Officer Toni McBride was at the center of a controversial and closely watched LAPD shooting in 2020. The fatal shooting of Daniel Hernandez sparked debate and outrage, with many questioning McBride’s actions. However, a recent ruling by a federal appellate court stated that McBride is protected by the legal doctrine of qualified immunity, shielding her from federal claims related to the shooting.

According to the court, McBride is entitled to qualified immunity, regardless of whether her use of force was excessive. Judge Daniel P. Collins, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, stated that while a reasonable jury could find McBride’s force excessive, she is still protected by qualified immunity.

The shooting took place after Hernandez, who was under the influence of methamphetamine, crashed his truck and brandished a box cutter. Despite commands from officers to drop the weapon, Hernandez continued to advance towards them. McBride fired six shots in less than seven seconds, with the final two shots being fired when Hernandez was already on the ground and badly wounded.

Following the shooting, McBride was cleared of any criminal wrongdoing. However, Hernandez’s family filed a civil suit seeking damages, claiming that McBride’s actions violated Hernandez’s rights. The court’s ruling upheld the dismissal of the federal claims but allowed state law claims of assault, wrongful death, and civil rights violations to proceed.

The decision has raised concerns among advocates for police accountability. Narine Mkrtchyan, an attorney for Hernandez’s daughter Melanie, called the ruling a “half victory” but expressed worry about the implications for civil rights cases involving excessive force. Arnoldo Casillas, an attorney for other members of the Hernandez family, criticized qualified immunity as a “sham for negligent cops” but stated his commitment to seeking justice in state court.

McBride’s father, Jamie McBride, defended his daughter’s actions, stating that her shooting of Hernandez was justified. He emphasized Hernandez’s drug use and refusal to comply with police commands as factors in the shooting. The LAPD declined to comment on the court’s decision, and attorneys representing McBride and the city were unavailable for comment.

The ruling solidifies qualified immunity as a powerful shield for police officers accused of excessive force, particularly in the American West. Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor, criticized the decision, highlighting the problems with qualified immunity and its impact on cases like McBride’s.

Overall, the court’s decision in McBride’s case has sparked a renewed debate about qualified immunity, police accountability, and the use of force by law enforcement officers. The outcome of this case will have implications for future cases involving allegations of excessive force and civil rights violations. As the legal battles continue, the public remains divided on where to draw the line between protecting officers and ensuring justice for victims of police violence.