Cop killer says he had to act

[Matt G]

We know this because all the witnesses testify the guy was running away.

And of course, you ignore the fact that this guy was running away when he was fired at.

All the witnesses?
From the article:

Boucher's testimony follows that of eight witnesses.

All eight said they saw him gun down L'Écuyer on eastbound Highway 40 on Feb. 28, 2002. Only one of them, retired engineer Raymond Crevier, said he saw L'Écuyer fire two shots first.

Perhaps you're referring to sources that I've not seen or heard? Or perhaps, just maybe, you're inferring things NOT stated, due to your own personal presuppositions? ["Come on, cops murder people all the time. Once a month in my town, and they get away with it-- even the most blatent of murders 'Well, he had a gun to his head and were were afraid he was going to kill himself, so we shot him'." ]

Look, I don't always fall in lockstep with TheeBadOne-- he'll tell you. But I certainly do find the word of an admitted armed robber to be far more suspect than the cop he killed. Consider what this man is admitting: that, for money or drugs or whatever gain he can get, he points a loaded gun at a person and threatens them with murder unless they give him what he's after. That's the part he admits to. Do you really believe a little light-runnin' perjury is beneath him?!?

 

[Tamara]

You pull a gun on me, when I've done nothing--

...nothing, that is, other than try to steal a car for this afternoon's armed robbery, then display or go for a gun when confronted over it.

 

[tyme]

Of course the guy's not a saint. But the way I read the article, he hadn't stolen a car yet. He merely got in his car and fled when police approached (for some unknown reason). Fleeing in a vehicle might be a bad idea and may endanger people. He should have just run on foot.

Why are all the LEO apologists ignoring the presumably upstanding retired engineer? Or do retired engineers like defending carjackers who commit armed robbery? There are other issues here. Just because the cop fired first doesn't mean it wasn't a good shoot, and saying the cop didn't shoot first seems rather weak given the uninvolved witness saying he did.

 

[rock jock]

Apparently, Don's criteria for a justified shoot to protect yourself or the lives of others is having the barrel of a gun in your ear with the hammer/striker in forward motion. Anything less than that is pure assumption on your part. Afterall, you can't be sure the BG is going to pull the trigger until he actually has, right Don?

 

[TheeBadOne]

To be fair I just don't think Don really understands about legal aspects such as "Justifiable Use of Force", "Deadly Force", "Use of Force", etc, and thus comes across as he does. Each state varies but heres some general definitions. I've provided these examples to hopefully enlighten him.

All the best

TBO

Authorized use of force.

Subdivision 1. When authorized. Except as otherwise
provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or
toward the person of another without the other's consent when
the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably
believes them to exist:

(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public
officer under the public officer's direction:

(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or

(b) in the execution of legal process; or

(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or

(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public
officer by law; or

(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting
another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and
delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the
other into custody; or

(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another
to resist an offense against the person; or

(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or
personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful
possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful
interference with such property; or

(5) when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to
retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a
charge or conviction of a crime; or

(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other
lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful
authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or

(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in
the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil,
or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or

(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger
who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of
passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the
passenger's personal safety; or

(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or
mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when
used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with
reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or
treatment; or

(10) when used by a public or private institution providing
custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to
compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control,
conduct, or treatment of the committed person.

Subd. 2. Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have
announced their presence and are performing official duties at a
location where a person is committing a crime or an act that
would be a crime if committed by an adult.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Justifiable taking of life.

The intentional taking of the life of another is not
authorized by section, except when necessary in resisting
or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes
exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or
preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of
abode.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Authorized use of deadly force by peace officers.

Subdivision 1. Deadly force defined. For the
purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the
actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor
should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing,
death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a
firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions
and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties,
in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which
another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force.
"Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to
stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to
a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in sections.

Subd. 2. Use of deadly force. Notwithstanding the
provisions of sections, the use of deadly force
by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when
necessary:

(1) To protect the peace officer or another from apparent
death or great bodily harm;

(2) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape,
of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable
grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony
involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or

(3) To effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape,
of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to
believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the
officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or
great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dangerous weapon. "Dangerous weapon" means
any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded, or any device designed
as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm,
any combustible or flammable liquid or other device or
instrumentality that, in the manner it is used or intended to be
used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily
harm, or any fire that is used to produce death or great bodily
harm.

As used in this subdivision, "flammable liquid" means any
liquid having a flash point below 100 degrees Fahrenheit and
having a vapor pressure not exceeding 40 pounds per square inch
(absolute) at 100 degrees Fahrenheit but does not include
intoxicating liquor as defined in sections. As used in
this subdivision, "combustible liquid" is a liquid having a
flash point at or above 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bodily harm. "Bodily harm" means physical
pain or injury, illness, or any impairment of physical condition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Substantial bodily harm. "Substantial
bodily harm" means bodily injury which involves a temporary but
substantial disfigurement, or which causes a temporary but
substantial loss or impairment of the function of any bodily
member or organ, or which causes a fracture of any bodily member.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Great bodily harm. "Great bodily harm"
means bodily injury which creates a high probability of death,
or which causes serious permanent disfigurement, or which causes
a permanent or protracted loss or impairment of the function of
any bodily member or organ or other serious bodily harm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Assault. "Assault" is:

(1) An act done with intent to cause fear in another of
immediate bodily harm or death; or

(2) The intentional infliction of or attempt to inflict
bodily harm upon another.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

 

[BluesBear]

Lawdog,

Don is from somehere in the Seattle area (almost makes me ashamed to live here too).

KOMO (ABC)
KING (NBC)
KIRO (CBS)
are the local TV stations.

Seattle Times
Post Intelligencer
are the local newspapers.

He has some of the facts straight in his rant.. er, um, posts but not nearly all.

 

[TheeBadOne]

....and upon further reflection I think the biggest problem is his taking things out of context, not looking at the totality of the circimstances, but freezing and picking pieces appart. Look at the ENTIRE situation.

TBO

 

[Orthonym]

Not having been a fly on the wall (that wasn't there)

I almost, but not quite, wish we had had some of those nasty surveillance cameras watching the whole thing.

 

[Matt G]

Boucher said he took out his gun, turned and was surprised to see L'Écuyer about eight metres away.

Every bit of this hinges on whether we believe that the gun was only removed from his belt after he was shot at, and that L'Écuyer had not seen the gun prior to that. Recall that Boucher was running through traffic. Did L'Écuyer believe that Boucher was about to highjack a car? (certainly it would have been within Boucher's capacity. He was, after all, an admitted armed robber and car thief.)

Consider that the witnesses would likely have more focused their attention on the uniformed police officer running through traffic than the punk in street clothes darting through traffic. It would hardly have been surprising that they might have missed Boucher pulling a gun prior to the uniformed officer firing his own.

We haven't seen the first bit of testimony (other than the armed robber's) that Boucher had not drawn his gun until after being shot at. Indeed, the way the story is written, it's really kind of vague as to exactly when that pistol got drawn.

Getting off the first shot does not necessarily make you the bad guy. If so, Marshal Dillon would have been one of the worst villains in the the old cow operas. Shooting at a felon who draws a gun is not attempted murder-- it's good policework. Unfortunately, Constable L'Écuyer missed.

Claiming self defense when the State has a murderer dead to rights (so to speak) is hardly a new defense. Mr. Boucher has been caught murdering an officer that was attempting to bring him to justice. He is looking at spending the rest of his life in prison, and is making a desperate attempt to get out of this. He is admitting to conspiracy to to commit major felonies, in an attempt to throw off the most egregious one that he is accused of. Why does ANYONE trust his word on any of this?


All this said, and from the scant details of the article, is it possible that L'Écuyer, over-excited in chasing a bad guy, shot before he should have...? Yep. I doubt it, but it's possible. Certainly. But you're taking the reported word of Boucher to that point.

I don't know the first thing about Constable L'Écuyer. He could have been a pillar of his community, or he may have been a first-class weasal. I don't know. And neither, do I suspect, does anyone else here. All we know about him is that he was held accountable as a Constable, carrying a warrant card and a shield. We do, however, know a little sumpin' about Mr. Boucher. Mr. Boucher, we know, will steal, and threaten with murder to get what he wants. We know there was a dirty deed done here. Occum's Razor shows that Mr. Boucher is the one who did it.

 

[TheeBadOne]

Matt G

Well thought out, well balanced, well reasoned post.

(of course now you've set the bar higher, it'll be harder for the rest of us to get over....