Simply put, there was no clearly established law that says an officer must not appproach an individual openly displaying a firearm not in common use for the situation at hand with extreme caution. More simply put, the officer was exercising reasonable caution for a situation never before encountered and not commonly established in law (openly carrying a Draco with an orange painted tip in a park setting). Therefore qualified immunity would be appropriate to assert. It would be up to the court to set case precedent by either granting or disallowing qualified immunity in this case.
I hope that's not directed at me, because outrage and blame would be far too strong to describe how I feel about his actions (or him). Dismissive might be the best way to describe my opinion. As for the officer, I find him foolish for being baited into the situation. I'm not saying you should approach every contact with a gun as "Officer Friendly, but unless someone is in emminent danger a circumspect approach is a good idea. Said officer should be required to issue a written apology and undergo additional training, which should also be pushed down to the entire force. Said officer should not be found guilty of a civil rights violation, based on the aforementioned qualified immunity. As for the agency, they have a duty to train. I wouldn't be firm on whether the agency should or shouldn't be held civilly liable. Since civil liability is a preponderance of evidence, I'd probably find for the plaintiff and award $1 in damages, were I on the jury (which I would never be selected
According to this interpretation, anything not specifically forbidden for officers would be allowed. I think this is an incorrect application of this legal principle. What if the officer encountered someone juggling bats, something they had never before encountered and not commonly established in law. And there is no clearly established law that prohibits the officer from approaching said individual. See where I'm going???