Vermont: Self Defense or Did Lady Die of an OD

[nate45]

Laws are laws and we have a legal system, etc...

That notwithstanding I find it irksome that consideration is given to a crack smoking, would be robber. Especially when all the clerk did was hold her down.

I realize this incident doesn't exactly meet the criteria of the SD/HD situations we usually discuss. Even so I can't help thinking about the civil penalty the clerk may have to endure and why immunity from civil suit is so important.

The whole notion that a perpetrator of a robbery who died, or was injured during the course of a crime, could then have themselves, or their families rewarded/compensated in a civil judgment is ridiculous.

 

[dyl]

I've heard there is a law that places responsibility of deaths caused during a crime on the person committing it. Although it may not apply here as it is possible no one was "killed" - does that include responsibility for your own death?

 

[44 AMP]

First of all, the language used in the report is suspect. It makes assumptions, no doubt suggested by the prosecution, or the defense....or simply a reporter or editor with an agenda...

Lets look at a few basic facts, and assume them to be true, as reported...
Woman had a knife.
Attempted robbery.
Clerk held her down.

Ok, so far? knife is a deadly weapon. Robbery with a knife is armed robbery, so to me that puts it in the violent felony category.

Now the clerk held her down (we assume he disarmed her, otherwise he might have been stabbed/cut and there was no mention of that)

Now, the report says held her down and compressed her chest
Just what, exactly does this mean? That he did CPR chest compressions on her while waiting for the police to show up? Because she was having a heart attack ( arrhythmia )?

Or does it mean he held her down with his body weight across her chest, to restrain her from escaping? And that some lawyer, recognising that someone laying on you compresses your chest decided that was what triggered the heart attack?

Leaving out the commonly known fact that a large cocaine concentration in the body can cause a heart attack, all on its own, without the added stressors of attempting a violent physical act like armed robbery?

My wife has arrhythmia, and it can lead to a fatal heart attack. No question of that, I have numerous hours spent in hospital emergency rooms as personal testimony to that possibility. She controls hers (mostly) with medication. If have a firm conviction that if she was a cocaine user (even with prescribed meds) she would have died from a cocaine induced heart attack.

Based on what was reported, lacking in critical details as it is, there is no doubt in my mind that the woman died as a result of her own actions (knowingly or not) and that the clerk did not "kill" her.

That the clerk "killed" her is lawyer BS, in my not so humble opinion, and I don't see how a jury (who will, presumably have facts that we do not) will see it any other way.

The woman OD'd. Clearly, as far as I can see with the facts in my possession.
If there is something significant being withheld, I reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[pax]

All good points so far, so let me throw a monkey wrench into the mix:

Civil law has a concept called the "eggshell skull" rule, which basically says an attacker takes the victim as he finds him -- that when someone commits a negligent act that leads to another person getting injured, then that person is culpable for the entire extent of the injury even if the victim had some pre existing condition that turned what should have been a minor problem into a major one.

In criminal law, a similar doctrine applies in self defense. If you have (for example) a bleeding disorder, the attacker doesn't have to know he is putting you in legitimate & reasonable fear for your life if he threatens to punch you. You simply have to know it and be able to articulate your reasonable belief that the person about to punch you in the head was actually about to use deadly force against you whether he fully realized it or not.

Seems to me that the eggshell skull doctrine comes into play on this one. The clerk didn't know & couldn't have known that the woman had put herself into a physically precarious condition, but IF it's found that he used too much force, he's on the hook for the entire consequences.

pax

 

[ltc444]

This sounds like an ambulance chaser setting the stage for a civil suit.

 

[mehavey]

From the Op Cit Cite:

"... liable for all consequences resulting from his or her tortious (usually negligent)
activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers an unusually
high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-existing vulnerability or medical condition)...."

The injury must derive from negligent and/or unlawful action. As the Clerk was engaged in
neither -- being in defense against an unprovoked attack by someone else wielding deadly
force -- the "eggshell skull" concept should not be applicable.

 

[pax]

mehavey, note the bold, italicized, and capitalized word in my first post.

IF it's found that he used too much force to hold her, he's on the hook for her death. It's no defense to say that he didn't know she was especially fragile; that's the point of the eggshell skull doctrine.

Of course, IF it's found that the level of force he used was reasonable under the circumstances, then the consequences of using that force don't fall on him.

The legal vulnerability arises if someone says, "Well, yeah, but he didn't have to hold her down, he coulda just..." -- and the jury agrees that he used more force than was reasonable under the circumstances. If they decide he used more force than he should have, he'll be on the hook for the consequences of using that force, which include her unexpected death.

pax

 

[Sefner]

Excellent post about the Eggshell Skull Rule, pax. This is why I come to this forum.

It looks like we now have to ask if what the clerk did was reasonable force... Holding someone with a knife down after they've tried to attack you with a knife? People have been shot over less and the shooter has not been charged...

edit: I don't think the argument that "he didn't have to hold her down" is a very good one... It seems that the argument is based on an impossible-to-test hypothetical. Any suggestion on what he could have done to result in her not dying is untestable.

 

[MLeake]

It will depend on whether VT law allows the use of physical force by a non-LEO to detain a violent felon. If it does, the clerk should have no problem. If it does not, the clerk would probably need to argue that he was not detaining her, per se, but was afraid she would resume the attack if he let her up.

Edit: in MO, as a non-LEO, I would have to observe somebody commit a class A felony, or see them attempt escape through use of a deadly weapon, before I could use deadly force to stop the escape. The threshold for use of simple physical force is lower, but there is a threshold.

Hence my question as to VT law.

 

[mehavey]

Pax/Kathy....

Most all of us are aware that a prosecutor in search of either politics or headlines can indict a ham sandwich for its own demise. The common law check/balance to abuse of that power has been codified within

"the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously
ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence...."

We depend upon the common sense of the 'Jury' being able to see through such a prosecutor's ploy; and we depend upon that Assistance-of-Counsel to guard against Holmes' observation that "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."

I'm getting a sense of déjà vu here concerning another recent thread on the consequences of deadly force -- and that need for Assistance of Counsel even when in the obvious right.

 

[44 AMP]

but IF it's found that he used too much force, he's on the hook for the entire consequences.

Quite true Pax, BUT, wouldn't the fact that the actions of the clerk were a direct result of the crime being commiteded by the woman make it, ultimately her fault for what resulted?

I understand the intent of the eggshell rule, but, how does defending onself against attack (robber did have a knife) turn the robber into the victim?

Now, under the circumstances, where the robber was held down (detained / restrained) by a private citizen, and not a LEO might change the situation, in the legal sense, in that jurisdiction. Because holding the attacker for the police goes beyond self defense. I don't know the VT laws covering that.

 

[hermannr]

I read ALL of the comments to that article, and believe it or not, there was not one single bleeding heart comment in all 54 comments posted. If this AG guy is trying for free pre-election points, he just lost.

 

[Sigasaurus Rex]

Is the "eggshell skull" doctrine present in VT criminal law as well as civil? Seems kind of unfair to me. A person defending themselves has to make a decision to use force based on information gathered sometimes in the space of only a few seconds. How can anyone (especially someone with no medical training) make any kind of reasonable determination regarding the possible health problems of an aggressor?

 

[MLeake]

The eggshell skull rule would not apply to an innocent defender.

OTOH, a defender who had been involved in escalating tensions beforehand; a defender who turned out to be protecting a third party who had been involved in escalating tensions beforehand; or a defender who then opted to continue the fight after the aggressor had surrendered or fled (barring certain exceptions) could very easily find the eggshell skull rule would attach to him.

In this case, if VT law allows physical force not only for defense, but for detention of a violent felon who has committed a violent felony in one's presence, there really should be no viable prosecutorial angle.

If it doesn't, then the DA could argue that the clerk had successfully defended himself, and had disarmed the woman, but then exceeded his rights by using physical force to detain her.

I am NOT endorsing that approach, I am just saying that would be the way the DA could go at it, depending on how the law is written.

This is why it's a very good idea to know the deadly force and physical force justification rules where you live.