2 responses to “Vermont Police Sergeant Charged in 2023 Rutland Shooting”

1. 

   KJ McIlveen

   November 1, 2024

   No wonder no one is breaking down the doors to the academy to become a certified law enforcement officer!

   Loading…

   Reply
   1. 

      LAUREY J PACKARD

      November 3, 2024

      The U.S. Constitution itself doesn’t directly address the right to use lethal force, but the legal framework for when it’s allowed, particularly in self-defense or the defense of others, is shaped by constitutional principles, case law, and state laws. Specifically, the Due Process Clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Second Amendment have influenced how the courts interpret self-defense and defense-of-others situations.

      Key Constitutional Principles and Case Law

      Due Process and Self-Defense

      The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee due process, which courts interpret as a right to life and personal security. Under these principles, people have a right to protect themselves or others from imminent harm or death if necessary, and courts have ruled that lethal force can be legally justified in specific circumstances.

      Graham v. Connor (1989): The Supreme Court clarified that the reasonableness of using force (including deadly force) must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person on the scene, considering the danger present.

      The Right to Bear Arms (Second Amendment)

      Although the Second Amendment addresses the right to bear arms, it doesn’t explicitly grant a right to shoot or use those arms in any particular situation. Nonetheless, the amendment supports self-defense as a fundamental right. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed that individuals have the right to keep firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home, which has been influential in understanding self-defense in other contexts.

      “Imminent Danger” in Legal Context

      The “imminent danger” standard, often used in criminal law, typically permits the use of lethal force to prevent severe harm or death. Most U.S. states allow lethal force if:

      A person reasonably believes there is an immediate threat of severe injury or death.

      The person facing the threat or someone they are protecting cannot escape the danger safely.

      The response (use of deadly force) is proportionate to the threat.

      The specific legal justification and defense often fall under state self-defense laws rather than the Constitution itself. States have various laws, like “Stand Your Ground” or “Castle Doctrine” laws, that outline when lethal force is justifiable in self-defense or defense of others.

      The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the use of deadly force in several landmark cases, focusing on the circumstances under which it is reasonable to use such force, particularly by law enforcement. While the Court hasn’t ruled directly on civilian-on-civilian cases of deadly force for self-defense or defense of others, its decisions have shaped the legal landscape and set standards for “reasonableness” in the use of force. Here are some key cases:

      1. Tennessee v. Garner (1985)

      In Tennessee v. Garner, the Court ruled that law enforcement officers cannot use deadly force to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect unless they have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to officers or others. This decision established that the use of deadly force must be objectively reasonable and only justified if there is an imminent threat.

      This case set an important precedent in applying the “imminent danger” standard for the use of deadly force, especially emphasizing that it must be a last resort.

      2. Graham v. Connor (1989)

      In Graham v. Connor, the Court elaborated on the “objective reasonableness” standard under the Fourth Amendment. It held that the use of force must be assessed based on what a reasonable officer would do in the same circumstances, considering the immediacy of the threat and the context, rather than in hindsight.

      Though this case is also about police use of force, the standard of reasonableness has broadly influenced interpretations of self-defense and defense of others, highlighting that deadly force must match the perceived threat level in that moment.

      3. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

      In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm unconnected to service in a militia, primarily for self-defense within the home. While this decision did not establish a right to use deadly force specifically, it reaffirmed self-defense as a core component of the right to bear arms.

      The Court recognized self-defense as an inherent right but left details about the use of deadly force to state and local laws.

      4. McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

      This case extended the Heller ruling, affirming that the right to bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. By reinforcing the Second Amendment’s application nationwide, the decision underscored the right to possess firearms for lawful self-defense, though it did not directly address the use of force against others.

      Implications for Civilian Self-Defense and Defense of Others

      While the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on cases specifically about civilians using deadly force in defense of others, these cases shape how courts and legislatures define and interpret “reasonable” force. Generally:

      Deadly force is considered legally permissible in self-defense or defense of others when there is a reasonable belief of imminent threat to life or serious injury.

      The Court’s rulings emphasize that the use of force must be proportionate and necessary in response to an immediate threat.

      For civilians, state laws—often informed by the principles in Garner and Graham—dictate when deadly force is justifiable, with many states allowing it in cases where a person or others face imminent harm.

      Vermont law allows individuals to use deadly force in certain self-defense situations, including the defense of others, but it sets specific requirements to ensure that such force is reasonable and necessary. The use of deadly force in Vermont follows general self-defense principles found in many states, emphasizing that force must be proportional to the threat and applied only when there is no reasonable alternative.

      Key Points in Vermont Law on Deadly Force and Self-Defense

      Reasonable Belief of Imminent Threat

      Vermont law permits the use of deadly force if a person reasonably believes that they or another person are in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. The perceived threat must be immediate, meaning there is no time to seek other safe options.

      Duty to Retreat

      Vermont does not have a formal “Stand Your Ground” law like some states, but it generally follows a version of the “castle doctrine” within one’s home. This means that in most cases outside the home, a person has a duty to retreat, if safely possible, before resorting to deadly force. However, if they are inside their own home, they do not have a duty to retreat and may use force to protect themselves against an intruder if there is an imminent threat of serious harm.

      Outside the home, if a person can safely avoid the threat by retreating, they are generally required to do so before using deadly force.

      Proportional Use of Force

      Vermont requires that any use of force, particularly deadly force, must be proportionate to the threat. Deadly force can only be used if the threat involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm. Using deadly force in response to a minor or non-life-threatening threat could be considered excessive and may not be legally justified.

      Defense of Others

      Vermont law extends the right to use force, including deadly force, to protect another person who is in imminent danger of serious injury or death. However, the same rules apply: the force must be necessary, reasonable, and proportionate to the threat.

      Legal Consequences and Self-Defense Defense

      In Vermont, if someone uses deadly force in self-defense or defense of others, they may need to prove in court that their actions were reasonable and necessary under the circumstances. This is typically evaluated through evidence showing they believed there was an imminent threat and that deadly force was the only reasonable way to prevent it.

      If the court finds the use of force unreasonable or unnecessary, the person may face criminal charges, even if they intended to protect themselves or others.

      In Vermont, deadly force is legally justified if:

      There is a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.

      The use of force is proportionate to the level of threat.

      Outside the home, retreat is attempted if safe and feasible before using deadly force, unless it is unsafe to do so. (Civilian).

      Ultimately, each case is judged on its specific facts, and Vermont courts closely examine whether the use of deadly force met the state’s standards for reasonable and necessary self-defense or defense of others.

      The Vermont Supreme Court has addressed issues related to self-defense and the use of deadly force in several key cases. While the Court has not set out a comprehensive rule specifically regarding the use of deadly force, its decisions have clarified important principles related to self-defense that are applicable in Vermont. Here are a few notable cases:

      1. State v. Cummings (2001)

      In this case, the Vermont Supreme Court discussed the definition of self-defense and the criteria for its application. The Court emphasized that the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury.

      The ruling reinforced that the belief in the need to use deadly force must be both subjectively held by the defendant and objectively reasonable from the standpoint of a typical person in similar circumstances.

      2. State v. Morrow (2002)

      This case involved the question of whether the defendant acted in self-defense when he used lethal force against an alleged assailant. The Court held that the defendant’s belief in the imminent threat of harm must be assessed in the context of the circumstances surrounding the incident.

      The Court stated that self-defense claims must be supported by evidence showing that the defendant faced an immediate threat, and it is necessary for the jury to evaluate whether the force used was reasonable given the situation.

      3. State v. Marceau (2010)

      In Marceau, the Vermont Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a defendant had the right to use deadly force in self-defense. The ruling reiterated that the use of deadly force is only justified if the defendant reasonably believes that such force is necessary to protect themselves from an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death.

      The Court also noted the importance of the duty to retreat, emphasizing that the defendant must consider whether a safe escape was possible before resorting to deadly force.

      4. State v. Smith (2021)

      In this more recent case, the Vermont Supreme Court reinforced the necessity for clear instructions regarding the self-defense standard when evaluating claims of lethal force. The Court held that juries must be properly instructed on the nuances of self-defense law, including the context of the threat and the reasonableness of the defendant’s perception of danger.

      This decision underscored the need for clear legal guidance in assessing whether a claim of self-defense meets the criteria established by both statutory and case law.

      General Principles Derived from Vermont Supreme Court Cases

      Imminent Threat: There must be a reasonable belief in an imminent threat of death or serious injury for deadly force to be justified.

      Proportional Response: The response must be proportionate to the threat faced; using deadly force against a non-lethal threat may not be legally justified.

      Duty to Retreat: Outside of one’s home, a person must attempt to retreat if it is safe to do so before using deadly force.

      Reasonableness Standard: Both the subjective belief of the defendant and the objective standard of what a reasonable person would believe are crucial in determining the justification of deadly force.

      These rulings and principles shape how self-defense claims, particularly those involving deadly force, are evaluated in Vermont courts. Each case is considered on its specific facts, and the context surrounding the use of force is critical in judicial assessments of whether the use of deadly force was justified.

      In Vermont, the justification for officer-involved shootings—especially in cases where a suspect is attempting to evade arrest and poses a threat to law enforcement—relies on a few key legal principles and precedents. These situations are generally assessed based on whether officers had a reasonable belief that their lives or the lives of others were in imminent danger.

      Key Principles for Justification in Officer-Involved Shootings

      Imminent Threat: Officers are allowed to use deadly force when they reasonably believe that their lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. This includes situations where a suspect is using their vehicle as a weapon or actively trying to injure an officer.

      Fleeing Suspects: When suspects attempt to evade arrest by fleeing in a vehicle, the context matters significantly. If an officer believes that the suspect is trying to escape and poses a direct threat—such as steering their vehicle towards an officer—this could justify the use of deadly force.

      Reasonable Officer Standard: Courts typically apply the “reasonable officer” standard, evaluating the actions of the officers involved based on what a reasonable law enforcement officer would believe and do under similar circumstances. This assessment considers factors such as:

      The severity of the crime.

      Whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others.

      Whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to flee.

      Case Examples and Precedents

      While specific cases of officer-involved shootings in Vermont may not be widely reported in the same way as other jurisdictions, the general legal framework and principles established in federal cases apply. Here are a couple of cases from other jurisdictions that illustrate the rationale that may also be applicable in Vermont:

      Tennessee v. Garner (1985): The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that deadly force may be used to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious injury to officers or others. This principle is integral to assessing officer conduct in Vermont.

      Graham v. Connor (1989): This Supreme Court decision established the “objective reasonableness” standard, which is used to evaluate the actions of law enforcement officers in situations where deadly force is employed. This standard would assess whether an officer’s response to a suspect attempting to elude them in a vehicle was reasonable based on the immediate threat perceived.

      Vermont-Specific Context

      In the context of Vermont, while there may not be a vast number of publicized cases regarding officer-involved shootings specifically involving suspects steering vehicles at officers, the same legal standards would apply:

      Officer Training and Policies: Vermont law enforcement agencies typically have training protocols regarding the use of force, emphasizing de-escalation and situational assessment. Officers are trained to evaluate threats quickly and respond appropriately.

      Investigation and Oversight: Officer-involved shootings in Vermont are generally subject to investigation by independent agencies, such as the Vermont State Police or the Vermont Attorney General’s Office, to ensure accountability and adherence to legal standards.

      In Vermont, officer-involved shootings may be deemed justified when a suspect poses an imminent threat—such as attempting to elude arrest by steering their vehicle towards an officer. The justification hinges on the perception of danger by the officers involved, assessed through the lens of what a reasonable officer would conclude in the same situation.

      In the situation with Sgt. Plemmons:

      Key Considerations in the Situation

      Known Threat Level:

      The officers are aware that the individuals in the vehicle are known drug dealers and may be armed. This prior knowledge raises the threat level for the officers involved, as they must assess the potential risk to themselves and the public.

      Refusal to Comply:

      When the occupants of the vehicle refuse to comply with lawful orders to exit the vehicle, this behavior can be interpreted as escalating the situation. Their refusal may suggest potential intent to evade arrest or engage in further illegal activity.

      Attempt to Flee:

      If the individuals in the vehicle attempt to flee and drive toward an officer, this action could be perceived as an imminent threat. In many jurisdictions, including Vermont, the use of a vehicle as a weapon against an officer justifies a strong response.

      Officer Injury:

      The minor injury sustained by the officer further complicates the situation. Even if the injury is not severe, it underscores the danger posed by the suspects’ actions and could provide a basis for an officer’s decision to use force in response.

      Legal Framework

      Self-Defense and Defense of Others:

      Vermont law permits the use of force, including deadly force, if an officer reasonably believes that their life or the life of another is in imminent danger. In this scenario, if the officer perceives the vehicle as a weapon and believes that they are at risk of serious injury or death, this could justify the use of force.

      Objective Reasonableness Standard:

      The use of force by law enforcement is evaluated under the “objective reasonableness” standard established in Graham v. Connor. This means that the actions of the officer will be judged based on what a reasonable officer would have done in the same situation, considering the facts and circumstances at the time.

      Duty to Retreat:

      Vermont does not have a formal duty to retreat for officers in the line of duty. Instead, officers are trained to respond to threats as necessary, particularly when faced with imminent danger.

      Potential Use of Force Policies:

      Vermont law enforcement agencies typically have specific policies and training regarding the use of force, emphasizing de-escalation when possible. However, the use of force, including deadly force, is justified when faced with a credible threat, particularly from known armed individuals.

      I know I am repeating myself, but I’m not seeing any difference between what happened here in 2023 and this: https://apnews.com/article/rutland-vermont-shootings-police-463bce03ced6bec0007ba81f2d6dfdc6.

      Loading…

      Reply