nyresq wrote:
Assuming you make it to a court room and not the morgue...
All things are possible I suppose.
You tell the officer "No, I dont have a gun..." then as you are reaching for your wallet, your pistol pokes out from beneath your shirt and he sees it. He thinks you are going for it since you just told him "no I dont have a gun".
So you are saying that LEO now possess the right to use deadly force anytime the presence of a weapon (other than theirs) is evident, regardless of intent?
What is the “Standard” by which LEO in N.Y. may use deadly force, I am curious to know. Let’s say for instance the scenario is a little different.. Let’s say my wife (or daughter) jumps into my vehicle to run down to the store. Suppose… I forgot to remove my pistol from the glove box and She is stopped for speeding. The officer asks if there is a gun in the car. The answer is no (Wife/Daughter didn’t know).
When Wife/Daughter opens the glove-box to retrieve the insurance card and registration the officer sees the pistol, surmises he was lied to, assumes my wife intends to kill him, then promptly puts
“Two or three shots to her head at close range and its all over...” to quote you.
Oh, and since its on his dash cam with you reaching your arm around behind you and you are recorded as saying "No, I dont have a gun"... do you think any jury in the world is going to think that cop was wrong when your corpse is in all the crime scene photos with a gun straped on your hip??
I concede the potential for error is greater here, but lets run with it anyway. Yes…I think there are plenty of juries and competent lawyers that would pick this apart.
What do the academies teach these days with respect to escalation of force, the “Force Continuum” and the use of Deadly Force? Is the standard now: Use deadly force as soon as possible?
And do you think some small points of interest (also caught on that dash-cam) might play some role in a jury’s decision.
Little things like: No aggressive behavior displayed by victim. No quick movements made by victim. No posturing or verbal threats, no blading away from officer, no ocular fixation on officer, no attempt to seek cover or flank officer, no distractions of any kind.
In fact…nothing but a normal reach to retrieve his wallet. No contact with the weapon. Weapon not removed from holster.
Absolutely NO empirical evidence that this person had any “intent” to access his weapon. ONLY the presence of the weapon seems to be the criteria here in which the officer chose to use deadly force.
Could/Should the officer draw their own weapon (while creating distance and seeking cover). YES!
Could/Should the officer (time permitting) command the person to “Show me your hands, DO NOT touch your weapon”! Is this not the “correct” response both legally and tactically?
Dont ever say your not armed if you are carrying and are questioned about having any weapons in the car... you are just asking for trouble, rights or no rights,
I see from your perspective you put little value on “rights”. They should not be taken lightly, should always be exercised (when appropriate) and fought for with zeal. Sometimes exercising your rights attracts “trouble”. Each person must decide how important your individual rights are to you.
its what was known to the officer at the time that he will be judged on...
Perhaps back at the station…and it might even fly with the “thin blue line”, but in the courts….the officer will be judged by a jury.
The jury will be instructed to consider what the “law” has to say about it, and the law will say that the officer must be judged on what he/she
“REASONABLY” knew at the time; else the officer’s thoughts/actions would be completely subjective. Maybe that puts a new complexion on it for you.
Your CCW permit and your wife and three kids will not be admitted into evidence, the only thing that will be admitted is you saying on tape "No I dont have any guns."
I don’t know the extent to which you have experience in the courts, but you would be surprised what gets admitted as evidence/testimony.
In closing, permit to me to submit that I am NOT advocating lying to LEO when there is no reason.
There is an oft used phrase among LEO that carries some truth: “You may beat the rap, but you won’t beat the ride”.
As each person decides to exercise his/her rights…..keep that in mind.
Try to be courteous and co-operative with LEO (they deserve it). But, if they begin to cross the line….or make you uncomfortable with requests that you know are not legally binding/required, simply refuse to answer and ask for a lawyer.