CA11: Officers’ reasonable explanation for shooting ptf’s decedent in back was unrebutted and supports qualified immunity

Plaintiff’s decedent was shot in the back six times, and the officers’ version was that they told him to get on the ground, and he quickly turned into his house and they thought he was going for a weapon. On these facts, the officers acted reasonably, and plaintiff doesn’t rebut their version. Kenning v. Carli, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 6863 (11th Cir. April 15, 2016)*:

Given the internal inconsistency of Plaintiff’s proffered evidence on this issue, and the entirely contradictory physical evidence, a jury could not reasonably infer from the cited testimony that Cortes was facing the officers, with his hands up and otherwise complying with their commands, when he was shot. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007) (“When opposing parties tell two different stories, one of which is blatantly contradicted by the record, so that no reasonable jury could believe it, a court should not adopt that version of the facts for purposes of ruling on a motion for summary judgment.”); Kesinger v. Herrington, 381 F.3d 1243, 1249 (11th Cir. 2004) (disregarding eyewitness testimony that was in direct conflict with the unanimous testimony of other witnesses and with the undisputed physical evidence). Rather, the record evidence conclusively establishes that, in defiance of Carli’s order to get down on the ground, Cortes turned away from the officers and back toward the gun lying in the open trailer doorway just prior to being shot. Cf. Morton v. Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013) (denying qualified immunity where the plaintiff’s account of the events preceding a police shooting could “reasonably be harmonized” with the forensic evidence).