On last Friday afternoon, only 17 days after winning his primary election for Attorney General Bill Sorrell released a statement clearing a Vermont State Trooper in a fatal shooting death. State Trooper Dustin Robinson fired seven shots striking John Martel once after the burglary suspect ‘failed to respond’ or refused to comply with orders. There were no witnesses to the shooting other than Trooper Robinson, who says, as reported by A.G. Sorrell, that after being fatally shot Martel told him  “I wanted to die.”

The Attorney General’s ‘report’ cited medical examiner’s findings that agreed with the trooper’s (unwitnessed) version of the shooting death. According to the AG’s statement, the use of deadly force is justified when an officer believes that he is in danger of death or serious injury, and that deadly force is needed to respond.

Attorney General Bill Sorrell affirmed [Trooper] Robinson’s account of the shooting: that he opened fire on Martel after the burglary suspect refused to obey his instructions and twice pointed what appeared to be a handgun at the trooper. The object turned out to be a cellphone.

After the jump: Sorrell: "… that's a tall order"

This summer the Attorney General told Vtdigger.com that like all citizens (even suspects?) police officers are, of course, presumed innocent. But Sorrel added:

“To say a police officer is intentionally trying to kill someone without cause: that’s a tall order.”

A day after the April 30, 2012, shooting, while facts were still being gathered, State Police Col. Thomas L'Esperance said at a news conference "John Martel made a decision when he was confronted by Trooper Robinson …” L’Eperance could also have noted back then that the only other man present at the shooting – the trooper – also made a choice, as Friday’s AG statement makes clear:

As Martel kept making movements in his belt area, Tpr. Robinson put away his taser and took out his firearm, repeating commands to Martel to show his hands.

Suicide by cop?

A recent report exploring ‘suicide by cop’ say it has taken on life of its own and become a broad catch phrase with police spokespeople and the media. Theories about it vary widely but a former NJ police officer and expert on ‘suicide by cop’ who teaches criminal justice and has reportedly done extensive research says:

He did not believe they [alleged suicides] possessed full understanding of the fact that their aggressive actions would cause their death.

In this case, it seems convenient that the ‘dying statement’ of a fleeing suspect (whose death was caused by a gunshot wound in the lower back) was witnessed solely by the person with the most investment in hearing a statement that would exonerate him.

Questions:

How does a cell phone look like gun? If a cell phone can be made into a “deadly weapon,” who makes that app? What training do police officers get in identifying actual deadly weapons versus innocent objects that an officer’s fear may transform into the illusion of a weapon? How often is a trooper’s visual acuity checked?

And, btw, Mr. Attorney General, since when do police have the training to be judge, jury, and – in a state supposedly without a death penalty – executioner with the knowledge they will receive the ultimate blessing of your office? Do you suppose that if you even once had found an officer’s shooting of an unarmed civilian not justified and the trooper faced consequences, the next cop might have second thoughts before killing someone wielding a phone or a pen or a harmonica?