New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella ruled Thursday that three Pelham police officers were legally justified in firing on a 33-year-old Navy veteran experiencing a mental health crisis at his girlfriend’s apartment in May 2025, closing one of the more complicated police use-of-force investigations of the past year. The ruling, first reported by the Concord Monitor, clears Pelham Police Sgt. Steven Russo, Officer Joseph Sanchez, and Cpl. Michael Kasiske of any criminal liability for the encounter, which began as a 911 welfare check and ended after the veteran, Sheldon Brockelbank, fired eight rounds through a closed apartment door at the officers before stepping outside with a handgun in his hand.

Brockelbank survived the shooting, struck twice in the pelvis and once in the stomach. The case has drawn unusual attention not only because of the use of deadly force but because the report makes clear that Brockelbank had attempted to access mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs in the hours before the shooting, and had received a message earlier the same day that his request had been denied. For Granite State veterans and their families, the report is the latest in a sobering series of New Hampshire police encounters in which a person in psychiatric distress reached a moment of armed crisis only after running into walls in the civilian and veteran mental health systems.

What Happened That Night

The encounter began at 10:20 p.m. on May 16, 2025, when Brockelbank’s girlfriend called 911 from her apartment in Pelham. According to the attorney general’s report, she told dispatch that Brockelbank was intoxicated, in possession of a loaded handgun, and threatening to kill himself. Pelham officers arrived to a scene in which they could hear the girlfriend asking Brockelbank to put the gun down, and could hear Brockelbank himself say he would “pull the trigger” if officers entered the apartment.

Russo, Sanchez, and Kasiske held position outside. The girlfriend eventually walked out of the apartment safely. Officers continued to talk with Brockelbank through the closed door, repeatedly offering mental health services and trying to talk him into a peaceful surrender. The negotiation lasted roughly an hour. According to the report, the situation escalated around 11:20 p.m., when Brockelbank fired eight rounds from inside the apartment through the door toward the officers standing in the hallway. None of the officers was struck. Brockelbank then stepped out of the apartment with the gun in his hand, briefly set the gun down at his feet, and was unable to be persuaded to back away from it. The report states he then bent down and picked the gun up again, at which point Russo fired four rounds, Sanchez fired two rounds, and Kasiske fired five beanbag rounds. Brockelbank was hit and fell. He was transported to the hospital and survived his injuries.

The Legal Standard For Police Deadly Force

The New Hampshire Attorney General’s office is required by state policy to investigate every instance in which a police officer uses deadly force, regardless of the outcome. Under both state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, police are legally justified in using lethal force only as a last resort and only when they reasonably believe their own lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. The attorney general does not, as a matter of stated policy, investigate or opine on the specific procedures or tactics that officers chose to use during the encounter; the office’s job is the narrower legal question of whether the use of force was justified under the law.

In this case, Formella concluded that the totality of the circumstances, including the eight rounds Brockelbank fired through the door at the officers, his decision to step outside the apartment still armed, his initial set-down of the weapon followed by his decision to pick it up again, and his statements that he intended to “see it to the end,” supported the legal conclusion that the officers reasonably believed lethal force was necessary to protect themselves and other residents in the building. Russo, who fired the rounds that struck Brockelbank, told investigators he was “concerned not only for his safety but for that of the other involved officers and other residents in the building.”

A Denied VA Request Hours Earlier

The most striking element of the report, for many readers, is what happened in the hours before the 911 call was placed. Brockelbank and his girlfriend, according to the report, had been making efforts to obtain mental health services from several different providers, including the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the day of the shooting, Brockelbank received a message from the VA informing him that his request for mental health services had been denied. He and his girlfriend then went out bar hopping. When they returned to the apartment, Brockelbank picked up a gun, and his girlfriend was unable to disarm him. The 911 call followed shortly afterward.

In an interview with investigators, Brockelbank confirmed that he remembered being suicidal, had been drinking, and was aware police were present outside the door. He told investigators he was “terrified of being shot by police” and that he recalled firing only one shot in their direction. After being shown body camera footage, he was interviewed again based on his own memory of the night. He told investigators that by the time he stepped out of the apartment with the gun, he had reached a decision: “really no other option at that point, it was either put the gun down and walk outside, or see it to the end, and seeing how I was already suicidal, having made that decision, I took it to the end.”

A Pattern Of Veterans, Crises, And First Responders

Brockelbank’s two years of service in the U.S. Navy, his documented effort to access mental health care through the VA, and the timing of the VA denial all underscore a pattern that crisis responders, county sheriffs, and rural police chiefs across New Hampshire have flagged for years. The Granite State has a higher than national average share of residents who are veterans. The VA’s network of clinics and the state’s civilian behavioral health system together represent the front line for veterans in psychiatric distress, and capacity at both has lagged demand for years. When that front line fails, the next first responder is almost always a local police officer trained primarily in law enforcement rather than clinical psychiatry.

The Ayotte administration has pursued several initiatives aimed at expanding behavioral health capacity in New Hampshire, including the SB 498 wraparound mental health expansion and broader investments through the state’s settlement with major behavioral health providers. None of those efforts directly addresses VA capacity, which is a federal responsibility. The Brockelbank report does not formally fault the VA, but the chronology in the report places the agency’s denial of services in the foreground of what followed.

What The Ruling Does Not Address

Formella’s ruling resolves only the narrow legal question of whether the officers’ use of force was justified under New Hampshire law. It does not address whether different tactical choices might have led to a different outcome, whether crisis intervention training played a role in the officers’ decisions during the hour of negotiation, or whether the VA’s processing of Brockelbank’s request for services merits separate review. Those broader questions, which mental health advocates frequently raise after deadly force encounters involving people in psychiatric distress, fall outside the attorney general’s defined scope.

The use-of-force review process here mirrors how the state has handled other recent fatal-encounter cases, including the AG ruling involving 13 officers in the Raymond Masse case. Pelham police did not face criminal charges as a result of the report. Brockelbank’s potential criminal exposure for firing on officers is a separate matter that has been or will be handled through the local courts. The Concord Monitor reported that none of those proceedings were addressed in the attorney general’s Thursday ruling.

For now, the report closes the formal state investigation of the May 2025 shooting. For Pelham, the ruling allows three officers to resume normal duty without the cloud of an open use-of-force investigation. For Brockelbank, it documents on the public record both the night of the shooting and the systemic failure of services that preceded it. For New Hampshire policymakers and advocates, it is yet another data point in a long conversation about how veterans, civilians in crisis, and rural police departments interact at the worst moments of someone’s life.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the attorney general rule about the Pelham shooting?

New Hampshire Attorney General John Formella ruled Thursday, May 21, 2026, that Pelham police officers Sgt. Steven Russo, Officer Joseph Sanchez, and Cpl. Michael Kasiske were legally justified in using deadly force against Sheldon Brockelbank during a May 16, 2025, mental health crisis at a Pelham apartment. The ruling closes the state's formal investigation and clears the officers of any criminal liability for the shooting.

What happened during the May 2025 incident?

Pelham officers responded to a 911 call from Brockelbank's girlfriend at 10:20 p.m. reporting that he was intoxicated, armed with a loaded handgun, and threatening suicide. After roughly an hour of negotiation through a closed door, Brockelbank fired eight rounds through the door at the officers, then stepped outside with the gun. After briefly setting the gun down and picking it back up, he was shot. Russo fired four rounds, Sanchez fired two, and Kasiske fired five beanbag rounds. Brockelbank was struck three times and survived.

What is the legal standard for police use of deadly force in New Hampshire?

Under both state law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent, police are legally justified in using lethal force only as a last resort and only when they reasonably believe their own lives or the lives of others are in imminent danger. The New Hampshire Attorney General's office investigates every instance of police deadly force to determine whether the use of force met that legal standard. The office does not, by stated policy, evaluate the tactics or procedures officers chose to use.

Was Brockelbank a veteran?

Yes. According to the attorney general's report, Sheldon Brockelbank served two years in the U.S. Navy. In the hours before the shooting, he had been attempting to access mental health services through the Department of Veterans Affairs. On the day of the shooting, he received a message that his request for VA mental health services had been denied. He and his girlfriend then went out bar hopping before returning to the apartment, where he picked up a gun.

Will Brockelbank face charges?

The attorney general's ruling addresses only the police officers' use of force and does not resolve any criminal exposure Brockelbank may face for firing on officers. Those matters are handled separately through the local court system. The Concord Monitor reported that none of those proceedings were addressed in Thursday's ruling.

read more