Crime & Courts
Fired Wichita cop who shot at dog and hit girl can’t be prosecuted or sued, judge says
A fired Wichita police officer whose gunshot missed a dog and ricocheted — with a bullet fragment hitting a girl in the face — is immune from criminal prosecution and cannot be sued by the girl’s family, a judge has ruled.
Judge Kevin O’Connor ruled last month that former WPD officer Dexter Betts is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action, though the ruling was not available in public court records until Friday. The Sedgwick County district attorney’s office has filed a notice of appeal.
Betts was fired after a Dec. 30, 2017, shooting where a child was hurt by a bullet he fired.
The police shooting
Police records, court documents and body camera video describe the events leading up to the shooting.
Officers were first dispatched to a home in the 1500 block of North Gentry, near 13th and Hillside, on a report of domestic violence. Police were told that a man had a gun, that he had put it in his mouth, that he had threatened suicide, that he had choked a dog and that the actions were committed in front of children who were in the house screaming.
Betts, a second officer and a sergeant went to the house. The man was outside and was unarmed. The sergeant told the officers to go inside and check the welfare of the children. The officers were told the gun was under a pillow in a bedroom.
Inside, the officers found four children gathered around a TV in a living room. Betts went down a hallway with his weapon drawn and a flashlight attached to the gun, and he saw what he thought was a pit bull. The other officer went into a bedroom and found the gun.
Betts went back to the living room and then saw the barking dog running toward him. He fired two shots at the dog as it appeared to lunge at him. Both bullets missed the animal.
At least one bullet hit the carpet, which covered a concrete floor, and ricocheted. Bullet fragments hit a 9-year-old girl, who was sitting on the floor about 5 feet from Betts, in a toe and above her eye. The dog, an approximately 40-pound miniature English bull terrier named Chevy, suffered minor wounds from bullet fragments.
Betts was fired by the Wichita Police Department within a month of the shooting. Prosecutors charged him with aggravated battery — a felony — alleging that he recklessly caused bodily harm to the girl by firing a gun at a dog while a child was in the room.
Judge dismissed the case
Betts’s lawyer asked the judge to dismiss the case, arguing that he had legally fired his duty weapon in self-defense and was entitled to immunity.
Prosecutors argued that the state’s self-defense statute, sometimes called the “stand your ground” law, did not apply to animals. They also argued that self-defense is not available to someone who acts recklessly.
“It was not reasonable under the circumstances to fire twice without a clear background, with a child in the line of fire, a few feet away, at a dog the officer already knew was present,” prosecutors wrote in court filings. “The threat posed by the animal, if at all, was that it might bite the officer, not create a risk of death or great bodily harm.”
The wording of the statute is that use of force “against another” is justified if the person using it “reasonably believes” that it is necessary to defend themselves or a third person “against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.”
The judge said the law’s wording suggests that “a claim of self-defense can only be asserted against another person’s unlawful force and an animal cannot act unlawfully.”
However, the legal definition of “use of force” includes actions directed at “another person or thing.” The judge said a dog is a thing, thus deciding that a claim of self-defense can be used in the case of an animal attack.
“Neither party disputes that Officer Betts was, in fact, defending himself,” O’Connor wrote. “The ‘dispute’ in this case is whether Officer Betts should have fired his weapon in defense of himself under the circumstances not whether he was or was not justified in defending himself. Arguably, if the shots had met their mark, Officer Betts would not have been charged with a crime.”
He later added: “An argument can be made that Officer Betts could have and/or should have allowed the dog to attack him and suffer possible injury to his person. The argument regarding whether Betts should have used force to defend himself under the circumstances is a philosophical argument subject to varied opinions. ... the evidence establishes that Betts was justified in the use of force in defending himself.”
The Kansas criminal liability laws state that a person is immune if the use of force is determined to be justified.
It does not matter that prosecutors alleged the shooting was reckless, the judge said, because the immunity statute has no exception for reckless criminal acts.
“The decision in this case may be an unintended consequence not envisioned by the Legislature but the plain and clear language of the statute demands the result,” O’Connor wrote. “The decision in this case is based solely upon the facts and circumstances of the case and applies only to this case. The decision does not preclude prosecution of a law enforcement officer for a reckless aggravated battery under different circumstances.”
O’Connor added: “The injuries to the little girl as a result of the actions of Officer Betts were certainly unfortunate and regrettable. However, the court finds that the State has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that the defendant’s use of force was not justified.”
Comments