Jacksonville, Fla Man killed by LEOs in yard.

[Spreadfire Arms]

i think there's a big difference between:

-threatening to use deadly force with no weapon readily available to you that can be visibly seen, and not having the lawful right to use the deadly force, and

-threatening to use deadly force with a weapon clearly in your hand, and not having the lawful right to use the deadly force

in the first situation, i don't think you'd have the legal justification to use deadly force to defend yourself. in the last situation, i think you would have the legal justification to use deadly force to defend yourself.

someone said that "70% of all of the information" infers that the officers were in the man's yard. well, i think alot of that 70% came from witness statements from people who weren't even there, like the man's family members. it has just been repeated over and over in various news sources. we still have no definitive information regarding this.

and, regardless if the officers were in the yard or not, the man, clearly under Florida law, was not justified in using deadly force.

now, the issue that some are bringing up is:

is brandishing a firearm the same as using deadly force?

let's re-frame the situation.

you are a valid CCW holder carrying a firearm. someone tells you to leave obviously public property, like a public sidewalk or public park. you ignore that person because they don't have the lawful authority to tell you to leave public property. that person then leaves and returns with a gun in his hand.

do you think you'd be justified in shooting him, after you ordered him to drop the weapon and he failed to?

i think if it were citizen on citizen, people would tend to say that it was a justified shoot. but because there were undercover police involved, all of a sudden, by virtue of being cops, they don't have a right to use deadly force in self defense.

Florida law that i have quoted clearly states the man did not have the ability to use deadly force. so the argument is, is brandishing a firearm and using a verbal threat of deadly force sufficient enough for someone to say, "i was in imminent fear for my life, i believed a violent felony was about to occur (i.e. me getting shot), so i used deadly force in self defense?"

really, isn't it ludicrous to wait for the guy to raise his weapon and get the first shot off before you defend yourself?

remember the "action vs. reaction" thing.....

 

[joab]

Deadly force is defined as "the firing of a gun". He did not use deadly force, he used FORCE as is explicitly allowed by law.

And?
I have repeatedly said "deadly force or the threat of deadly force" And as far as him not using deadly force, you first have to discount the witness statement that said he did.
So now you stop being deliberately obtuse

You yourself have said that you can use the threat of deadly force when you have the right to use deadly force.
Your source states that deadly force cannot be used to evict simple trespassers so therefore the threat of deadly force also cannot be used.
Now show me the statute that allows for the use of DEADLY force or the threat of DEADLY force to remove non violent trespassers.You can not because it doesn't exist You can not use the imminent threat of deadly force in circumstances where you are not authorized to use deadly force.

The police did not precipitate his escalation to violence by their non violent refusal to comply with his demands to leave the scene.

Ludicrous speculation

How so. The police had staged these stings in front of his home before, maybe he just got tired of them, We don't know the content of the exchanges between him and the group, now do we. In my opinion yours is just a ludicrous rejection of a possible scenario

They were in front of the man's house obviously selling drugs.

Does not fall into the category of forcible felony necessary for him to use deadly force or the threat of deadly force.

 

[nobody_special]

-threatening to use deadly force with a weapon clearly in your hand, and not having the lawful right to use the deadly force
[...]
i think you would have the legal justification to use deadly force to defend yourself.

I think it's not that simple. In this case, statements and evidence suggests that the officers were trespassing on private property. If so, then "Pops" had the right to remove them with force, which (in FL) appears to include the threat of deadly force. So if the officers were indeed on his property, AND he merely threatened the use of force (without actually shooting first), then I believe "Pops" was in the right, both legally and morally.

And since the officers had no legal right to trespass, they had a duty to retreat.

(If you're going to argue that they may have been on the sidewalk: sidewalks on private land generally have a public easement for right-of-way, but are still private property. As such, I believe trespassing or loitering laws would still apply to someone who was loitering, engaged in illegal activity, and refused to leave after being asked 3 times.)

I have repeatedly said "deadly force or the threat of deadly force" And as far as him not using deadly force, you first have to discount the witness statement that said he did.

There is no question that he used deadly force. The question is in the order of events: did he use deadly force without further provocation, or did he only use deadly force after the undercover officers presented their own firearms?

Your source states that deadly force cannot be used to evict simple trespassers so therefore the threat of deadly force also cannot be used.

I think you're very clearly wrong. The Florida definition of deadly force does not appear to include any kind of threat, therefore "Pops" was probably well within his rights to use the threat of deadly force.

Of course, IANAL and this is just my reading of Florida law... but it seems pretty clear.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

I think it's not that simple. In this case, statements and evidence suggests that the officers were trespassing on private property. If so, then "Pops" had the right to remove them with force, which (in FL) appears to include the threat of deadly force. So if the officers were indeed on his property, AND he merely threatened the use of force (without actually shooting first), then I believe "Pops" was in the right, both legally and morally.

the law that i have quoted from Florida law states very clearly that the use of deadly force is not warranted to prevent trespassing. so, are you saying that while the use of deadly force is not legal, the threat of deadly force while standing there with a gun in one's hand is legal?

what reasonably would come of that logic? why would someone be legally allowed to stand there with a gun in his hand and threaten to use deadly force, but not be allowed to actually use deadly force?

i believe that would result in a bunch of escalated situations where deadly force isn't clearly warranted, and turning many incidents that aren't deadly force incidents into deadly force incidents.

it appears to me that the introduction of a firearm into a trespassing incident (at best) was not prudent, logical, reasonable, legal, or rational. i believe that the incident was escalated by the introduction of a firearm, not escalated by the fact that someone refused someone's request to leave property that may be private property or may be public property.

do you believe that you are really not escalating a situation when you introduce a firearm into the scenario? and are you saying that refusing requests to leave escalated the situation more than the introduction of a firearm?

let me ask you this. if this use of the firearm (displaying it) was justified, then why didn't the citizen come out brandishing it to begin with? would he have been justified in just coming out with a gun in his hand to begin with and order them off of his property in the beginning?

why did the citizen go back into his house, and instead of doing the reasonable thing (calling 911), returned to a situation that he felt his safety would be in jeopardy to begin with, with a gun? im not certain that a reasonable person would believe that his life was in imminent danger that he had to arm himself to protect his property against trespassers. they were not burning down or destroying his property. at best they were just standing there. where is the exigency that he had to go back outside with a gun and put his life in danger?

sorry, im just not seeing where this man was acting rationally. if you ask me it sounds like the man tried to win an argument with a gun.

i ask that you analyze the situation as if it were two groups of citizens, as if no police were involved. would two citizens standing on someone's property be justified in shooting someone who approached them with a gun in his hand, under Florida law?

 

[xd45gaper]

In this case, statements and evidence suggests that the officers were trespassing on private property. If so, then "Pops" had the right to remove them with force, which

the only force he could have used was non deadly force here is an page from Florida Firearms, Law, Use & Ownership 2006

Justifiable use of Force NON DEADLY FORCE

A person is justified in using force, except deadly force against another person, when and to the extent he reasonably believes that such force is necessarry to defend himself or another from the person's imminent use of unlawful force. F.S. 776.031

A person may use NON DEADLY force to stop the commission of a misdemeanor or non violent felony upon him self, or prperty which he has ownership or possessory interest in, or a legal duty to protect.
F.S 776.031


EXAMPLE

A trespasser who refuses to leave your premises after being asked to leave
,a person attacks you with fists, someone tries to steal something from you short of a robbery or burglary. a person who is committing a criminal mischief on your property.


now thats the law in black and white. please show me in there where it says pops can come out pointing a gun at someone? Pops could have came over and forced these guys off his property but in a non deadly way. coming out pointing a gun at someone is not non deadly force. now if he came out blasted the guys in the eyes with mace that would have been fine

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

xd45gaper,

what people are saying is that the threat of deadly force is not the same as using deadly force. that is the crux of their position, that standing there with a gun in your hand and threatening to use your gun is not tantamount to firing it, and is thus legal.

ok, so let's run with that line of logic. that means that if you are lawfully carrying with a CCW, and someone approaches you with a gun in his hand and threatens to use deadly force towards you, you cannot use deadly force to defend yourself first. in fact, with that logic, you must wait for this guy to point the gun at you before you can defend yourself. and since most people know about action vs. reaction, the lawfully armed CCW holder will lose every time to the man holding the gun in his hand.

so, with their logic, you cannot fire first at this person because he hasn't used deadly force against you. even though he has a gun in his hand and is threatening to shoot you, you cannot defend yourself. you must wait for this man to do something more, like point the gun at you, before you can defend yourself with your gun.

someone please tell me this makes sense.....? it makes no sense whatsoever. so, it is legal to pull out a gun and threaten to use it but not okay to defend yourself against someone who makes this threat to you while holding a gun in his hand?

 

[MacEntyre]

Isn't leaving the property a way of defending yourself in that situation?

How about if one of them covers their rear, and the others pack up to depart?

They could have let the blues handle the old man.

 

[joab]

statements and evidence suggests that the officers were trespassing on private property

What evidence? Statements also suggests that the officers were in front of his yard or simply near his yard

If so, then "Pops" had the right to remove them with force, which (in FL) appears to include the threat of deadly force.

The law actually excludes the option of deadly force in this case

f you're going to argue that they may have been on the sidewalk: sidewalks on private land generally have a public easement for right-of-way, but are still private property. As such, I believe trespassing or loitering laws would still apply to someone who was loitering, engaged in illegal activity, and refused to leave after being asked 3 times.

The personal; experience that I related earlier in this thread tells me that you are wrong.
If the easement was private property I could have forced the cable idiots not to put there tower thing in the middle of my auxiliary driveway and the neighbors to stop lining up along my fence like I was the local bar. But I can't and that comes from the mayor.

There is no question that he used deadly force.

That was a specific response to a specific set of comments made by insidious calm

what people are saying is that the threat of deadly force is not the same as using deadly force. that is the crux of their position, that standing there with a gun in your hand and threatening to use your gun is not tantamount to firing it, and is thus legal.

maybe it's a grey area, but I don't see it as such
If you do not have the right to use deadly force why on earth would they assume that you have the right to use the imminent threat of deadly force?

i ask that you analyze the situation as if it were two groups of citizens, as if no police were involved. would two citizens standing on someone's property be justified in shooting someone who approached them with a gun in his hand, under Florida law?

that's an illogical analogy on your part, because the true crux here is that these were cops and the same people who will say that cops are just civilians with jobs that allow them to carry guns will be the first to condemn then because of their jobs.
It's bigotry in it's purest form.
We are called cop apologist but these people are stopping at nothing to defend the indefensible , on so many levels, actions of Pops.
He threatened, at least, to use illegal deadly force on a group of CITIZENS when he had no right or authority to do so and, short of blatant fabrication, no one here can show otherwise, but then they don't really care

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

copping dope

not sure how many keyboard libertarians have ever used a stop and cop but the layout and function is pretty universal. curbside service. you drive up and get what you need at the car window. only time i've ever seen private property used was to run through. and i am not sure how with the tree the cops his behind holding pops slugs you can ask them to not shoot back. 80 years old? he might not be all there. apparently hes been confrontational before

 

[k_dawg]

The right to self-defense in Florida does not apply to one who is currently commiting a crime. If John Doe was tresspassing on your property, he can not then claim self-defense to shoot you. Even *IF* he had a gun pointed at him.

 

[joab]

The right to self-defense in Florida does not apply to one who is currently commiting a crime. If John Doe was tresspassing on your property, he can not then claim self-defense to shoot you

Source?
If you choose to research this you will find that the courts have ruled that even criminals have the right to self defense.

If a person unlawfully uses deadly force or the threat of deadly force isn't he now committing a crime and longer able to claim self defense by your rules

 

[45Frank]

Does anyone know how many people die including cops when using these illegal tactics by cops. No knock warrants, buying and selling drugs by cops, high speed chases that didn't have to be. (A NC cop was killed in a car accident last night going to a backup enother cop, don't know why yet, only 23 years old) Just doesn't seem to warrant their misuse of the law. After all Law enforcement is one of the safest careers in the country.
Just my thoughts

 

[gyp_c2]

hmmm...

...seems to me that the supervisor that signed off on this, ought to be the one on the hot seat...
Endangered his people and the public and hasn't even been mentioned...

 

[MacEntyre]

There are intelligent, experienced people on this thread, so will someone explain why this all hinges on a black and white legal determination of who was within their rights?

The undercover cops had all kinds of incentive to avoid the whole thing. Even if they were not on the guy's property, why not fold their tent and move somewhere else? He was a member of the community they serve. Even if the only consequence was a living, breathing, irate old man, they did the wrong thing by staying.

Why was it so important that the undercover officers make a stand right there?

Even if lawyers can establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cops did nothing wrong under the law, they still share blame for the old fellow's death.

 

[glummer]

You definitely do if what provokes them is not a crime and their reaction to that provocation is

By “definitely” , do you mean your unsupported opinion, or have you discussed that with your DA, or other experts, and gotten agreement from them? With particular emphasis on the fact that the provocation is INTENDED to look like a crime?

Could they have difussed the situation no one nows that information yet.

How do you figure? The one thing everyone agrees on so far, is that the police were there by THEIR choice. They certainly could have defused the situation by moving on a bit

Perhaps the man did in fact know that these were cops and didn't like cops, that doesn't sound farfetched at all.

That is SO farfetched it almost insane. There is ZERO evidence for it. You are making it up.

being the self respecting hookers they are and not wanting to be taken advantage of whip out there .380s and procede to shoot man in self defense. no you are telling me the hookers are at fault?

Well, Florida’s Stand-Your-Ground law, I believe, covers only situations where you have a RIGHT to be there. Do hookers have a legal right to solicit in the public streets? If not, they had a duty to retreat.

Even if lawyers can establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the cops did nothing wrong under the law, they still share blame for the old fellow's death.

Amen.

 

[pacodelahoya]

Macentyre,

Because it is "The Law"

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

If you don't ever fire your gun, you have not loosed, released, exercised, or applied deadly force. Pointing your gun at someone except in preparation for use in self defense is at the worse only a threat. It's coercion.

Since we live in a free society, we all know that coercion is never used by our government. Otherwise, that would be government by the use of force - dictatorship, tyranny, despotism - and not our freedom to choose to abide by just law. This is not to say we won't be tried and convicted if we disobey the law, but that we are free to choose how we will act. That possibility of conviction is the only coercive force needed in a free society with a just system of law and enforcement. We have limits on our government that protect our rights and prohibit the government from ever becoming that tyranical, despotic dictatorship.

DO NOT, however, pull your gun or unsheathe your knife if you are being arrested. Law enforcement personnel have as much right to defend themselves as everyone else.

Woody

"It is contended, that this article of the code, is in violation of the constitution of the United States, and of this state. The clause in the constitution of the United States, that it is said to be in violation of, is the 2d article of the amendments: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." O. & W. Dig. 7. The clause in the constitution of this state, which it is said to violate, is the 13th section of the bill of rights: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state." O. & W. Dig. 14.

The object of the clause first cited, has reference to the perpetuation of free government, and is based on the idea, that the people cannot be effectually oppressed and enslaved, who are not first disarmed. The clause cited in our bill of rights, has the same broad object in relation to the government, and in addition thereto, secures a personal right to the citizen. The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. He does not derive it from the state government, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the law-making power." - Texas Supreme Court Decision, Cockrum vs State of Texas, ---- 1859

Seems some of the states did consider the 2A binding upon the states. Some still do. This was prior to the 14th Amendment as well.

 

[Intune]

Well, I’d say their cover is pretty much blown now, wouldn’t you? Not just in the neighborhood but nationwide. Intelligent decision. What could/did they accomplish by holding “their” ground? I guess when you are conducting a sting to nab the #2 man in the Columbian drug cartel that cover must be maintained at ALL costs. Medals and commendations will probably be meted out for justice served. This should cement community relations. Their new jobs at the impound lot may prove challenging for these two. “Serve and Protect” wasn’t real high on these geniuses to-do list that day and taints the earnest efforts of skilled law enforcement.

 

[benEzra]

Sounds like the sheriff is saying that Mr. Singletary didn't do anything wrong...or at least that's what he's implying.

JACKSONVILLE, FL -- JSO is reviewing its policies on undercover drug operations in light of the latest fatal shooting.

Sheriff John Rutherford called Saturday's shooting of Isaac Singletary at his home a tragedy.

Rutherford referred to Singletary as an "honest citizen trying to do good."

 

[insidious_calm]

Spreadfire,

I see that that your sig line indicates you are a Texas CHL instructor. The difference between "force"(pointing a gun at someone) and "deadly force"(shooting a gun) was covered in the CHL class I took in Dallas. It's the same reason you never fire a warning shot, if you do you have just elevated from force to deadly force. This is not merely semantics. The Florida law above explicitly defines "deadly force" as "the firing of a gun". I'm not sure if you really don't understand the difference or if you are intentionally clouding the issue.

the law that i have quoted from Florida law states very clearly that the use of deadly force is not warranted to prevent trespassing. so, are you saying that while the use of deadly force is not legal, the threat of deadly force while standing there with a gun in one's hand is legal?

what reasonably would come of that logic? why would someone be legally allowed to stand there with a gun in his hand and threaten to use deadly force, but not be allowed to actually use deadly force?

Absolutely! That's exactly what the law says. The law explicitly defines "deadly force" as "the firing of a gun". This matches the law in Kansas where I am, Texas, and many other states.

As I stated numerous times above, this is an affirmative defense situation. The use of FORCE against another is normally unlawful. Whether that force is brandishing a firearm or striking with a fist. The homeowners actions, his use of "force" to terminate an unlawful tresspass, are explicitly allowed by Florida law. An affirmative defense, yes he used force against them, but did so because he was trying to terminate their unlawful tresspass, as is allowed by law.

i believe that would result in a bunch of escalated situations where deadly force isn't clearly warranted, and turning many incidents that aren't deadly force incidents into deadly force incidents.

it appears to me that the introduction of a firearm into a trespassing incident (at best) was not prudent, logical, reasonable, legal, or rational. i believe that the incident was escalated by the introduction of a firearm, not escalated by the fact that someone refused someone's request to leave property that may be private property or may be public property.

do you believe that you are really not escalating a situation when you introduce a firearm into the scenario? and are you saying that refusing requests to leave escalated the situation more than the introduction of a firearm?

Most definately the brandishing of a firearm escalated this situation. As I said above though, this escalation is explicitly allowed by law. Lawmakers apparently understood, and wisely so, that confronting criminals could be dangerous. Thus they explicitly allowed the use of force in order to protect ones real private property. Specifically, the use of force to "terminate ones unlawful tresspass". That's why the only real question is whether or not they were on his property at the moment he bradished the firearm. I admit that this is as of yet unproven.

let me ask you this. if this use of the firearm (displaying it) was justified, then why didn't the citizen come out brandishing it to begin with? would he have been justified in just coming out with a gun in his hand to begin with and order them off of his property in the beginning?

IMO, no, he would not have legally been able to do so initially. This is because until he explicitly told them to leave they were not technically tresspassing. The law does not authorize the use of force until the tresspass occurs as I read it.

why did the citizen go back into his house, and instead of doing the reasonable thing (calling 911), returned to a situation that he felt his safety would be in jeopardy to begin with, with a gun? im not certain that a reasonable person would believe that his life was in imminent danger that he had to arm himself to protect his property against trespassers. they were not burning down or destroying his property. at best they were just standing there. where is the exigency that he had to go back outside with a gun and put his life in danger?

sorry, im just not seeing where this man was acting rationally. if you ask me it sounds like the man tried to win an argument with a gun.

I don't believe that's relevant to this discussion. Whether he initially felt threatened doesn't matter because the law explicitky allowed the use of force to terminate the unlawful tresspass. As for whether or not what he did was the smart thing to do, I agree, it wasn't. It did in fact result in his death. It is not relevant though, to this discussion.

As I said before, people do stupid but otherwise legal things, that result in their death everyday. Walking through the wrong neighborhood at night, for example. That doesn't mean they are legally culpable for their own death, nor does it relieve the legal responsiblity of those that killed them.

i ask that you analyze the situation as if it were two groups of citizens, as if no police were involved. would two citizens standing on someone's property be justified in shooting someone who approached them with a gun in his hand, under Florida law?

If they are unlawfully tresspassing then the answer to that question is "NO". Florida "stand your ground law", as well as Kansas "stand your ground" law, requires that you be legally present where you are in order to "stand your ground and meet force with force". If you are unlawfully tresspassing or participating in a common nuisance, such as dealing drugs, prostitution, illegal gambling, or other common nuisance as defined by law, you have no legal protection under the stand your ground law, you must retreat.


I.C.

 

[Deanimator]

Why was it so important that the undercover officers make a stand right there?

If I had to bet, I'd say sheer, unthinking "macho".

There is a certain percentage of police officers indistinguishable in demeanor and judgement from certain rap performers and professional athletes. We've got one going on trial here this month for kidnapping, assault and a variety of other charges.

 

[glummer]

what reasonably would come of that logic? why would someone be legally allowed to stand there with a gun in his hand and threaten to use deadly force, but not be allowed to actually use deadly force?

I would suggest it serves a filtering/protective function. Most incidents involving firearms defense contain a great deal of uncertainty at first. Just how dangerous IS the threat? By “standing there with a gun” you separate the sheep from the wolves. If the opponent is NOT deadly dangerous, he will generally cease & desist; if the opponent continues the threat, he probably does represent a deadly danger, and having your gun already in hand is a great advantage.

i believe that would result in a bunch of escalated situations where deadly force isn't clearly warranted, and turning many incidents that aren't deadly force incidents into deadly force incidents.

Conceivably, it could.
On the other hand, it could also turn many deadly force incidents into ones where the attacker is shot, rather than the victim.
Which is true is an empirical question, which can only be answered by real world evidence.
I have to say, your argument strikes me as sounding a lot like the propaganda the anti’s use against any relaxation of gun laws; we can IMAGINE blood in the streets, so let’s all panic, and keep or increase the restrictions, without taking the risk to look for evidence.

 

[glummer]

sorry, im just not seeing where this man was acting rationally. if you ask me it sounds like the man tried to win an argument with a gun.

Or like a man performing a citizen’s arrest?
As someone said, we don’t know what conversation passed between the characters here.

 

[glummer]

Another legal confusion here;

If they were cops, ACTING as criminals, which role determines their legal status under Stand-Your-Ground, or Citizen’s arrest?
Is there any clear judicial precedent on this?
Is it legal to resist a mistaken arrest by a citizen? (It generally is not, if an LEO is making the arrest.)

 

[joab]

By “definitely” , do you mean your unsupported opinion, or have you discussed that with your DA, or other experts, and gotten agreement from them? With particular emphasis on the fact that the provocation is INTENDED to look like a crime?

Fine show me something that contradicts my opinion that you can use deadly force against deadly force when the aggressors ASSUMES that you are doing something illegal
And leave out the part about the fact that the provocation was INTENDED to look like a crime because I have already addressed that and was told that a suitable lie would negate that little technicality, remember?

I believe, covers only situations where you have a RIGHT to be there. Do hookers have a legal right to solicit in the public streets?

Citizens have a right to be on public property, what right or authority do you or I have to determine probable cause to use force to remove them, I assume that there is a statute to cover this
The hookers have every legal right to be there they just have no legal righ to be hooking.
just because you are committing a crime at a certain location in no way means that you have no legal right to be there

That is SO farfetched it almost insane. There is ZERO evidence for it. You are making it up.

But assuming that cops murder someone simply because they are too lazy to move down the street is not farfetched?

The man had encountered police groups working his yard before, why would he be surprised that they were doing it again?
Why am I not allowed to make the same type of assinine (HAPPY NOW) inductive leaps that others are making?

the answer to that question is "NO". Florida "stand your ground law", as well as Kansas "stand your ground" law, requires that you be legally present where you are in order to "stand your ground and meet force with force".

I see you are ignoring the concept of threat of deadly force. And the Stand Your Ground law is an affirmative defense in self defense shootings but it is not the only applicable law in justifiable homicide cases.
had he used the proper allowed force to remove these men, if they were indeed on his property, and they resisted with violence then he would have been right to escalate.
Had he simply told them he was going to physically remove them and they responded with threats of an ass kicking then he would have been right to respond as he did.
But he does not have the right to use deadly force or the imminent threat of deadly force against a non violent non forcible non felony.If he does please show me the statute that your opinion comes from.
You do not have the right to make deadly threats against. a group of people that are causing you no threat.
Maybe in the Utopian Republic of Viglilantia but not here, not today.
If you do please show me the damn statute that gives you the legal right to use deadly force or the imminent threat of deadly force against what you think is a non violent misdemeanor.

He had ample time to respond intelligently and chose another option, but it's the cops that get accused of macho posturing