LAPD shoots up a truck...right to shoot back?


PDA






Habeed
February 8, 2013, 03:34 PM
Apparently, according to the news, LAPD officers opened fire without warning on a blue Toyota tundra that resembled, in their minds, the grey Nissan pickup that Jordan Dorner was thought to be driving.

Somehow, miraculously, they did not kill the 2 women in the truck, despite firing over 30 rounds. Anyways, hypothetically, if one of the occupants of the truck had a CHL, did they have the legal right to shoot back? Obviously, that would only escalate the situation, but hypothetically, suppose that several video cameras observed the crime from all angles. (so the cops can't lie about what they did)

And, the CHL owner was a crack shot and had the right type of weapon, and he took down the cops. Legal?

If you enjoyed reading about "LAPD shoots up a truck...right to shoot back?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Creature
February 8, 2013, 03:53 PM
I dont see this thread lasting very long...

murphys_law
February 8, 2013, 04:00 PM
I think the right is there, but don't think it would have helped the situation...

Cosmoline
February 8, 2013, 04:01 PM
Technically, yes you can resist an unlawful arrest. But as a practical matter they'll kill you for it long before it reaches any court. And the question of whether it's lawful or unlawful can be very complex. So in the unlikely event of survival you had better have guessed right.

HankR
February 8, 2013, 04:07 PM
Based on the way this thread went this morning, my guess is it's not even legal kosher to discuss this on THR...

Bovice
February 8, 2013, 04:17 PM
I think this is a valid thread for THR.

It doesn't matter who is shooting at you. If you're on a Sunday afternoon drive and suddenly you're being shot at, there's no reason why you can't shoot back. Just because they are police does not allow them to shoot at any vehicle they want. If they attempted to pull over the truck and the driver ignored them, that's murkier water. Still, I don't know of any department policies to resort to gunfire first thing in a pursuit.

The truth of it would probably be that the rest of the town and much of the department would think you're a cop killer, and as someone stated, they'll try to kill you for it. Or, your trial would be so biased, you never had a chance.

Sam1911
February 8, 2013, 04:20 PM
No law forces you (or can force you) to endure violence from anyone, ever. You DO have the right (generally recognized by law, even in cases of law enforcement) to use force to stop ANYONE from attacking you -- so long as you are not violating the law yourself.

There are obvious problems that arise when that attacker is a sworn officer, especially acting under what s/he believes to be their duty to apprehend a law-breaker. There is also a difference between trying to preserve your life against deadly force and resisting arrest.

True "shoot to kill" actions by the police, where there is no attempt to arrest, halt, discern, investigate, verify, etc. are very rare. The actions of the various law officers involved in the wounding of innocent folks during this manhunt are clearly errors and will be heavily investigated, and certainly the outcomes of such investigations are far beyond our scope here.

xXxplosive
February 8, 2013, 04:31 PM
Worst case of Profiling ever......what if there were kids in that car too ?
Rubber gun squad and Firing is in order......IMO.
2 women shot, the back of the truck riddled with holes......NG.

LAWYERS.............take over.

Spammy_H
February 8, 2013, 04:40 PM
Anybody have a link to this?

zmoore1991
February 8, 2013, 05:01 PM
What I was taught in my criminal law course is that you ALWAYS have a right to defend yourself from unwarranted violence (even against officers, if they are not justified in their use of physical force toward you), but you NEVER have the right to resist arrest, even when it is "unlawful." Pretty sure there was a SC case about resisting unlawful arrest, but I cannot remember for sure.
As far as the scare that is going on in LA right now, I think that any officer death, even in a case where the LEOs started the gunfight and you were simply defending yourself from unwarranted lethal force, would be a very bad thing for you as a defendant in that trial.

Habeed
February 8, 2013, 05:03 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/lapd-shooting-at-innocent-people_n_2638701.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

Apparently, the cops are so jumpy about one man out to get them that they have shot up two different trucks. I don't see how in either case they gave the occupant of the vehicle a chance to surrender. Nor did they even verify it was the same kind of truck that Dorner supposedly was driving.

And, Zmore : the real problem with such a trial is that the LAPD officers who perpetuated the crime would probably state that you fired first, and they announced they were cops before opening fire. Pretty much the only way you would win is if there was a video recording showing otherwise.

niner4tango
February 8, 2013, 05:07 PM
Here's one
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57568368/christopher-dorner-manhunt-two-innocent-women-shot-by-lapd-officers-had-no-warning/

SHR970
February 8, 2013, 05:10 PM
Did someone ask for a link????

Local Paper (http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_22548130/lapd-looking-dorner-accused-street-justice-opening-fire)

I live within 3 miles of both shootings....one of my closest friends lives within 3 blocks of both incidents.

For the record, Los Angeles PD are just a bit out of their jurisdiction being in Redondo Beach and Torrance. The "Torrance" incident is borderline Redondo Beach territory. Both incidents failed to meet any accepted practices of "Felony Stop" in Los Angeles County on every level.

Edit: To the OP's question.....in this particular case; if you came out of the encounter alive you will almost certainly end up in prison. In this part of the country it is HIGHLY unlikely that you would have one of the few CCW permits. CCW a handgun without a permit is a wobbler misdemeanor / felony; the DA's office would almost certainly apply the used in a crime standard to make it a felony charge out the gate. Add attempted murder / murder 2 with special circumstances (police officer) and you are in for an expensive world of hurt. And that is IF you survive encounter #2 with the next officer(s) that come for you due to your defending yourself from the original officers.

Kiln
February 8, 2013, 05:12 PM
Hey, now maybe police officers get it. Being fearful for your life and not being protected by a black uniform and badge.

If it was you or me that shot up a random vehicle we'd be in prison. Here's basically what the public gets when a police officer does something stupid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlIRsFf9aJc

mljdeckard
February 8, 2013, 05:14 PM
I agree, I would like to see the lawyers make this one hurt.

SHR970
February 8, 2013, 05:21 PM
The problem is that we the taxpayers end up paying for it from the costs of litigation against the cities to the awards payed out to the victims.

If it were you or I we would be facing numerous charges starting with attempted murder. Let the lawyers start there. Both incidents clearly come under the heading of "Bad Shoot". Both vehicles are the wrong make / model /color. Two people in a vehicle where they are looking for a solo actor? Shooting at / targeting the potential hostage is poor form at best.

allaroundhunter
February 8, 2013, 05:25 PM
An example should be made of every. single. officer. that fired a shot at either vehicle. This should not be tolerated by anyone, especially citizens. "Serve and protect"? Not in the slightest.

It really is unimaginable that such a blatant disregard for human life was shown. What, now that someone is after their families it is different? What about those of us that don't wear a badge who "shouldn't" have guns?...

blarby
February 8, 2013, 05:34 PM
the irony here being the alleged misuse of force by the LAPD being the strongest catalyst for dorners rampage.....

gripper
February 8, 2013, 05:38 PM
Anyone shooting at me had better hit me right in the 10 ring up front. Cop, or not; if it's on, it's on.

mljdeckard
February 8, 2013, 05:44 PM
Yes, it hits the taxpayers. But the administration needs to be conditioned to the fact that their training must err on the side of respecting people's rights, or the pain will continue.

Arp32
February 8, 2013, 05:57 PM
No matter what, shooting back at the police is not going to end well for anyone.

It's like not yielding to a red light runner: if you end up dead, does it matter that you had the right of way?

Luckily the cops in question were crack shots. Poor woman.

SHR970
February 8, 2013, 05:59 PM
Yes, it hits the taxpayers. But the administration needs to be conditioned to the fact that their training must err on the side of respecting people's rights, or the pain will continue.

I disagree..they are conditioned to "That's the cost of doing business"
We need the Officers to be conditioned to err on the side of respecting peoples rights. In a case such as this, Prison Time sends a loud message that extrajudicial killings will not be tolerated.

mljdeckard
February 8, 2013, 06:10 PM
Let's do both.

k_dawg
February 8, 2013, 07:14 PM
Morally and Ethically? Yes.

Legally? Well, in a nation where it was 'legal' to deny basic human rights to the majority of citizens [ women of all color, blacks, etc. ].

clutch
February 8, 2013, 07:24 PM
The problem is that we the taxpayers end up paying for it from the costs of litigation against the cities to the awards payed out to the victims.



In a case like this, take everything the officers have or have coming to them. Make them know that bad actions will take everything they have.

Batty67
February 8, 2013, 07:24 PM
I agree with others: shooting back at the police (under those circumstances) will almost certainly have a bad outcome for the shooter, and could put you in the morgue or hospital with significant jail-time chaser...

Since they got lucky and did not kill or wound anyone, I think just losing their jobs permanently would suffice. Besides, the LAPD is going to get sued into oblivion.

ilbob
February 8, 2013, 07:28 PM
I agree with others: shooting back at the police (under those circumstances) will almost certainly have a bad outcome for the shooter, and could put you in the morgue or hospital with significant jail-time chaser...

Since they got lucky and did not kill or wound anyone, I think just losing their jobs permanently would suffice. Besides, the LAPD is going to get sued into oblivion.
I would not count on a successful lawsuit. It is very, very hard to successfully sue police over anything. Government is very protective of itself.

Zoogster
February 8, 2013, 07:34 PM
Actually it was even worse.

It was two seperate trucks down the street from eachother both with innocent people shot by police.
They were in the same neighborhood and those that heard the shots heard them both.

One involved LAPD and the other Torrance PD.

Apparently one triggered the other almost immediately. The LAPD opening fire on the first innocent truck caused the Torrance PD to respond and open fire on a similar truck just down the street thinking they were responding to the one the LAPD was just engaging.

A witness to the sounds described the shots from both shootings thinking it was the same shooting, they were so close together with only a brief break between them.

So two seperate trucks of innocent people had the police open fire on them in the same area.




It also illustrates something else. Had it actually been the suspect they were planning to gun him down on sight, just opening up on him and not giving him a chance to attack.
That is obvious since they gunned down trucks that looked like his when they thought it was him, and clearly couldn't even see anything well enough to know it was not only not him but a couple women.
I cannot say I fault them for that course of action considering it is a guy that is intent on going on the offensive given the chance and who has been successful at killing cops after him already, but it most certainly is not the perspective they would give to the public after.
I can already hear the claims of him going for a weapon, suspect said he was going to die earlier and was just following through with his plans, etc
They were going to gun him down on sight and not give him any options if possible.
Taking him into custody was not even going to be attempted, while any official press releases would have made it seem that is exactly what they were trying to do so when they were forced to use deadly force.





Just as they control perspective in those situations, giving certain impressions, they would do the same thing if someone shot back. Retroactively made excuses for shooting at you would probably include you having a weapon, or they suspected you were going for a weapon and feared for thier lives. Since you had a gun that would add credibility to that lie or retroactively made excuse.
That you didn't even take out a weapon until being shot at would not be told in the official press releases or reports, and the investigators would be giving the benefit of the doubt to police. Having it happen within a vehicle where dash cameras are less useful would add credibility to the officers retroactively made excuses that are why they felt you were a threat.
So someone shooting back would actually remove this from a case where the police are seen as having acted badly and turn it into a case where the officers doing the shooting had reasons for shooting you they could retroactively apply.
Shooting at the cops turned into you being on the offensive and the police having only been acting defensively.

The truth would be very unlikely to come out. Whether or not you survived you would been seen as having been the bad guy and the officers justified in using force on you, someone that was clearly armed and dangerous.

MrTwigg
February 8, 2013, 07:41 PM
Not much of a chance without a rifle.

freyasman
February 8, 2013, 11:41 PM
Well, this guy was mad at the LAPD.... and the damage this series of events has caused, (and will continue to cause them for a long time) is going to be very, very bad. If he doesn't do anything else, this will still end a bunch of careers when the second guessing starts.

splithoof
February 9, 2013, 12:26 AM
Zoogster has said it best.

Frank Ettin
February 9, 2013, 12:33 AM
Lot's of speculation, drift from the original question and more heat than light.

If you enjoyed reading about "LAPD shoots up a truck...right to shoot back?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!