When is shooting predatory LE legally justifiable?

[Stevie-Ray]

The vast, VAST, VAST majority of the time, the police officers with whom we interact are not causing bodily harm to innocent people who were just minding their own business. Sure, it's happened, but it isn't a common thing. Even calling it rare is a stretch; it's extremely rare.

Worth quoting. I'm not blind to law enforcement corruption or even the occasional punk on a power trip, but for the most part, LEOs do a job I wouldn't want.

Should I be stunned by total unprofessionalism to the point where I felt I had to draw my gun, I would treat one like any other criminal and hope my lawyer was worth his pay. If I lived.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

It was well-documented at the time. LEOs executed and wounded several of a group who were trying to cross a bridge from one area to another.

Yes, LEOs were involved in the bridge shootings, not mercenaries.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, LEOs were involved in the bridge shootings, not mercenaries.

Opps.

My bad. I scanned that post and completely missed the reference to "mercenaries" because I already knew they were cops.

 

[HiBC]

So,lets take the case of the Rodney King beating.It could be stated that out of control cops were unlawfully inflicting grave,potentially mortal harm on Mr King.
I concede,there may be more to this case than I understand,but based upon the footage,would an armed citizen be justified in stopping the assault on Mr King?
I certainly do not advocate harming LEO's,but if an LEO crosses a line ,disregards law and order,and is administering potentially fatal "sentence"on a citizen..
I am not talking about force necessary to arrest,which can be whatever the bad guy makes it.

 

[Jim March]

Well the cops that finally did get busted by the feds in the King case were prosecuted because they hit King on or near the head with batons.

That in turn is deadly force. Every single class in the use of batons as non-lethal force says "avoid the head".

So when you see a cop whacking somebody over the head with a baton, you are indeed looking at a deadly force situation. And if that's not warranted, *esp* if the guy being beat over the head is in cuffs or otherwise out of the fight, then...yeah, you're looking at a pretty clear-cut criminal attack...whether it's cops or security guards or jailers or gangbangers with baseball bats doing it.

Now, can you SURVIVE doing something about it? Even if that "something" is just yelling out "good things I've got this on video"?

How fast can you run, or just how good with your Rosoe are you?

---

Something else that will start to make a difference at some point: the rise of very small "on all the time" video/audio cameras. I'm not talking about "whip out a cellphone" here, I'm talking about the next level past that. An early attempt:

http://www.looxcie.com/cam/

The complete setup for this right now (linking it to an iPod or Android media player, or an iOS or Android smartphone as the viewfinder/uploader/editor component) is around $350 right now. Prices for this sort of gear will drop - a LOT. Once it's down around $50-$100, it will be common as fleas and it will change *everything*.

Law enforcement knows this and are fighting back:

http://www.ktvu.com/news/27551276/detail.html

This sort of thing is happening across the country and will eventually lead to gunfire. I'm not saying that SHOULD happen, but I am predicting that inevitably, it will.

 

[gyvel]

So,lets take the case of the Rodney King beating.

Never mind that; Take the case of Arthur McDuffie, who was killed by the cops in Miami, causing one of the worst race riots in US history.

 

[mrray13]

As an LEO in Illinois, I want to touch on a few things.

First, like Arkansas, it's a crime to resist arrest in Illinois, even if the arrest itself is illegal. 720 ILCS 5/7-7. Unlike Arkansas, Illinois makes no reference to the fact of the officer working under the color of his responsibilities/duties. Depending upon how one resists, it can be charged as a misdemeanor 720 ILCS 5/31-1 Resisting/obstructing a Peace Officer, no officer was struck or hurt, or as a felony, the arrested struck, 720 ILCS 5/12-4(b)(6) aggravated battery, an officer, or caused injury to him, felony under 720 ILCS 5/31-1 (a-7). And that's not including if the officer dies.

Second, like previously mentioned, one needs to know their use of force statutes, in their state. In Illinois, those are 720 ILCS 5/7-1 for person, 5/7-2 for dwelling and 5/7-3 for other property. Note, 5/7-4, which defines the aggressor, and defines when one can be the aggressor in a use of force situation.

In short, you would have to be very clear in your actions against an LEO. You would have to be able to articulate very clearly why you acted in the manner you did.

I'm going to amend this part, see the conversation below with better details.

Lastly, I agree that the easiest solution would be to comply and deal with the situation later, in a civil court as well as a criminal one. Of course, this is mute if the situation is a clear cut life or death call. That said, I'll emphasize the clear cut part. Again, you had better be able to clearly articulate why you did what you did in resisting, and or combating the LEO.

Are there bad LEOs? Yep. Do we make mistakes? Yep, we are human after all. Yet, the badge does not put us above the law, but does hold us to a higher standard of it, IMHO. That said, the badge can cloud other's view of us, and to what standard of the law we should be held too. Think about that as you consider your response to the OP. In some areas, it will make you a bad guy regardless of what the reason, and in others, it will mean you are a hero.

If you ever find yourself in this situation, I hope none of us do, I would hope that we would all do the right thing, regardless of consequences. As I learned early on, "pray for the best, prepare for the worst." If you do react to a situation as presented by the OP, that is a quote I think you'll live by for awhile.

 

[Jim March]

That Illinois ban on recording cops was put in place after a horrific case of police abuse (in Chicago if I recall right?) was caught on tape. That law is now being challenged by the ACLU. It is one of the most detestable statutes in US history, esp. among those still active on the books.

 

[mrray13]

Jim, I'm looking that up now.

In Illinois it actually is illegal to make audio recordings of on-duty cops--or any other public official. Illinois is one of a handful of states that require all parties to consent before someone can record a conversation. But the other all-party-consent states also include a provision in their statutes stating that for there to be a violation of the law the nonconsenting party must have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Originally, the Illinois eavesdropping law did also include a similar expectation of privacy provision. But the legislature stripped that provision out in 1994, and they did so in response to an incident in which a citizen recorded his interaction with two on-duty police officers. In other words, the Illinois legislature specifically intended to make it a Class I felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, to make an audio recording of an on-duty police officer without his permission.

The eavesdropping of an oral conversation, or an electronic communication, between any law enforcement officer, State's Attorney, Assistant State's Attorney, the Attorney General, Assistant Attorney General, or a judge, while in the performance of his or her offical duties, if not authorized by this Article or proper court order, is a Class 1 Felony

The article is 720 ILCS 5/14-1. Can be found here. 14-2 describes the elements of the offense, 14-3 the exemptions. 14-3 (i) is an interesting read. I'll leave it at that.

BTW Jim, as far as the ACLU case, I found where a Federal Circuit Court threw it out, but I'm looking to confirm that.

 

[Jim March]

The ACLU lost at the Federal district court level and are appealing it up the chain.

 

[mrray13]

Thanks. I got side tracked, lol. Honey do list is ever growing thanks to all this freaking rain!!

Any links?

 

[zxcvbob]

In those incidents where someone is innocent and has been abused/assaulted/killed by the police, there is often some kind of ambiguity (of course, it's easy to introduce ambiguity after the fact if there's only one story being told and your buddies write the report). [emphasis added]

I don't think this can be stressed enough.

Sometimes you really are in a no win situation and the best you can do is make sure the other guy loses too. But how do you know that's the situation before it's too late to act?

 

[BlueTrain]

Personally I think the most reasonable thing to do is lock them up in the basement until the whole thing blows over.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Lastly, I agree that the easiest solution would be to comply and deal with the situation later, in a civil court as well as a criminal one. Of course, this is mute if the situation is a clear cut life or death call. That said, I'll emphasize the clear cut part. Again, you had better be able to clearly articulate why you did what you did in resisting, and or combating the LEO.

The problem arises when you can't be sure it's really a cop. There was the case a day or two ago in Philadelphia where an off-duty cop in civvies chased a man into his own house and shot him inside the house. The victim is in a coma, so there's no way of knowing if the cop declared he was a cop -- but even if he did, how would you know?

Another case a few days ago -- a guy was awakened at oh-dark-thirty by the noise of his front door being smashed in. His home was invaded by police officers (a full SWAT team), he was proned out, cuffed, and arrested. He had not done anything wrong. Turns out his Internet router wasn't secured and a neighbor was using the wireless access to download (and maybe upload, I don't recall the details) kiddie p*rn.

I certainly don't condone kiddie p*rn, but c'mon -- a SWAT team breaking in the door in the middle of the night over what is essentially a computer crime? Whatever happened to knocking on the door, identifying yourself as the police, and -- like -- SERVING a warrant? IMHO, especially since he was innocent of any wrongdoing so would have had ZERO reason to think the police might ever come for him, that guy would have been fully justified in opening fire as the bodies came through the door.

When are the police going to recognize that their own tactics, which they always claim are for safety, are NOT for anything other than trying to maximize their own safety? More details are needed about the Philadelphia incident before conclusions are reached, but the SWAT raid of an innocent man's home in the middle of the night all because of stolen Internet access was just plain WRONG.

 

[NickySantoro]

You have to do what you have to do sometimes, regardless of the potential consequences. If you had to make a rogue LEO's head explode like a ripe pumpkin with a cherry bomb in it and it was morally justifiable and there was no alternative, then you did the right thing. Legally justifiable? I've served on a grand jury and have zero respect for those with whom I served. They are led around by the nose by the prosecutors. Count on being indicted.

 

[mrray13]

The problem arises when you can't be sure it's really a cop. There was the case a day or two ago in Philadelphia where an off-duty cop in civvies chased a man into his own house and shot him inside the house. The victim is in a coma, so there's no way of knowing if the cop declared he was a cop -- but even if he did, how would you know?

I understand what you are getting at, but let's not forget there are plainclothes, on duty officers as well, who make arrests. Yes, badges can be bought off the internet, and impersonation does happen. So, one is left to wonder, what would I (you) do? I guess, and pray, none of us has to find out.

We can Monday morning quarterback this all day, hindsight is always 20/20. If the victim would have just complied, what would have happened? If the victim would have shot? IF's are very big words, and we'll never know what would have happened, only what did happen.

For what it is worth, IF the victim had the legal right to OC, which I think he did, then the ODLEO did screw up. Then again, we don't know what, if anything, the victim did, to get the ODLEO to escalate to use of deadly force. I know someone mentioned the LEO getting swept by the victim, but I don't recall that in the first article I read.


As to the warrants..there are no knocks. Depending upon jurisdiction, it's either up to the judge or State's Attorney's office what you get for a warrant. I think we can request a no-knock, but the it's the judge's final say.

When are the police going to recognize that their own tactics, which they always claim are for safety, are NOT for anything other than trying to maximize their own safety?

To be frank, all the training I have is about my safety first, victim's second, then everyone else. There is training in deadly force where we do indeed concentrate on innocents, non involved persons, ala, not shoot at a subject fleeing into a crowd of people, for example. But for the most part, officer safety is indeed primary. To flip it, isn't that your primary concern, especially in a deadly force encounter?

 

[armsmaster270]

The only problem is you fight a LEO right or wrong he calls for backup and now you are fighting the whole P.D and maybe allied agencies. It's a no win situation.

 

[ltc444]

For all but the last year of my 59 years, I would have immediately surrendered to a LEO and coporated fully with that LEO.

Now I am not so sure. Given the punitive actions of one AZ Sheriff, I am not certain I would surrender to a member of his dept.

I am certain that I will not talk to a member of that dept without my attorney present.

The members of the department in question Lied in their report. It was so blantant that one of the deputies present refused to sign the report. They placed a SWAT team on my home and aimed a LASER Sited Cal 50 rifle through my windows.

They have a 5 minute response to a dog complaint on me while taking over an hour and 45 minutes to a domestic disturbance with weapons present on the same block.

This occurred because I was friends with an individual on the Sheriff's enemies list and was at odds with a Real Estate Developer (major contributor).

You have to know your dept and how they are going to react.

 

[Wildalaska]

I think this thread is out of bounds.

WildjustanotherexcuseforcopbashingAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Yep, we are starting to cop bash as compared to the legal issue of SD involving LEOs.

Closed.