of an official’s actions.” Id. at 571. Because the facts establish the officers’ use of deadly force was reasonable, a reasonable fact finder could not conclude the officers’ conduct was willful or malicious. Here, the facts reflect the officers had every reason to believe they and the public were in danger, and that using deadly force against Jeilani to protect themselves and bystanders was reasonable. Thus, the officers are entitled to a dismissal of Hassan’s wrongful death claim. Furthermore, because hiring, supervising, and training police officers are policy-level activities, the City, by statute, has discretionary immunity from any tort liability based on negligence. Minn.Stat. § 466.03, subd. 6; Fear v. Indep. Sch. Dist., 911, 634 N.W.2d 204, 212 (Minn.Ct.App.2001) (<HOLDING>); Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit
holding that protected activities include making complaints to management holding that as a general rule interlocutory trial court orders rejecting defenses of common law sovereign immunity governmental immunity public official immunity statutory immunity or any other type of immunity are not appealable under the maryland collateral order doctrine holding that decisions of hiring supervising training and retaining are considered policylevel activities protected by statutory immunity holding that a defendant may be seen as supervising the four drivers he used in his criminal activities holding that the prosecutors activities in preparing and filing an information and motion for an arrest warrant were protected by absolute immunity