HUTCHINSON, Kan. – July 17, 2026 – The Reno County District Attorney has completed a review of the use of deadly force that resulted in the death of Jonathan T. Lawrence. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation related to the incident that occurred on June 7, 2026, in Hutchinson, Reno County, Kansas.
This report details the findings and conclusions limited specifically to the criminal liability of the officers employed by the Hutchinson Police Department involved in the shooting of Mr. Lawrence on June 7, 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
At approximately 5:00 PM on Sunday, June 7, 2026, a Hutchinson Police Department Patrol Officer was dispatched to the Kwik Shop located at 1330 E. 30th Ave. in Hutchinson regarding the report of a theft. Upon arrival, the officer contacted the clerk working at the store who advised the officer that a male subject had entered the store requesting to purchase beer. Because beer sales are not allowed on Sunday under local law, the clerk advised the subject that he would not be able to purchase beer that day. Despite the admonition by the clerk that the subject could not buy beer the beer on Sunday, the subject put $30 on the counter and left with a case of beer. The clerk reported the subject physically grabbed the clerk’s wrist and removed her hand from the property before walking out of the store. The subject was described as a white male in his 40s with a grayish shirt and tan khaki pants. The beer was described as a case of Coors Light.
The theft suspect left in a green four door passenger car, and another patron of the store was able to take a photograph of the vehicle’s license plate. That information was provided to the officer on scene. The officer ran a registration check on the plate and it came back on a green Toyota registered to a female at 3313 Dartmouth Rd. in Hutchinson. The officer did not recognize the name on the registration from any prior incidents.
The HPD officer completed his initial investigation at the Kwik Shop then drove to the area of 3313 Dartmouth Rd. where he contacted a neighbor. The neighbor confirmed that a vehicle matching the description of the suspect vehicle did belong at the residence at 3313 Dartmouth Rd. Intending to make contact with the suspect, the officer requested a second patrol officer be sent to 3313 Dartmouth Rd. The second officer arrived shortly thereafter. Both officers were driving clearly identifiable Hutchinson Police Department patrol units and were dressed in Hutchinson Police Department uniforms clearly identifying them as police officers.
The two officers made contact with a female subject at the front door of 3313 Dartmouth Rd. the officers asked the female if a male matching the description of the person who stole the beer lived at the residence and received an affirmative reply. The woman agreed to go get the subject, who was at that time in the basement of the residence, and bring him out to meet with officers. The intent of the officers at that point was to interview the male subject, check him for outstanding warrants, and issue a citation for theft if their investigation provided probable cause that he had committed a crime.
The woman did bring the male up from the basement, through the garage, and opened the garage door so the officers could speak to the suspect. The white male subject to came out of the house was wearing a grayish shirt and khaki pants and was holding a Coors Light beer can in his hand. The subject clearly matched the description given to the officers by the Kwik Shop clerk.
The subject was identified as Jonathan T. Lawrence, and was found to be a resident of 3313 Dartmouth Rd. Mr. Lawrence was 6’4” tall and weighed 220 pounds. As he walked out of the garage, officers asked him if he knew why they were there, and he responded that it probably had something to do with beer from the gas station. Mr. Lawrence claimed he had previously been a police officer and that he had some health problems for which he self-medicated with alcohol.
While speaking with Mr. Lawrence, both officers observed what appeared to be the butt of the gun protruding from Lawrence’s right front hip pocket. One of the officers also observed what appeared to be a magazine for a firearm in another pocket. Mr. Lawrence was asked if he was armed, and he replied, “Yes, it’s a pistol in my pocket.” The officers were concerned based upon the subject’s demeanor, use of alcohol, and claim of prior police experience that the firearm posed a danger to officers in the ongoing investigation. The officers approached Mr. Lawrence in a nonaggressive manner to remove the firearm for the safety of all involved. Mr. Lawrence aggressively resisted the officers in their attempt to disarm him. The officers again tried to reason with Mr. Lawrence, but he refused to cooperate. Mr. Lawrence then threw his beer at the officers and retreated into the garage.
At this point, both officers were in danger of being shot by Mr. Lawrence. The officers deployed tasers in an attempt to use nonlethal force to control the situation. There was a set of stairs leading to the basement at the back of the garage, and that is where Mr. Lawrence sought refuge. He fell down the stairs while being tased, and the probes from the Taser disengaged from his body. Officers physically engaged Mr. Lawrence in an attempt to subdue him while attempting to speak to him to calm him down. Mr. Lawrence continued to resist officers. At some point, the firearm and the magazine fell onto the basement floor within about 2 feet of the hands of Mr. Lawrence. Officers continued their attempt to control Mr. Lawrence and he continued to fight. One officer lay across the upper body of Mr. Lawrence in an attempt to control his hands.
Mr. Lawrence reached out and re-obtained control over the firearm during the altercation and began to turn it toward the upper body and face of the officer who was on top of him. At that point, that officer, fearing for his life, yelled for the other second officer to discharge his firearm to control the situation. That officer discharged 10 rounds from his firearm, eight of which struck Mr. Lawrence. Mr. Lawrence was later pronounced dead at the Hutchinson Regional Medical Center.
Law enforcement officers retrieved the firearm and the extra magazine after a search warrant was obtained from the District Court. Inspection of the firearm indicated it was a properly functioning 9 mm firearm. There was a round in the chamber when Mr. Lawrence confronted the officers during this incident, indicating Mr. Lawence could have fired on the officers at will. The investigation also showed that there was a magazine in the firearm holding 13 additional Luger 9 mm cartridges at the time the officers encountered Mr. Lawrence. The magazine that had been in the pocket of Mr. Lawrence’s pants was an extended magazine holding an additional 21 Luger 9mm cartridges.
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. 21-5222 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 handgun, 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, Jonathan Lawrence committed violent felonies or misdemeanors on June 7, 2026, including two crimes under K.S.A. 21-5412(c)(1): assault of multiple police officers, two crimes under K.S.A. 21-5412(d)(1): aggravated assault of multiple law enforcement officers. The officers in this case responded to a report of the crime of theft occurring at a Kwik Shop in Hutchinson. Police officers are under a duty to investigate the commission of crimes that happen within their jurisdiction, whether those crimes be misdemeanors or felonies. The officers in this case contacted the suspect identified as perpetrating the theft with the intent to investigate that crime and take minimal necessary enforcement action. When they attempted to interview the suspect, they found him to be intoxicated and armed with a handgun. The officers’ attempt to make the situation safe by disarming the suspect was reasonable under the circumstances of this case. The officers remained calm after their initial attempt to disarm Mr. Lawrence and again sought a peaceful resolution to the situation. Mr. Lawrence reacted by assaulting the law enforcement officers by pushing them away and throwing beer and a beer can at them. Mr. Lawrence then attempted to retreat into a residence. The officers attempted to use non-lethal force to control Lawrence, which again was reasonable under the circumstances, and this response was also reasonable under the circumstances. Finally, when all other measures to control Mr. Lawrence had failed and he was placing the officers in clear mortal danger, the officers used deadly force to meet the threat posed to them by Mr. Lawrence. This response was clearly reasonable under the facts of this case.
Allowing Mr. Lawrence to retreat into the residence would have increased the chances that the officers would be shot immediately, or that a barricaded subject situation would result in placing even more law enforcement officers and members of the public in danger. The officers reacted by attempting to use nonlethal force, which, while initially effective, became ineffective after the suspect went down the stairs and probes from the Taser disengaged from his body. Mr. Lawrence, rather than obeying the commands to stop resisting, chose to obtain the firearm and attempt to turn the gun on a police officer. The second officer fired his weapon in order to save the life of his fellow officer.
The officers who were involved in this matter were placed in a difficult position of dealing with an armed individual who refused to obey lawful commands to allow the officers to remove the firearm in his possession for the safety of all involved. The officers attempted, without success, to de-escalate the situation. Mr. Lawrence continued to fight officers, take control of the firearm, and attempted to shoot the officers, resulting in violations of the law at a minimum of aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer, and at a maximum attempted murder of a law enforcement officer. The Hutchinson Police Officers 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 Officers’ actions in this matter were legally justified. It is my conclusion that the officers are absolved from any wrongdoing.
There is a simple but important lesson present in this case. I implore all citizens of Reno County to follow the lawful orders of law enforcement officers. Becoming aggressive with law enforcement officers never leads to a positive outcome. If a citizen feels he or she has been wronged in some way by a law enforcement officer, there are ways to deal with those complaints in a manner that will protect the health and safety of all involved after the fact. Please take advantage of those avenues of redress rather than resisting lawful orders of our local law enforcement officers. It is better that you go home to your loved ones than to end up in jail or worse because of threats made to the lives and safety of the men and women charged with enforcing our laws and keeping our community safe.
Thomas R. Stanton
Thomas R. Stanton
Reno County District Attorney
