Wisconsin shooting....self defense against it

Status
Not open for further replies.

Avalanche2082

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2006
Messages
48
Ok here is a question I"m very curious to, this wisconsin shooting has made me think, Lets say first we were in a state where gun carry is allowed and lets say the officer was on duty and did the same thing the LE did in wisconsin Would a legal gun toting citizen be able to shoot at the LE in self defense, if he was shooting at you or your family?

Or like in the instance of the rodney king beating (even though he was on drugs he's just the first person to come to mind) I'm sure there are other police brutalities that happen to people and the LE stepped the line, would they have the right to use self defense against a LE if they were trying to kill you or beat you to death?
 
I predict thread closure soon. The "official" THR policy on dealing with LE misconduct does not allow for any resistance in any way.
 
I doubt the guy was in his cop uniform when he was doing this, so that'd be pretty clear cut. If they're in uniform, though...it'd get pretty sketchy. You'd better have a LOT of witnesses that the cop was going crazy , or you'd be going to jail for a long time methinks.
 
You may have the "right" in the eyes of God. You may have the "right" in the eyes of the law. The former is a question for your concience. The latter is a question for a jury.
 
True... I just wondering because of what happened not to offend anyone or focus on LE misconduct just wondering if something were to happen like that, what can be done to protect yourself.
 
Texas state law

§ 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows
is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under
Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or
attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted
use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly
communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing
he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts
to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or
discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences
with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section
46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in
violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is
justified:
(1) 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
(2) 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.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this
subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

§ 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation
would not have retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not
apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time
of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the
habitation of the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, § 5, eff.
Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept.
1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another
when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing suicide
or inflicting serious bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly
force against another when and to the degree he reasonably believes
the force or deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the
other's life in an emergency.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.



So, yes. deadly force can be used in the exceptions provided above.
 
Just to keep this from turning into a LEO-bashing thread, why not simply refer to the killer as a person who was also a police officer?
 
Just to keep this from turning into a LEO-bashing thread, why not simply refer to the killer as a person who was also a police officer?
There is the practical problem of the 24/7 nature of copness to consider.

I vote to close the thread (not that my vote counts for anything). There is no way to separate cop from mass murderer in this case. And there is really no way to defend yourself against LE misconduct. So why even talk about it? Better to leave it be for now.
 
If there is no doubt that some guy is shooting innocent/defenseless people who are "merely targets", I don't care what he's wearing. Cop clothes, military uniform, or bikini briefs. If I'm armed and capable of stopping this misbehavior, consider it done.

Notice in the post above that Texas law makes no mention of employment or clothing...

Art
 
In the WI case yes shooting the killer would have been entirely legal I suspect. He was illegally shooting people and was not acting as a police officer in any legal and official duty. Open carry is legal in WI but with the ages of those involved (including high school age people) and the harrassment and restrictions on carrying, obviously they were unlikely to have much if any way of defending themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top