VERMILLION COUNTY, Ind. (WTWO/WAWV) — A long-time Vermillion County deputy who has since resigned from his role with the sheriff’s department was found not to have acted with “conscious disregard” in an incident during which his service weapon was fired and a student struck while teaching at South Vermillion High School.
That’s according to special prosecutor John H. Meyers who was tasked with investigating the November 17 incident.
November 17, 2022
That day, Deputy Tim DisPennett, a 19-year veteran of the Vermillion County Sheriff’s Department who had been teaching a law enforcement vocational class at the school, reportedly fired his service revolver after mistakenly grabbing the wrong weapon during a lesson. The bullet grazed a South Vermillion High School senior.
On November 17, 2022, a role-playing scenario was to be enacted in which an “armed” person was aggressively approaching a police officer. The lesson to be taught from the role-playing scenario was that if the person got closer than 21 feet to the Officer, the Officer needed to take action to protect himself or herself by pulling his/her weapon. At the request of the students, DisPennett agreed to take part in the role-playing scenario. However, DisPennett did not follow his customary practice in that he did not remove his operational firearm from his holster, place it in the desk drawer and replace the operational firearm with the mock gun in his holster. Instead, he left his operational firearm in the holster and placed the mock gun in his pocket below the holster. The mock gun closely resembled DisPennett’s operational firearm.
Special prosecutor’s report
Surveillance footage of the hallway outside the classroom from the moments before the shooting took place show DisPennet with both the mock gun in his pocket and the service weapon in its holster.
In the video, it can be clearly seen that his operational firearm was in his holster and the mock gun was in his pocket below the holster that had the operational firearm. The handles of the operational firearm and the mock gun were both exposed. As he waited casually to enter the classroom, he chatted with students. At times he rested his hand on the handle of the operational firearm and at other times on the handle of the mock gun.
Special prosecutor’s report
DisPennet’s culpability
In Meyers’ report he looks to determine if Deputy Tim DisPennett was reckless in his actions that day, and if criminal charges should be filed.
“DisPennett has said that he did not know the reason that he proceeded as he did that day with the operational firearm and the mock gun juxtaposed or how it happened that he drew the wrong gun. He says credibly that he did not intend harm by his actions,” Meyers writes.
When looking at if DisPennett had been ‘reckless’ Meyers said that there were two elements to resolve. “The definition has two elements: (1) engages in the conduct in plain, conscious, and unjustifiable disregard of harm that might result, and (2) the disregard involves a substantial deviation from acceptable standards of conduct.”
In determining the second part, Meyers reviewed interviews with Sheriff Mike Holtzkamp, who sometimes instructs the class, and a firearms instructor from the Indiana Law Enforcement Training Academy, both of whom explained that they assure all service weapons are not in the same space as mock weapons when mock weapons are being used in training activities. The sheriff said he leaves his weapon in his car outside of the school. The ILETA instructor said the rule is strictly enforced at the academy.
It is fair to conclude that DisPennett should have had knowledge of potential risks, especially given his veteran status as a law enforcement officer. In an objective sense, juxtaposing an operational firearm and a mock gun when one was going to be pulled
represented a substantial deviation from acceptable safety standards.Special prosecutor’s report
In discussing the first part, Meyers points to the element of “conscious disregard”.
“The fairest reading of this fact pattern is that DisPennett did not act with conscious disregard for the potential harm. It appears that he did not perceive that there was risk because he did not doubt that he would draw the mock gun,” Meyers writes. “It is unreasonable to conclude that he would consciously put them at risk with a deadly weapon. Besides his common decency, there was no motive for him to do that. While it is fair to say that he should have been alert to the risk inherent in the situation, that observation is insufficient to meet the recklessness standard.”
As a result of the report, no charges have been filed against DisPennett. Sheriff Mike Holtzkamp told WTWO that DisPennett is no longer with the office, having resigned in April.
