⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Sixth Circuit considers a lawsuit over the fatal shooting of Gary Bressler outside his Kentucky home. Bressler called nine one one asking for police to come to the house. He was carrying a sword when two state troopers arrived. Both troopers fired, and he died. His wife, Heather, and the officers gave conflicting accounts of his movements and the danger he posed. The family sued, alleging excessive force. A jury returned a verdict for the troopers. Heather Bressler now seeks a new trial, challenging the legal directions given to that jury. Michael O'Hara will argue for the family that the instructions left out a necessary limit on deadly force. The troopers' lawyer will defend the instructions and the verdict. This is a civil damages case, not a criminal prosecution of the officers. The appeal asks whether the jury was given the right legal test, not simply which account of the shooting the appellate judges believe. The governing framework is the Fourth Amendment's rule against unreasonable seizures. In Graham versus Connor, the Supreme Court explained that police force is assessed from the perspective of a reasonable officer facing those circumstances, rather than with hindsight. Factors include the seriousness of the suspected crime, an immediate safety threat, and resistance or flight. The family's lawyer will rely on Tennessee versus Garner to argue that a shooting requires an explicit finding of probable cause to believe there was a significant threat of death or serious injury. The troopers will counter that reasonableness depends on all the circumstances, not a rigid checklist, invoking Scott versus Harris. Listen for the distinction between considering a threat as one factor and requiring it as a minimum condition before deadly force is lawful.

Heather Bressler v. Zachary Lusk (No. 25-5636) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.