Shooting a LEO in self defense??? Hypothetical


PDA






possom813
October 30, 2007, 11:39 PM
I'm not sure what part of the brain thought this up:what:. But are there any circumstances that you could claim self defense against a LEO?

I'm not out to get any LEO's, it just crossed my mind today.

The only scenario that I can think of would be if the cop went crazy or on a shooting rampage or something similar.

-John

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting a LEO in self defense??? Hypothetical" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
RNB65
October 30, 2007, 11:44 PM
Check with Bob Marley. He'll tell ya all about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Shot_the_Sheriff

:D

ilbob
October 30, 2007, 11:45 PM
This topic comes up from time to time. As best I can tell, the "official" THR policy on this kind of thing is:

1. No resistance is to be offered at all no matter what the LEO does.

2. Hope you are not killed.

3. Complain later. Presumably, if you are killed, someone else would file the complaint for you.

Outlaws
October 30, 2007, 11:48 PM
Yes. But you will no doubt be considered Guilty until proven Innocent.

There was a cop or two in Miami if I recall that illegally entered onto someones property and opened the garage door, and started patting down the home owners wife, he came out and beat the cop up. I believe the charge of taking the officers weapon stood, because I guess that is illegal no matter what, but the assault charge against the home owner didn't hold up. I would think there are extreme circumstances where shooting would be justified, but its not gonna be pretty during the immediate aftermath, you will be branded a cop killer from the get go and better make phoning a lawyer top priority before the rest of the force shows up.

Geronimo45
October 30, 2007, 11:52 PM
The only scenario that I can think of would be if the cop went crazy or on a shooting rampage or something similar.
Right. In case somebody thinks the OP is looking for a chance to shoot cops, we in Texas have an interesting part of our lethal-force rules that specifically mention that we are allowed to shoot police officers if... they are using excessive force or some such, IIRC.
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/ftp/forms/ls-16.pdf#page=63
Subchapter C, PC 9.31, c:
"If, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary."

I have no idea why it was put in Texas law, to be honest. Perhaps a tool in case of (very) excessive police brutality? In case somebody tries to plunger a prisoner? I couldn't say. I guess the people writing the law simply wanted it to be known that Texans have the right to shoot anybody who acts up badly enough, regardless of uniform.

When you read our lethal force law, you do get the idea that the legislature had checked out THR for all the possible scenarios where you had the choice to shoot, and decided to make it legal to shoot in all those scenarios.
I'm serious here. Texas wants you to shoot BGs. If we had an income tax, you would probably get a credit if you shot a BG, and extra if he didn't survive (saves costs to the state). You are only required to retreat if you run out of ammunition. :p

igpoobah
October 30, 2007, 11:53 PM
Yup, that's a bit of a sticky wicket for sure. :D

I hope it never comes down to that, cause you are pretty screwed; no matter how it goes down you're going to be the bad guy unless there are a bunch of witnesses that say otherwise. Even then it's going to be rough...

Titan6
October 30, 2007, 11:54 PM
It happens from time time that people attack LEO's and are not charged. There was a case in Florida not long ago that was widely discussed here where two LEO's were taken down serving a summons and entered the house without a warrant.

The LEO's would have to be clearly breaking the law in front of witnesses for you to even contemplate not getting charged or prosecuted.

Tyris
October 30, 2007, 11:57 PM
http://www.centralmediaserver.com/WCPO/news/2007/03/16_police_indictment.pdf
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1710642/posts
http://www.dailyfreeman.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18945282&BRD=1769&PAG=461&dept_id=74969&rfi=6
http://pcapostate.blogspot.com/2007/08/37-yo-black-cop-rapes-19-yo-white-woman.html
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-20/1176270684309540.xml&coll=1
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,203673,00.html

I could go on, but I think I make my point. Remember ladies, shoot for the head or crotch. they're wearing body armor.

-T

Crunker1337
October 30, 2007, 11:58 PM
I remember reading an article in which a CCW holder shot an undercover cop after said cop pulled him over for a traffic violation, and for no conceivable reason, pulled his own weapon on the CCW holder's wife.
The CCW holder was not charged.

lloydkristmas
October 31, 2007, 12:00 AM
I'm thinking something along the lines of illegal entrance into a home and/or illegal weapons confiscation similar to what happened during the whole Katrina mess. I hate to talk about this sort of thing, but I think that would be one of the only times I would consider taking the life of a military or law enforcement officer.

99% of them are good, honorable people but every once in a while you run across a bad one....

joe4702
October 31, 2007, 12:09 AM
There's a bridge in San Diego named after a young lady who was pulled over and strangled by a CHP officer in 1986. A few (really) bad apples in every bushel, unfortunately.

Frog48
October 31, 2007, 12:19 AM
Sure, I'd imagine there are plenty of situations in which self defense from a LEO is reasonable.

However, juries overwhelmingly give police the benefit of the doubt. So even if your claim to self defense is legit, theres still a good chance that you'll end up spending the rest of your days in prison and/or death row.

This, of course, assumes that you make it to trial alive.

Jeff White
October 31, 2007, 12:36 AM
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=072000050HArt%2E+7&ActID=1876&ChapAct=720%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=53&ChapterName=CRIMINAL+OFFENSES&SectionID=60595&SeqStart=7800000&SeqEnd=9300000&ActName=Criminal+Code+of+1961%2E

(720 ILCS 5/7‑7) (from Ch. 38, par. 7‑7)
Sec. 7‑7. Private person's use of force in resisting arrest. A person is not authorized to use force to resist an arrest which he knows is being made either by a peace officer or by a private person summoned and directed by a peace officer to make the arrest, even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.
(Source: P.A. 86‑1475.)

Most states have similar laws. Yes there have been cases where people have gotten off in cases of mistaken identity or in cases of extreme illegal conduct such as attempted murder by the police, however in most cases any resistance is just going to add to whatever legal problems you already have.

Jeff

Frog48
October 31, 2007, 12:43 AM
Most states have similar laws.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the OP is refering to instances in which a cop is off duty or acting outside the scope of their duties. I believe those type of laws only apply when the LEO is acting in an official capacity.

Autolycus
October 31, 2007, 12:49 AM
Its pretty scary that here in Illinois they dont want you to resist. It seems that the legislators put to much faith in law enforcement.

doubleg
October 31, 2007, 12:50 AM
"I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by six."

Do what you need to do to defend yourself.

Jeff White
October 31, 2007, 12:50 AM
I could be mistaken, but I believe the OP is refering to instances in which a cop is off duty or acting outside the scope of their duties. I believe those type of laws only apply when the LEO is acting in an official capacity.

If he's acting outside of his duties and not in any official capacity, then the same laws apply as if it was another civilian. Cops, being human sometimes, do stupid things just like everyone else.

The kicker is, if the officer identifies himself as an officer and acts in an official capacity then the law I posted applies. Also all of the other laws, battery being a felony, etc. kick in then too.

Jeff

cassandrasdaddy
October 31, 2007, 12:52 AM
don't know about shooting a cop but having called the state cops on the local cops even that gets pretty weird for a while. one trooper 5 back peddling confused manassas cops. its was interesting to see him take command over the 5 using the usual methods

Jeff White
October 31, 2007, 01:04 AM
Tecumseh said;
Its pretty scary that here in Illinois they dont want you to resist. It seems that the legislators put to much faith in law enforcement.

I think you are letting your personal bias against law enforcement over ride common sense. Imagine a world where it was legal to resist arrest. Do you really want to settle all legal issues on the street with violence?

We have a thing called court. And court is where we resist arrest, if we're smart we get a lawyer to help us.

I challenge you to show me a jurisdiction anywhere in the US where the legislature wants you to resist arrest. Sheesh............:uhoh:

possom813
October 31, 2007, 02:30 AM
It originally was just a thought, I've been off work for almost two weeks on vacation and my mind is starting to wonder.

The situation that I was thinking about wasn't necessarily the LEO being in uniform. Just if an officer snapped, in uniform or not. With the stress that particular profession must have associated with it, it seems that this is, however; unlikely, feasible

-John.

SMLE
October 31, 2007, 02:39 AM
I'll try to find the info, but a few years aga, a fellow here in Albuquerque Shot a cop in his house. He was aquitted of murder because it was detirmined that the cops were acting illegally.

That said, it would have to be a really grave situation for me to consider shooting a LEO. Probably involving a baltantly illegal assault on an innocent person.

FWIW: What does the majority here think of the "Rodney King" scenario? Would that justify armed resistance to LEOs?

Albatross
October 31, 2007, 02:57 AM
Probably the 3 S's don't apply here.

/Shoot, shovel and shut up?

AZRickD
October 31, 2007, 03:12 AM
Let's say Rodney King was able to get off one lucky punch (or pulled a gun after being batoned) that severely injured or even killed one of the LEOs. That would have changed the calculus of the situation, but all else being equal, one could argue its justification.

Rick

Zoogster
October 31, 2007, 03:32 AM
Let's say Rodney King was able to get off one lucky punch (or pulled a gun after being batoned) that severely injured or even killed one of the LEOs. That would have changed the calculus of the situation, but all else being equal, one could argue its justification.

No, lets not forget he was a wanted criminal, a fleeing felon, and had charged at and been trying to attack officers before what appears to be excessive force was used.
The footage widely shown however is only of that end result. In fact the media continuously played that footage over and over building on the emotions of blacks for ratings. Eventualy that would erupt into the riots that are so infamous.

If a guy was a felony suspect that just led police on a pursuit, and then proceeded to attack police when they pulled him over and you were the officer being attacked by a heavily built man with a long history of prison time,high on PCP, and very strong...
You would probably want to be justified in shooting him.

They instead began to use thier nightsticks, he continued to try to resist, they continued to use them. Eventualy it crossed a line and became punishment for his actions based on officer emotions. However that is a grey area under the circumstances, and a jury aquited them all.



A better real life example would be the ruby ridge incident. Officer's acting on a "valid" warrant attempted to sneak onto someone's property and when confronted by armed property owner's in a rural location in the free state of Idaho (where being armed in your yard is perfectly acceptable) fired at the dog accompanying them and then aimed thier rifles at the individuals. The child on seeing his pet killed cried out and aimed his rifle at the officers who were clearly posing a threat to anyone on the property. The officers shot at him and hit him, I believe in the arm, injuring him.
The child then attempted to flee and while running away was shot at multiple times eventualy being shot in the back. The man with the child who was a family friend then opened fire on the officer killing him.
That was later deemed to be a justifiable shooting.
Of course there was multiple arguments in that ruling, one being that the officers did not identify themselves as U.S. Marshals.

However that was in Idaho and a very public case with local support.
I imagine a similar incident on either coast would have resulted in the man going away for life.

novaDAK
October 31, 2007, 07:48 AM
If no laws were broken to incite the reason for my need of defense, I'll do whatever is necessary to protect myself or loved ones.

jon_in_wv
October 31, 2007, 08:16 AM
If the officer is acting illegally and threatened your life or the life of another, sure. But this defense has been tried, by criminals, any time they have assaulted or shot at police. The situation had better be grave or you will spend a LOT of years in prison. You might even if you ARE justified. Just like the Rodney King incident, getting involved in any incident involving some one else other than yourself or a situation you know VERY well you should NOT intervene.
Crooks will yell for help and claim all kinds of stuff when they are losing a struggle. If you take his word and intervene (or her for that matter) you could get yourself in a LOT of trouble. You should question authority, you should report abuse, but getting involved in challenging or going toe to toe with an armed police officer is not a smart idea. On the other hand, if the cop IS the crook no amount of legal trouble is going to stop me from defending my life or my family.

Happy Halloween!

Slugless
October 31, 2007, 08:29 AM
Shoot a cop?

1. Time to die
2. Time for major facial reconstruction + splints
3. Time for major jail time

Look what happened at Waco. Shoot some ATF, everybody dies.

It'd better be worth the very good chance of dying later, etc.

This topic is seriously bad karma.

jeepmor
October 31, 2007, 09:12 AM
I've read of two cases with links on THR where road rage ensued and plain clothes officers identified themselves with their guns, not their badges. Both were shot by CCW holders in response to the threat. I also think both survived, but may now have a limp. This in no way surprises me for the officers did not flash a badge, have flashing lights or any other indicator as to their law enforcement status. There was no way Joe CCW was to know they were a LEO. I hope these incidents are discussed in precincts all over America as how not to handle situations.

I'm all for following the law and not getting my bum busted by a LEO. If they're in their blues, this is a non-issue, and as most cases stated in this thread, it appears that all LEOs appeared as civilians besides the obvious rape and abuse cases provided in the links. If a plain clothes officers states he's an officer, he should be obligated to produce a badge and allow me to inspect it and contact dispatch to verify his credentials. Just shouting, stop police, isn't going to get them the respect a patrol officer gets for it could be a thugs plan to get you to submit. Anyone can do that. Fake badges are easy to come by and I've seen many a security company badge that looks like a law enforcement badge until close inspection. A simple flash isn't going to cut it.

JWarren
October 31, 2007, 09:25 AM
Repeatedly, we see posts asserting that LEOs are people just like us. I've made posts like that before myself.

Being people just like us also implies a wide array of personal characteristics-- including malevolent and sociopathic ones in some cases.

Let’s not forget that Bobby Cutts, Jr. was a LEO.

So were those guys that beat the hell out of that woman in Chicago.


There are times when it may well be within your rights and prudent to resist the will of a LEO. They (some) can and do commit unlawful and immoral acts on occasion. I surly would not go to my grave content in the knowledge that I was a good and lawful citizen who obeyed the LEO that killed me—just like I wouldn’t with a criminal that broke into my home.


Now those are obvious examples of when not to “resist.” What may not be so obvious are things like Katrina. Because of some of the “Executive Orders” given by Parish Presidents, I found myself actually contemplating my response to any attempts to take our supplies such as gasoline.

I am NOT advocating any course of action but I came to the conclusion that I would NOT comply with an order to STEAL from us. A LEO doing that would be no different than a looter and would be treated in a similar fashion. And I was not alone in this assessment.


-- John

Deanimator
October 31, 2007, 10:51 AM
Its pretty scary that here in Illinois they dont want you to resist. It seems that the legislators put to much faith in law enforcement.

An entire section of the Chicago PD was disbanded recently for engaging in home invasions, kidnappings, and the like. The ringleader was recently charged additionally with attempting to commission the contract murder of several other cops to prevent them from testifying against him. A member of that unit was previously murdered under suspicious circumstances, and the killers allegedly allowed to escape prosecution through "ineptitude" (collusion?). It's now become a Federal investigation and keeps growing.

If there's ANYPLACE on earth where you might need to use lethal force to defend yourself from criminal violence by the police, it's Chicago.

AZRickD
October 31, 2007, 11:08 AM
Zoog said:No, lets not forget he was a wanted criminal, a fleeing felon, and had charged at and been trying to attack officers before what appears to be excessive force was used.
No, let's not forget the multi-million dollar settlement, fired and prosecuted LEOs. Right or wrong, the fed.gov saw it as improper. One incorrect swing of the side-handle baton and he was a deadman.

So, given the totality of the Rodney King Experience, would that rise to the level of lawful resistance?

Rick

Gunnerpalace
October 31, 2007, 11:17 AM
While I agree with ilbob on what to do (pray you don't die) I thought while we were going I would bring up the most extreme incident,


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woo_Bum-Kon

ilcylic
October 31, 2007, 11:28 AM
Get into a gunfight with the police, even if it seems right at the time, and you lose, well, you lose.

Get into a gunfight with the police, and win... you still lose, probably.

See also: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/101907dnmetcopshot.52ed5.html

buzz_knox
October 31, 2007, 11:29 AM
Having been around officers who have overstepped their bounds (picking fights with truckers in one situation, threatening to kill someone in another) this is one of those nightmare scenarios.

Here's a situation that occurred in my hometown. Deputy arrives at a domestic call. One of the participants is a disabled veteran who decides he doesn't want to talk to the deputy. He turns around and begins hobbling off on his cane. The deputy draws his weapon and shoots the vet twice in the back. If the deputy had walked up and decided to finish off the vet, what are the legal options for the vet's family at that moment to prevent the coup de grace? (No such round was necessary in the real world as the vet was killed by the first two rounds).

As to what happened in real life, the deputy stayed on the force (the only charge was failing to file a shooting report within 48 hours, which was dropped when the prosecutor figured out how to ban the protestors from being in front of his office). He eventually quit after his fellow officers ridiculed him for murdering the man, and he ambushed them with mace.

Got to love a corrupt local judicial system and nepotism.

There's another situation playing out around here where two brothers are charged with murdering an officer and his ride-a-long. Self-defense may come into play due to some long-standing issues between the brothers and the officer.

jahwarrior
October 31, 2007, 11:41 AM
i think what happened at waco and ruby ridge should be enough food for thought.

geekWithA.45
October 31, 2007, 11:47 AM
I don't have the citation handy, but the Supreme Court has upheld that the citizen retains the right of self defense against unlawful attack, even if that attack is undertaken by officers of the law.

As I recall, the case was from the 1800's, in Texas(? possibly explaining that Texas law) and the issue was that the marshall(?) sheriff(?) and posse had fired upon the person they were supposed to arrest from ambush, completely suprising the subject.

The subject returned fire, killing one or more members of the posse. After the subject was eventually captured, he was additionally charged with the murder of those members of the posse.

The long and the short of it was that the posse's attack was basically an unlawful attempt to kill the subject rather than arrest him, and that he was certainly justified in preventing his own unlawful death.

AFAIK, this case still stands in force, and has implications on no knock raids, should someone ever manage to survive returning fire in one.

ArmedBear
October 31, 2007, 11:49 AM
Anyone know someone who has had off-duty cops pick a fight with him in a bar, then proceed to brawl with him and his wife?

I did.

Want to guess what happened to those cops?

Compare and contrast to what would happen to me if I went to a bar with a few buddies and started a full-on brawl where people got hurt... For that matter, that's something that has never sounded fun to me, but apparently it did to these guys.

Sure, morally, you can shoot someone who threatens your life. But pray you have plenty of witnesses who aren't cops.

Blackfork
October 31, 2007, 12:23 PM
A woman shot a SWAT officer when he broke through a window and landed on top of her and her baby. She shot him in the throat and he has been in critical condition.

Charges have been filed that she KNEW she was shooting a police officer, though SWAT tactics are deliberatly designed to confuse, disorient, et, et.

It will be interesting to see how this sorts out. Might be a moot point if the prosecutor and judge overload her with charges and bail bond amounts until she is coerced into "settling" for a lesser charge. That's pretty common.

If you shoot a policeman, right or wrong, you better be prepared to sacrifice your life and the life and financial status of your family.

Deanimator
October 31, 2007, 12:36 PM
If you shoot a policeman, right or wrong, you better be prepared to sacrifice your life and the life and financial status of your family.
If I ever have to shoot a policeman, you have a 100% guarantee that I'll be suing the individual cop (or his estate), his supervisor(s), the police department, the city and anybody else within the effective radius of a 50megaton fusion device that even KIND OF, MIGHT have some legal liability.

The ONLY reason I would shoot a cop would be because he was engaged in an unlawful attempt to kill or maim me. Those are both criminal acts and civil torts, and I would go after EVERYONE with ANY responsibility, without mercy or compassion.

XD_fan
October 31, 2007, 12:44 PM
This is exactly why the concept of para-military police and no-knock warrants are wrong.

OpFlash
October 31, 2007, 12:52 PM
This is a major possibility with no knock raids I'm afraid. The police (SWAT or whoever) have on multiple occasions raided the wrong locations based on bad intelligence. They just assume any honest citizens won't be armed and ready to defend themselves. Shouting "Police!" and even wearing LEO type clothes when breaking the lock on my door or coming through my window is something any band of thugs could easily do and does not in any way override a citizen's responsibility to protect themselves and their family. They need to realize that if they forcefully enter without warning they risk being fired on and if they kill an innocent person (even if that person was shooting at them in self defense) they should face murder charges. No knock warrants are serious business and they should only be undertaken in the most extreme circumstances, and the agency should be prepared to suffer the consequences if they screw up, including murder charges and being sued by victims and family.

noops
October 31, 2007, 02:05 PM
The Cory Maye thing comes to mind. SWAT went to wrong address, raided, and cop got shot and killed. Seems like the cops got it wrong but Cory Maye is serving life (his original death sentence has been overturned)

Prince Yamato
October 31, 2007, 02:10 PM
Basically, unless the cop is going wacko and you are in immediate life-threatening danger, then NO, you shouldn't use lethal force.

I think most police are deathly afraid of what the media will do to them in reported abuse situations. Since there are dashboard cameras on all cars, the cops aren't getting away with anything. I'd much rather be in court suing the police because they roughed me up than being sued by the policeman's family in a civil suit.

buzz_knox
October 31, 2007, 02:16 PM
I think most police are deathly afraid of what the media will do to them in reported abuse situations.

I don't know about that. I was at a training course and one cop started talking about how since he got a complaint on his first search of a female, he realized he'd get complained about every time. So, he told the group (filled with LEOs and non-LEOs) how he uses these searches to feel up women.

Deanimator
October 31, 2007, 02:42 PM
Basically, unless the cop is going wacko and you are in immediate life-threatening danger, then NO, you shouldn't use lethal force.
How about if the cop isn't "wacko" but merely involved in a criminal enterprise, like Jerome Finnegan of the Chicago PD? Should I NOT use lethal force against armed police involved in a violent home invasion with no purpose beyond THEFT?

I think most police are deathly afraid of what the media will do to them in reported abuse situations.
Not in Chicago. In fact the personnel of the Chicago PD seem COMPLETELY oblivious to the possibility, nay the near CERTAINTY that they're being recorded while they commit a whole panoply of felonies, from grand larceny, to aggravated battery, to solicitation of murder, to murder itself. In fact, the single most egregious incident involved a Chicago police officer shooting an unarmed man in the head, for no reason, while standing under a transit authority video camera. And why SHOULD he be concerned? When his SWORN testimony turned out to be LIES, the Superintendent of Police, Phil Cline suspended him for thirty days... then PROMOTED him to detective, a position which he holds to this day. I'd say that rather than displaying recklessness, Detective Alvin Weems displayed a rational appreciation of the vanishingly small odds that he would face any serious punishment for KILLING someone in cold blood... as long as he was a friend of Superintendent Cline. As for "fear" of the media, another Chicago cop was recently accused of throwing a photojournalist's cameras down a street, destroying them. No, they don't seem concerned about media attention at all.

ProficientRifleman
October 31, 2007, 02:55 PM
Jeff White:

I think you are letting your personal bias against law enforcement over ride common sense. Imagine a world where it was legal to resist arrest. Do you really want to settle all legal issues on the street with violence?

We have a thing called court. And court is where we resist arrest, if we're smart we get a lawyer to help us.


When ever someone disagrees with the "Cops are always right" premise, you reply as above. Its just anti-cop bias showing again.

If it costs a man years of his freedom, financial ruin, the loss of his property, and the loyalty of friends and family... he should still shut up, submit and take the ride.

Aw shucks, he'll probably be a better man for it...right?

ProficientRifleman
October 31, 2007, 03:05 PM
Cops, being human sometimes, do stupid things just like everyone else.

Why, then, does it make sense that cops are exempted from many newly proposed anti-gun laws ?

The silence is deafening when waiting to hear, from Police Officers' national organizations, or from rank and file Police Officers, who oppose not only new anti-gun laws but their own exemption from them.

Need I say "...only ones..."?

ProficientRifleman
October 31, 2007, 03:31 PM
Having stated the above, I believe Texas law has it right...If and when a LEO uses more force than is necessary to affect an arrest, the actor may legally use equal and opposite force in self defense.

Hypothetical:

A LEO truly believes he sees a subject who he knows has warrants and is considered dangerous. The LEO acts on instinct and moves to subdue the subject without announcing he is a LEO...thinking he must subdue the subject first for "officer safety".

The problem would arise when the subject is not who the ELO believed him to be. On the way to the ground, the LEO, meaning well, breaks a finger or nose of the subject, at which time, the subject, rightfully believing himself to be under attack, uses an appropriate amount of force to prevent further injury and possibly subdue his attacker.

Would our "subject" get the benefit of the doubt when it came time to "take the ride" ?

Would he be told, when he had his day in court, that the Police Officer in question meant well and that he has no standing...that he should consider himself lucky he isn't charged with assault of a Police Officer?

yesit'sloaded
October 31, 2007, 03:46 PM
Tough subject. I'm going to go along with it isn't an issue to me unless they are in uniform. In that case I would asses whether it is a case of mistaken identity or whether they really are trying to kill me on purpose (I think I heard a large black helicopter fly over). Remember that kid that sent in a phony 911 call and almost got a guy killed, or the no knock warrant that ended up in a dead grandmother and wounded cops. Only .gov and SWAT uses flashbangs so that would be a sign to get on the floor with hands on hand and wait to call the lawyer. A bump in the night followed by breaking glass? They better say they are the cops or it's going to be a FUBAR moment for everyone.

Deanimator
October 31, 2007, 04:09 PM
Tough subject. I'm going to go along with it isn't an issue to me unless they are in uniform. In that case I would asses whether it is a case of mistaken identity or whether they really are trying to kill me on purpose (I think I heard a large black helicopter fly over).
"Black helicopter"? If so, it's a Chicago PD helicopter with Jerome Finnegan as the pilot, Jon Burge as the crew chief and Alvin Weems as the door gunner.

Yes Virginia, there are police departments where the officers engage in serious crimes, up to and including soliciting murder for hire. If you live in a town where such things are as alien as cannibalism, count yourself fortunate. But those things DO happen, and in some places they seem to happen frequently. In Chicago, non-criminals actually FEAR the police and with abundant good reason. Don't say it can't happen, because I can give you names, dates, places and VIDEO.

Agouti
October 31, 2007, 04:55 PM
Deanimator, care to expound upon that Chicago PD corruption?
I would really like to read up on that.

Stephen21B
October 31, 2007, 05:24 PM
Some people are a**h***s
most LEOs are people
if someone shot my dog I would return fire
fortunately most of the local Police around here are decent people, some of them attend my target shoot/B-B-Q every summer. one time one of the local LEOs whom I had only met once came over to my house, seems his duty pistol was down for repair and his partner recommended he borrow one of mine:what: I loaned him my RIA 1911 he didn't like such an "old" pistol but was otherwise impressed with my collection (which was a bit larger then) and since then he comes over about once a month to borrow a gun for a day of shooting, it may not be possible in some places but making friends with LEOs is a good way to keep yourself out of trouble

Deanimator
October 31, 2007, 05:42 PM
most LEOs are people
And most people tend to do what they think the traffic will bear, at least up to a point.

The police in my town don't have a reputation for committing violent crimes. Why? Because they aren't allowed to. An apparently high standard of behavior is set and enforced. No home invasions, no kidnappings, no murders. At worst, they're sometimes lazy about investigating types of crimes with which they have no experience, such as check forgery, check kiting, etc. Do I have a tangible reason to fear encounters with them? No.

Contrast this with my hometown of Chicago. I avoid ANY contact with the police AT ALL. I wouldn't even report a crime if I saw one. There wouldn't be any point. My family has called the Chicago PD, to no purpose whatever. All I'd be doing by interacting with them would be creating a potentially dangerous situation for myself without much chance of a favorable outcome.

Orthonym
October 31, 2007, 07:06 PM
Aren't most aspiring policemen cautioned in training never to say words like "I'm going to kill you!" to people they accost, because we all retain the right to defend against an imminent killer?

ilbob
October 31, 2007, 07:21 PM
Anyone know someone who has had off-duty cops pick a fight with him in a bar, then proceed to brawl with him and his wife?

There was an odd case last year where a Rockford cop got into a bar fight outside his jurisdiction but in the same county. He ended up dead.

At first the SA refused to press any charges other than involuntary manslaughter against the other brawler. The police union got involved and eventually much stronger charges were filed.

It is hard to tell what really happened or why, because one guy that was involved is dead and the other is not saying much except to his lawyer, but it appears for some reason they managed to knock heads in the parking lot at 1 a.m. Its not clear who started it, or why.

Incidentally,the most serious evidence they have is from a tape made of him calling people after the incident while sitting in a police car. It seems that the local police did not even handcuff him after the incident, just asked him to sit in the squad car. While sitting there he made some cell phone calls that got recorded by the video camera in the squad car. One would think that not handcuffing him implies the local police did not consider that a serious crime had occurred. It was only after it was determined the dead guy was a cop that anyone made a big deal of it.

Nathanael_Greene
October 31, 2007, 07:26 PM
I'm not sure what part of the brain thought this up. But are there any circumstances that you could claim self defense against a LEO?

My great-uncle killed a policeman in self-defense.

This was before I was born, but the story is that a drunken cop came into a bar and began beating patrons with his baton; my uncle (one of the patrons) took the baton away and killed the cop with his bare hands.

He was acquitted, because there were many victim/witnesses.

Ironically, my great-uncle became a policeman himself, and went on to a distinguished career as a detective.

ilbob
October 31, 2007, 07:33 PM
The police in my town don't have a reputation for committing violent crimes. Why? Because they aren't allowed to. An apparently high standard of behavior is set and enforced. No home invasions, no kidnappings, no murders. At worst, they're sometimes lazy about investigating types of crimes with which they have no experience, such as check forgery, check kiting, etc. Do I have a tangible reason to fear encounters with them? No.
Where the political system does not tolerate LE misconduct, it is not as common. But we all knew that already. I don't worry too much about the county sheriff in my county. They seem like decent enough folk. The city police make me a little nervous, but for the most bad, the worst of the bad eggs usually seem to get dealt with.

Contrast this with my hometown of Chicago. I avoid ANY contact with the police AT ALL. I wouldn't even report a crime if I saw one. There wouldn't be any point. My family has called the Chicago PD, to no purpose whatever. All I'd be doing by interacting with them would be creating a potentially dangerous situation for myself without much chance of a favorable outcome.Places like Chicago have virtually no effective supervision of police. The politicians do not want it. I would not report a random crime in Chicago either, unless there was no way to avoid doing so. A fair number of POs in Chicago are actual gang members, and there does not appear to have been any effort made to get rid of them. They have instituted a rule requiring a college degree for CPD on the theory that gang members don't generally have college degrees, so presumably in 20 years or so, all the gang member POs in the CPD will have retired.

I do have a certain amount of sympathy for those members of the CPD who are not gang members and are decent human beings and are really trying. But you have no way of knowing in Chicago just which side of the law the cop you are interacting with is on, so your only real alternative is to avoid interaction entirely.

Pat Cannon
October 31, 2007, 08:07 PM
I remember reading an article in which a CCW holder shot an undercover cop after said cop pulled him over for a traffic violation, and for no conceivable reason, pulled his own weapon on the CCW holder's wife.
The CCW holder was not charged.Yep, that was a fellow named Treptow here in Minnesota. The cop, Landen Beard, was in plain clothes, supposedly undercover, in an unmarked vehicle. It was more of a road rage incident than a traffic stop. Treptow shot Officer Beard in both legs and the arm as I recall. Bottom line -- so far -- Treptow was released without charge and nobody's been charged with anything, yet. Or fired.

There's a big thread about it on our local forum (http://www.twincitiescarry.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6499&start=15&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=). I should say, one of our local forums, because the case was at least part of the trigger of a flame war between the "door-kicker wannabes" and the "civil-libertarian cop-bashers" that resulted in a bunch of folks getting banned, the moderator "going on vacation" and a new forum being created to fill the void. So now we have two excellent gun forums in Minnesota as well as a new source of drama, gossip, feuding and that sort of entertainment.

gunsmith
October 31, 2007, 08:28 PM
I don't like the guy, but he wasn't convicted of shooting back at police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Davis_(criminal)

ilbob
October 31, 2007, 08:51 PM
i think what happened at waco and ruby ridge should be enough food for thought.
The rush to whitewash afterwards is particularly instructive.

Autolycus
October 31, 2007, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Zoogster: No, lets not forget he was a wanted criminal, a fleeing felon, and had charged at and been trying to attack officers before what appears to be excessive force was used.
Got any proof that he tried to attack officers?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-042102kingbeating-qt,1,5983436.quicktime?ctrack=1&cset=true

Look like he was on the ground being victimized by LEOs.

Jeff White
October 31, 2007, 09:06 PM
Tecumseh asked:

Got any proof that he tried to attack officers?

Try to find the entire video online, not just the 8 seconds the media looped together. You'll see plenty of attacks against the officers.

The jury in state court that acquitted the officers saw the entire video and had all of the actions the officers took explained to them. For someone who was allegedly brutally beaten he required surprisingly little medical care.

Jeff

ilbob
October 31, 2007, 09:08 PM
Rodney King is a bad case to make any kind of generalizations about.

The conduct of the officers was borderline IMO, and King's behavior immediately before his a$$ whopping was not exactly a model of virtue.

Its pretty clear the cops were enjoying themselves to some extent, but to some extent they trying to subue a guy who just would not submit to arrest. If I were trying to arrest a guy who had survived multiple taserings (and I think pepper spray) and seemed none the worse for it, I think I would be seriously worried.

But at some point, it got to be fun, and I think that is why the federal jury convicted.

The bottom line is if there was no video tape, no one would have cared about what happened. Can you imagine Rodney King trying to make any kind of complaint about how he was treated by police?

cassandrasdaddy
October 31, 2007, 09:28 PM
king was lucky it was la pull that in pg md and you go to the morgue

ilbob
October 31, 2007, 10:00 PM
king was lucky it was la pull that in pg md and you go to the morgue
It is quite possible that his life was saved because a female CHIP trooper happened along. Made for an extra witness they might not have been able to convince to go along with their version of events.

Or not.

Who knows how these things happen. Human beings are complex animals. They often do things that are not readily understood. Sometimes those who did things don't even know why they did it.

Cops hang around scum a fair amount, in LA probably a lot more than most places. Some of it rubs off sometimes.

wheelgunslinger
October 31, 2007, 10:35 PM
One of the unfortunate side effects of being a LEO, in my experience of interacting with them, is that you give years of your life protecting society only to slip into a malaise of thinking that everyone is a dirtbag.

I think that many of the stories of dirty cops and abuse registers in the officer's head on a very different continuum of right and wrong. They spend day in and day out seeing the aftermath of horrible crimes and hardened criminals, and then watch grown men sob and throw tantrums to get out of a speeding ticket.
It's gotta be rough on the soul. Especially for guys who, traditionally, aren't exactly sitting around pondering the pearls of Sartre or Aristotle's wisdom in their spare time.

But, the stakes are high when a guy starts pushing the bounds of what he can do lawfully. And, with me, knowing how some LEOs can come unhinged and how many of them see the world (with them as the "thin blue line" against evil), I don't think anyone should hesitate to use deadly force to defend their life against an unlawful attack.

After all, that person is a trained killer. And, confronted with any other stressed out god/punisher complexed guy with lots of training, I'd do the same.
Long arm of the law or not.

But, we are talking about the whack jobs. Not the average officer.

ilbob
October 31, 2007, 10:47 PM
It's gotta be rough on the soul. Especially for guys who, traditionally, aren't exactly sitting around pondering the pearls of Sartre or Aristotle's wisdom in their spare time.
And the rest of us do?

After all, that person is a trained killer. And, confronted with any other stressed out god/punisher complexed guy with lots of training, I'd do the same.
I think you hit part of the nail on the head. There are a fair number of cops who really cannot get past the idea that it is just a job. It has to be some kind of moral crusade with them. And when that crusade fails to produce the desired results, they have a tough time of it.

The good ones understand it is just a job.

Well Regulated
November 1, 2007, 05:25 PM
Of course it's okay to shoot a LEO in self-defense. The Supreme Court allows it and the law of society demands it.


" Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist. He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right. What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

The plaintiff in error was undoubtedly prejudiced by this error in the charge, and the judgment of the court below must therefore be reversed, and the case remanded with instructions to grant a new trial." JOHN BAD ELK v. U S, 177 U.S. 529 (1900).


"Saturday, Oct 20, 2007 - 12:08 AM

By JAMIE C. RUFF
TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER
FARMVILLE -- A Farmville man was found not guilty yesterday of shooting a town policeman in the leg during a 2005 traffic stop, the prosecutor said.

The jury deliberated about an hour before deciding that Russell Smith was not guilty of attempted capital murder, malicious wounding and two counts of use of a firearm in the Oct. 21, 2005, shooting of Farmville police officer Johnny Garrett, Prince Edward County Commonwealth's Attorney James R. Ennis said.

The trial lasted two days.

Garrett testified Thursday that he had learned Smith's license had been revoked and the officer was preparing to administer a breath test to determine Smith's alcohol level when he saw Smith raise a .38-caliber handgun just inches from the officer's chest.

Garrett said he was shot in the thigh when the gun fired as he slapped it down. Garrett said he heard several other shots as he fled for cover, and returned fire. Garrett was treated at Southside Community Hospital and released. He is the first town officer shot since 1974.

Defense attorney John Mann insisted the gun went off accidentally and Smith fled as Garrett fired on him.

"He wasn't intending to hit anybody," Mann said of his client. "He left [because] the officer was trying to kill him."

But Ennis noted during questioning of Garrett that Smith did not throw the gun out of window, put up his hands or say it was an accident.

In late January, a mistrial was declared in the middle of closing arguments when Smith's defense attorney, James Sheffield, said he lost his train of thought and could not continue. "

jon_in_wv
November 1, 2007, 07:13 PM
My simple rule of thumb for ALL cases of self defense is this. Assume the WORST case secenario, if I shoot, I will be arrested, prosecuted, possible found guilty, IMPRISONED, my defense will probably bankrupt my family, and I will not see my kids except on visiting days in the clink. I weigh that possibility against what will happen if I DON'T pull the trigger. Obviously that would be a tough decision to make at the spur of the moment so it boils down to this. If someone (LEO included) threatens to KILL or cause serious bodily injury to me, my wife, my children, or people in my direct care, they are in even graver danger of meeting their maker. Short of that I still have two feet and two fists that I can either run or fight with.

revjen45
November 2, 2007, 04:54 PM
In 1985 this situation occurred in San Diego, DPRK. A man named Sagon Penn was acquitted of killing an LEO and wounding another on the basis of self defense. They were in the process of giving Mr. Penn a mahogany shampoo when he grabbed one cop's gun and shot them both. 2 trials- 1st hung jury, 2nd- acquittal. SDPD made his life miserable for years afterward.

whited
November 2, 2007, 06:27 PM
But are there any circumstances that you could claim self defense against a LEO?

Yes, there are.

The questions implies that there may not be circumstances that you could
claim self defense against a LEO, which is of course utterly ridiculous.

I am completely bewildered at the notion (which seems to have gained some
traction here) that LEOs are above the law, or may be deserving of more
respect simply because they have a badge and gun.

I'll not participate in such nonsense. They are men and women just like we
are, and are subject to the same treatment.

whited
November 2, 2007, 06:33 PM
My family has called the Chicago PD, to no purpose whatever. All I'd be doing by interacting with them would be creating a potentially dangerous situation for myself without much chance of a favorable outcome

I have had similar results with my local constabulary.

: my comments edited because I wouldn't want to offend any "good" LEOs
reading this board.

Orthonym
January 7, 2008, 01:38 AM
I think I have noticed lately, that more and more "normal" (non-criminal) people seem to be expressing cop fear.

TexasSkyhawk
January 7, 2008, 02:50 AM
Anyone know someone who has had off-duty cops pick a fight with him in a bar, then proceed to brawl with him and his wife?

Yep, but they didn't proceed to brawl with my wife--but they did with my partner, who was female.

A female agent and myself had been undercover for almost a year working outlaw motorcycle gangs--the one percenters. The female agent was "my old lady" and we'd been a team for quite a while.

One eveing, in a major U.S. city, we'd grown tired of hanging out at biker dives and wanted a decent, quiet bar to have a few drinks in. We're sitting at the bar, minding our own business when a couple of guys walk up and start making "long-hair" remarks, then "tattoo" remarks, and then finally, "biker trash commie hippie" remarks. The remarks kept getting cruder and cruder, and then the suggestion was made that they (the two guys) oughta kick our asses right here, right now.

We had no idea who they were. Clean cut, early to mid-30's white guys.

I turned around and looked at them and told them to "Eff off" and suggested they move on down the bar or find a booth or find another place to drink, and that it was in their best interest to leave us be.

The "leader" of the two turns to my partner and refers to her as the "c" word. I turn around and am getting ready to take these two boys to the floor and I'm met with two badges. The two guys finally ID'd themselves as officers (one was a sergeant) with the ------- Police Department.

My partner informs them that we haven't done a damn thing wrong, have not violated so much as an ordinance let alone a law so why don't they just move along and take their badges and show them to someone who might be impressed.

At that point, the second guy reached out and literally slapped my partner across the face. When she jumped up, reflexively, the leader took a swing at me and the fight was on.

My partner had kneed the second guy right in the crotch--and HARD. He was swearing and in between gagging, yelling at HIS partner to "Shoot these *******s! KILL THEM, G--DAMNIT!" And as bad cop number one reached for his gun, I stuck mine in his face and announced who WE were.

We had to have the bartender call the local FBI and U.S. Marshal's office to send out agents because we didn't (obviously) have any handcuffs or restraining devices on us and we had every intention of arresting these two yo-yo's.

Want to guess what happened to those cops?

No need to guess. They went to jail that afternoon. In the morning, they went in front of a U.S. Magistrate. That afternoon, they were being interviewed by their department's IAD boys and girls.

Both lost their jobs and both served almost a year of federal camp time. Both are convicted federal felons.

During my time at Quantico during basic academy and during subsequent undercover assignments, the civil affairs counsel at our USA's office repeatedly drilled into our heads that although we were cops, if we abused our discretionary authority even in the course of our (undercover) duties and were subsequently injured or killed as a result, the chances of the USA's office filing charges would be slim.

I worked with a lot of local cops during my years in the government. Without exception, every local cop I worked with told me that his/her department stressed the incredible duty and importance of proper and legal conduct on and off-duty.

Many of these departments/agencies required that officers identify themselves as such when off-duty and responding/interceding in virtually ANY incident or instance.

I know the OP's question was hypothetical, but the results of following through on his question are very real and anything but hypothetical. In most instances, cops are ashamed and embarassed by dirty cops. And if a dirty cop is killed in a matter of self-defense by a righteous citizen, there isn't a whole lot of backlash against that citizen.

Good cops are just that--Good cops. They do not like the dishonest among them. They do not like the cops among them that are on the take or who do the "protection" rackets. They have disdain for the cops who coerce sexual favors in exchange for "tearing up the ticket."

I've arrested more than my fair share of dirty cops and rare was the occasion that once presented with the (normally overwhelming) evidence, their partners or other squad members would not stand by them and cooperate with us even BEYOND the call of normal duty.

The bottom line is that you have the right of self defense regardless of who may be threatening or attempting to injure you or end your life.

Jeff

GRB
January 7, 2008, 02:55 AM
If the officer is not acting witin the scope of his or her duties, and threatens you with serious bodily injury or death...take it from there.

doc2rn
January 7, 2008, 03:09 AM
Didn't I just hear about this with the guy who shot 2 LEO durring a no Knock raid? Hit them with 2 out of 3 12g rds and LEOs lit off like 30 rds and hit nada.

Just because they are LEO does not mean they dont have everyday problems. We just had one LEO (retired) shoot an LEO (active) for sleeping with his separated wife. Police requested and got a gag order on the media. They are human, and I have worked with LEOs enough to be well versed on the blue wall.

siglite
January 7, 2008, 03:09 AM
The only time I can imagine me defending myself against an LE would be an immediate entry warrant served on the wrong residence. Hulk smash my door in the middle of the night, I'm sending rounds through it. There's no time for positive identification on immediate entry warrants. I hate those things. But that's the only time I can imagine ever "defending" myself against an LEO. Outside of that situation, which I have no reason to believe will EVER occur here, I'd save it for court.

Lew
January 7, 2008, 03:28 AM
The only time I can imagine me defending myself against an LE would be an immediate entry warrant served on the wrong residence. Hulk smash my door in the middle of the night, I'm sending rounds through it. There's no time for positive identification on immediate entry warrants. I hate those things.

That's what really scares me. I've played it out in my head many times. Door busts in. Dark shadows start running and screaming around my house. Shots are exchanged. There's a lull... "I'm calling the cops so you better GTFO!" ..."This is the Police! Throw down your weapon!" "What??! ...Prove it!" Now I'm a nutcase and end up in federal pen.

Or maybe I'd kill an honorable peace officer just in time for his partner to put three in my chest.

No-knocks are no-win.

nwilliams
January 7, 2008, 03:32 AM
The only time I can imagine me defending myself against an LE would be an immediate entry warrant served on the wrong residence. Hulk smash my door in the middle of the night, I'm sending rounds through it. There's no time for positive identification on immediate entry warrants. I hate those things. But that's the only time I can imagine ever "defending" myself against an LEO. Outside of that situation, which I have no reason to believe will EVER occur here, I'd save it for court.

Reminds me of what happened here in Arizona a while back that actually provoked some law changes. Of course it involved bounty hunters not cops, anyway interesting story and you can read the details here.....
http://www.prisonactivist.org/pipermail/prisonact-list/1998-October/002495.html

huff.jeremy
January 7, 2008, 04:25 AM
Unless in extreme circumstances, any reaction to official police conduct must be completely passive.

Even if you are innocent and being unlawfully "roughed up" by a LEO, the courts expect you to endure and refrain from any physical resistance... and leave the punishment to the court.

I would imagine this is especially so in situations where firearms are involved, and any resistance would be legally problematic as well as dangerous to your health.

Even if one felt justified to use threat of deadly force against a LEO in a private confrontation... the burden of proof would be insurmountable (word v. word). And such a threat might be the straw that causes the LEO to pull his own trigger on you.

If it was not a private confrontation, any do-gooder or honest LEO who witnesses the confrontation would be justified in ending your life in protection of the other LEO... if they reasonably believed his life was in immediate danger.

The only circumstances I would personally use force against a LEO would be extreme acts of bad faith.. rape of another (or myself *shudder*) or an IMMEDIATE & REAL threat to my life (if i am innocent) or that of another innocent.

mrkwns
January 9, 2008, 12:44 AM
Didn't I just hear about this with the guy who shot 2 LEO durring a no Knock raid? Hit them with 2 out of 3 12g rds and LEOs lit off like 30 rds and hit nada.


And no charges were filed....

http://www.startribune.com/local/12616796.html

DoubleTapDrew
January 9, 2008, 05:39 PM
When I took my CHL class the officer teaching it told the class about a case where a CHL holder did shoot and kill a plainclothes LEO who had chased and tackled a suspect and was now either beating him or holding his gun on him, don't remember which. The CHL holder thought the roles were reversed. A sad situation. He said no charges were filed. It was an honest, albeit horrible, mistake.

Jaenak
January 9, 2008, 11:15 PM
Even if you do shoot a LEO in self defense, no one will believe you. Well, they might believe you but the people who matter won't support you. You'd better have ALOT of damn good witnesses!! LEOs always stick together, believe one another and support one another. Lawyers and judges will always side with the LEO as well. If you get into a self defense scenario with an LEO, then run away and let another LEO shoot the bezerk LEO. If an LEO has to restrain a fellow LEO, than the LEO in question will not be untouchable but if you have to restrain the bezerk LEO, than you will be the bad guy regardless of what happened or who saw what. After all, you're trying to convince a whole group of people that their long standing good friend, buddy and trusted ally is everything but. They won't believe you. :banghead:

barneyfife.357
January 9, 2008, 11:19 PM
I am not sure if it was covered earlier, but what in self defense no matter the attacker, are they not usually "on a rampage"? or cracked out? or alcohol or some sort of somthing involved? speaking from the justice side, cops are not immune to being drunk; however, most of the one's I work with are smart enough not to drive or use their weapons when intoxicated

KBintheSLC
January 10, 2008, 07:15 PM
I think the only time would be if they illegally entered my home. Say they mistakenly kicked in my door instead of the drug dealer down the street. In this case, if they failed to knock and show a warrant before entering, they could expect to be fired on heavily by all members of my household. I/we might likely end up dead, but my family could live nicely from the lawsuits that would follow.

Besides that, maybe if it was the cop on Pulp Fiction.

In reality, I can not foresee justification in shooting an officer for any probable reason.

Werewolf
January 10, 2008, 08:15 PM
The kicker is, if the officer identifies himself as an officer and acts in an official capacity then the law I posted applies. Also all of the other laws, battery being a felony, etc. kick in then too.And this is what makes the IL law so heinous...even if he believes that the arrest is unlawful and the arrest in fact is unlawful.Even the UCMJ says it is OK to disobey an unlawful order.

If a police officer is making an unlawful arrest, knows it and is using force to an extent that a reasonable person would consider their life in jeopardy, then why should the police officer get protection that a citizen does not?

basicblur
January 10, 2008, 08:57 PM
I’m flying on memory here, but…
In VA a few years back, we had a number of cops from different agencies pull one o’ them 3am drug raids on a house. When they entered the house, the (alleged) perp shot and killed one of the officers. When the homeowner went to trial the verdict hinged on whether the police announced themselves as such or not. The police said they did, the homeowner said they did not, and the jury agreed with the homeowner. The homeowner got off on the shooting, but I think he may have pulled time for drugs or something else? (Don’t remember if they actually found drugs in his house during the raid or not).
BTW, true or not, my boss at work said he knew one of the officers involved in the raid and said he told him nobody yelled POLICE when they hit the house.

My question/worry is…I’ve seen numerous shows where the police use various methods (flash grenades etc) to disorient the subject during a raid. While I see/have no reason for the police to raid my house (other than mistaken identity), if I’m sleeping and someone crashed into my house while using some method to disorient me…hey, I may come out shooting also, even if they are yelling POLICE at the top of their lungs! Heck…they just did something to disorient you, then expect you to wake up, overlook the flash grenade (or ?), and sort out the word POLICE possibly being yelled by a number of officers? (It may sound like unintelligible garbage iff’n they ain’t all yelling in unison).

At’s pretty long odds in my book…and I gotta tell ya…if I was on a jury when something like this happened…the homeowner is probably gonna walk.

BTW…sounds to me like the raid they pulled could have been handled like the Waco situation should have been. I remember seeing the local sheriff on TV telling that all they had to do was let him know they wanted Koresh picked up and he could have done it at the barber shop (they often got haircuts at the same time). Iff’n memory serves, the sheriff was taken off TV PDQ. Kinda sounds like the drug raid in VA could have been handled the same way?

Don’t get me wrong-I support the (good/honest/professional) police, but criminey folks…use your head for some o’ this stuff instead of taking a "Show ‘em who’s boss" approach!

BTW II…’bout halfway through 'The Great New Orleans Gun Grab: Descent Into Anarchy' and it’ll really make you think. It’s a shame most folks in this country won’t ever pay any attention to what happened down there.
In the book so far, the only enforcement agencies that acted with true professionalism have been the Louisiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries and the 82nd Airborne!

Hkmp5sd
January 10, 2008, 10:08 PM
There was in incident about 20 years ago in Tampa in which the local SWAT team hit the wrong address while serving a no-knock warrant. The homeowner shot and killed one of the officers. The homeowner was shot and survived. He was arrested and tried for killing the LEO, but was aquitted.

conw
January 10, 2008, 11:30 PM
You'd think all these incidents mentioned just in this thread would give pause to these no-knock warrants...I mean, come on, monitor the house for 3 hours or something.

I think a home invader could really benefit by yelling "POLICE!" if accosted by the home owner. Damn, that'd be a psychological trump card.

TexasSkyhawk
January 11, 2008, 03:28 AM
Even if you do shoot a LEO in self defense, no one will believe you. Well, they might believe you but the people who matter won't support you. You'd better have ALOT of damn good witnesses!! LEOs always stick together, believe one another and support one another. Lawyers and judges will always side with the LEO as well.

Thanks for writing this!

I've saved it, printed and I'm letting it dry out. Soon as it does, I'm going to crumple it into tiny, tiny pieces and sprinkle it on my front lawn come spring time.

I should have the greenest grass on my block a few weeks afterwards.

Jeff

thexrayboy
January 12, 2008, 03:54 AM
Unless in extreme circumstances, any reaction to official police conduct must be completely passive.

Even if you are innocent and being unlawfully "roughed up" by a LEO, the courts expect you to endure and refrain from any physical resistance... and leave the punishment to the court.


That is the official goal of LEO. They want you to be passive no matter what they do. They know that unless you have a busload of impeccable witnesses and tv quality surveillance video that disputes whatever they choose to put in the official report your chances of prevailing in court are roughly equal to the proverbial snowball in hell.

Because the legal system is so thoroughly weighted in favor of whatever LEO says it becomes a tremendous ordeal for the average citizen of average means to recieve true justice.

Remember the goal of the legal system in this country is to administer law. If justice occurs during that process it is merely an accidental byproduct.

If you enjoyed reading about "Shooting a LEO in self defense??? Hypothetical" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!