Far too often, the issue at hand is whether an individual, or too often his estate, can survive a Qualified Immunity challenge to a suit against police officers for the deprivation of constitutional rights. The concept was crafted entirely by judicial fiat; it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution or statutes, but was manufactured by the Supreme Court to protect police.

And far too often, Qualified Immunity prevails, preventing recourse despite flagrant constitutional violations. When a plaintiff prevails, however, there is joy in Mudville. But getting the opportunity to bat doesn’t mean the swing will hit it out of the park. There is still a rather huge obstacle that needs to be overcome, and that’s the trial of the underlying claim. Though a cop was denied QI, it doesn’t assure vindication, even when he shoots a guy in the back.

The jury in U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s courtroom found Kristopher Walb acted reasonably when he shot Angel Lopez in the back, killing him as he fled from SWAT officers pursuing him in January 2013 for a parole violation.

Lopez’s family has sued Walb and top brass at the San Diego Police Department multiple times, though many of their claims have been dismissed. But a Ninth Circuit panel ruled in October last year that Walb should stand trial for wrongful death and civil rights claims, as physical evidence showed that “Lopez was not facing officers, did not make a threatening gesture and was in the process of complying with the officers’ commands to get down when he was shot.”

Easy case? Maybe not.

During opening statements in the trial, Lopez family attorney Gene Iredale told jurors: “The body speaks … the physical evidence speaks and does not lie.”

Iredale acknowledged during trial that Lopez “had a problem” and had served time in jail, but said that officers failed to properly vet information about Lopez which turned out to be false – including that he possessed multiple weapons – before sending a SWAT team to a San Diego apartment complex in the middle of the day.

Lopez wasn’t exactly class valedictorian and the guy who saved kittens from trees. But even kids with a “problem” are entitled to constitutional rights, to not be shot in the back, right?

Jurors found Walb did not violate Lopez’s civil rights when he shot the man whom Deputy City Attorney Rayna Stephan said during trial was a gang member who failed repeatedly to comply with officers’ demands and reached into his left pocket in a “threatening, ready-to-engage manner.”

How one reaches into a pocket in a “threatening, ready-to-engage manner” isn’t exactly clear. Sure, it conjures up an image of threat, but does reaching into a pocket in a gentle, loving way appear any different? It would seem that reaching into a pocket looks like reaching into a pocket, no matter what characterizations are attached for the purpose of dredging up an image to taint the action.

But Kristopher Walb wasn’t taking any chances, because the First Rule of Policing must be obeyed.

“They are not trained to sacrifice their own lives when faced with a deadly threat,” Stephan said, adding that if Walb had waited to shoot Lopez until the parolee pulled out a gun, “It’s too late for the officer.”

Back when police officers viewed the First Rule as rationalizing their righteous shoot based on the platitude that it would be too late when they saw the muzzle flash, at least they would know whether there was a gun before killing. Now, it’s the glint of steel that signifies that they would be too late.

Except there was no gun.

While Lopez was found with drug paraphernalia after he’d been shot, there was no pistol on his body, as officers had been told. Walb said he believed Lopez was reaching for a gun and feared for his life when he shot him three times.

Adding up the rhetoric makes the equation problematic. If Walb shot Lopez in the back because of his fear of death based upon the (false, oops*) information at hand combined with the “threatening, ready-to-engage” reaching into his left pocket, the fact that there was no gun reduces the observation to another quite glaring misread.

After all, since Lopez was, in fact, unarmed, was he threateningly reaching into his pocket to grab some lint to viciously toss in Walb’s eye? As a gangbanger, did he suspect this SWAT cop would never get off a shot from his special weapon before he was blinded by the lint?

“The jury heard all of the evidence and agreed that the officer acted in defense of himself and his fellow officers,” City Attorney Mara Elliott said in a statement.

“Our police officers have a tough job to do. Not many of us would run toward danger the way these officers did.”

Except that Officer Walb didn’t run toward danger. He ran after Lopez, who was running away. That’s why Walb shot Lopez in the back. But the jury found he was defending himself, even though the Ninth Circuit refused to confer immunity on Walb for his bravery.

*The killing took place during a “botched” SWAT raid:

Walb shot and killed Lopez during a botched SWAT operation in January 2013 after a vengeful heroin dealer told officers that Lopez was a cartel member who had held the dealer hostage, according to court documents. Police apparently did not vet Alec Pojas’ claims and sent a machine gun-wielding SWAT team to Lopez’s apartment complex where he was ambushed in the parking lot.

Lopez ran back into the apartment building, followed by Walb. The officer shot Lopez twice in the back and once in the head with a machine gun though Lopez complied with the officers’ orders, according to the complaint.

Vengeful heroin dealers are not always the most reliable informants.