RENO COUNTY, Kan. – May 14, 2026 – The Reno County District Attorney’s Office has completed review of the use of deadly force that resulted in the death of Cassondra Scott. The Kansas Bureau of Investigations conducted the investigation related to the incident that occurred on March 29, 2026, in Hutchinson, Reno County, Kansas.
This report details the findings and conclusions limited specifically to the criminal liability of the officer employed by the Hutchinson Police Department that shot Ms. Scott on March 29, 2026. The sole question addressed by the District Attorney is whether sufficient evidence exists to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that a violation of the criminal laws of the State of Kansas occurred in this instance.
SUMMARY OF FACTS
On March 29, 2026, just after 9:00 p.m., officers from the Hutchinson Police Department responded to a 911 call reporting that a female, Cassondra Scott, was pointing a rifle at houses and threatening to shoot someone in the 200 block of W. 28th Avenue, in Hutchinson, Reno County, Kansas. The area consists primarily of occupied single-family dwellings.
During the 911 call, Scott made numerous statements of her intention to commit violence. The following statements were made:
– “I am going to start shooting my neighbors in 1 minute.”
– “I have a gun in my hands, outside my house, and I am going to start shooting randomly at people.”
– “Yes, I have a gun in my hand. It’s really big and heavy, I cannot tell you anything more.”
– Scott stated that the officers “needed to have their guns ready.
– “It’s a long gun. Please tell your officers I’m sorry for putting them in this position. Don’t release the video to my child or parents please.”
– Dispatch pleaded with Scott to put the gun down. Scott stated “I ain’t doing it today, nope. I’m going to shoot.”
The Hutchinson Police Officers who responded to the incident were all uniformed and properly identified city law enforcement officers and the vehicles they were in were properly marked patrol cars with lights and sirens. All officers present were engaged in the performance of their official duties.
The Hutchinson Police Department was familiar with Cassondra Scott. She has a history of arrests in Hutchinson, including aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery, criminal damage to property, and multiple DUIs. Earlier in the day the Hutchinson Police were at Scott’s residence because she called in a disturbance and but then refused to cooperate. At 5:52 p.m., dispatch received a call stating Scott was suicidal and threatened to pull a gun on cops with the intention to have a cop shoot her.
Because of the earlier incident and information, officers tried to make contact with Scott by telephone as they were responding to talk to her and de-escalate the situation. Because Scott did not answer the call, officers attempted to reach her by text message. Scott did not answer the text messages.
Multiple Hutchinson Police Officers arrived on scene and found Scott outside her residence at 207 W. 28th Avenue holding a rifle. The first officer arrived and approached her house from the west in his patrol vehicle. As he pulled in front of her house, Scott pointed the rifle at him. Upon seeing the gun pointed at him, he quickly reversed his vehicle and found a position of cover towards the west. The officer immediately advised his fellow officers that she was pointing a gun at him. Scott was approximately 30 yards away from him. This officer shouted to Scott to drop the gun. Scott raised her gun at this officer multiple times before she transitioned her focus towards other officers arriving from the east.
Four other police officers arrived on 28th Avenue from the east and parked their vehicles at the Adams Street intersection. It was dark, but officers could see what looked like a bolt action hunting rifle with a scope in her hands. Scott actively pointed the firearm at multiple Hutchinson Police Officers and approached the group of four officers. The officers attempted to maintain a position of cover and attempted to use their training to verbally de-escalate the situation. The officers attempted to talk to Ms. Scott and get her to put the gun down for approximately two and a half minutes. Officers attempted numerous de-escalation tactics. During this time Scott remained combative and continued to point her rifle at them.
Scott can be heard yelling “I will shoot – – I will shoot.” “What? I swear to God I will shoot, I will shoot you.” “I will not put the gun down, shoot me.”
During the incident, at least one neighbor came out of their house. Due to the dangerous nature of the situation, officers directed the neighbor to go back inside. Scott was given multiple verbal commands to drop the gun, but Scott refused. Scott continued to point the gun at police officers.
Scott advanced on officers while continuing to point the rifle in their direction. Scott was told to stop but she continued to approach officers. Scott’s behavior caused officers to fear she would fire her weapon them or the citizens in the neighborhood. An officer fired two shots in Scott’s direction with his rifle. One shot struck Scott in the abdomen. Officers immediately rushed to provide first aid and aided EMS workers in loading her into the ambulance.
Officers recovered a rifle from Scott at the scene. The gun was ultimately determined to be an air rifle. The rifle had scope attached to it and was completely black and contained no visible indications that it was an air rifle. The appearance and general character of the rifle along with the dark conditions on the street at the time made the rifle indistinguishable from an actual firearm.
EMS took Scott to the Hutchinson Regional Medical Center and later transferred to a hospital in Wichita in an attempt to save her life. Medical personnel were unable to save Scott. She died of her injuries.
APPLICABLE KANSAS LAW
Kansas Law gives all persons, including law enforcement officers, the right to defend themselves and others against the use of unlawful force. K.S.A. 21-5220 states:
(a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person.
(c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
“Use of force” includes words or actions directed at or upon another person or thing that reasonably convey the threat of force, the presentation or display of the means of force, in this case a rifle, or the application of physical force, including by a weapon. “Use of deadly force” means the application of any physical force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to a person.
The Kansas Supreme Court has stated that a self-defense claim presents a “two prong test”:
“The first is subjective and requires a showing that McCullough sincerely and honestly believed it was necessary to kill to defend herself or others. The second prong is an objective standard and requires a showing that a reasonable person in [the same] circumstances would have perceived the use of deadly force in self-defense as necessary.” State v. McCullough, 293 Kan. 970 (2012). “
The United States Supreme Court stated in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989) that with respect to a law enforcement officer’s use of force, any assessment of objective reasonableness must take into account the contextual realities faced by the officer:
“The ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.”
“The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.”
Kansas law authorizes use of force under K.S.A. 21-5227, Use of Force; law enforcement officer making an arrest, which states:
“A law enforcement officer, or any person whom such law enforcement officer has summoned or directed to assist in making a lawful arrest need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. Such officer is justified in the use of any force which such officer reasonably believes to be necessary to effect the arrest and the use of any force which such officer reasonably believes to be necessary to defend the officer’s self or another from bodily harm while making the arrest. However, such officer is justified in using deadly force only when such officer reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to such officer or another person, or when such officer reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by resistance or escape and such officer has probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving death or great bodily harm or is attempting to escape by use of a deadly weapon, or otherwise indicates that such person will endanger human life or inflict great bodily harm unless arrested without delay.”
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of all the evidence, Scott committed several felonies on May 29, 2026, including violations of K.S.A. 21-5412(c)(1) aggravated assault of multiple law enforcement officers as well as K.S.A. 21-5415, criminal threat. The investigation established that Cassandra Scott had made several threatening statements about shooting people. Scott pointed the gun at numerous officers and refused lawful commands to drop her weapon. Officers attempted to reason with Scott for over two minutes to drop the gun and talk to the officers. Scott then aggressively closed the distance to police officers maintaining cover behind a vehicle parked on the road.
The officers who responded were placed in a difficult position of dealing with an armed individual who made numerous statements that she would shoot someone that night and threatened the officers with her weapon. The officers attempted, without success, to de-escalate the situation. Ms. Scott continued to aggressively approach the officers to the point the officers were required to take action to stop the threat under the circumstances of this case. The Hutchinson Police Officer involved in this incident reacted based on both an objective and subjective reasonable belief that the use of lethal force was necessary to protect themselves and other citizens from great bodily injury or death. The Hutchinson Police Officer’s actions were legally justified. It is my conclusion that the officer is absolved from any wrongdoing.
Thomas R. Stanton
Thomas R. Stanton
Reno County District Attorney
