORTANT — favors plaintiff

This is where the case turns.

Key facts:

• Hatchet stayed down at waist level

• No furtive or threatening movements

• Byers was backing away

• Distance: ~25 feet

• No clear threat to bystanders

The court emphasized:

Possessing a weapon and ignoring commands is not enough—there must be conduct indicating imminent danger.

(3) Resistance / Flight — favors plaintiff

• No active attack

• No attempt to flee until after being shot

• Ignoring commands ≠ active resistance

3. The Critical Rule: Weapon Alone Isn’t Enough

The Fourth Circuit doubled down on a key principle:

Officers cannot use deadly force just because someone is armed—there must be a threatening movement or imminent danger.

4. The “Back Shots” Were Especially Problematic

Once Byers turned and ran:

• He was no longer a threat

• Shots to the back triggered classic Garner concerns

Deadly force against a fleeing, non-dangerous suspect is unconstitutional.

5. Clearly Established Law

The court relied heavily on:

• Hensley v. Price

• Knibbs v. Momphard

These cases clearly established:

• Noncompliance + weapon ≠ deadly force

• Must be furtive or threatening movement

Thus, a reasonable officer should have known this conduct was unlawful.

Street Takeaways (For Officers)

• Weapon ≠ automatic deadly force.

  You need movement + intent + immediacy

  
  

• Distance matters

  20–25 feet + no advance = weak threat case

  
  

• Backing away changes everything

  A suspect retreating is rarely an immediate threat

  
  

• Final shots matter most

  Shooting a fleeing suspect (especially in the back) is a huge liability trigger

  
  

• Verbal defiance is not enough

  “Come get it” without movement ≠ deadly threat

  
  

• Mental illness context matters (practically, not legally)

  Courts increasingly scrutinize escalation in these encounters

  
  

• Bodycam cuts both ways

  If it doesn’t clearly contradict plaintiff claims, courts side with plaintiff early

  
  

Bottom Line

This case is a textbook modern use-of-force decision:

Deadly force requires more than danger—it requires immediate, articulable threat.

And critically:

Once the threat disappears (especially during flight), so does your justification to shoot.

Disclaimer

This content is for training and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.