thanks paco for the video link. i just watched it and it inconclusive really. it shows some cinder block where an officer was allegedly sitting which is a few feet in front of a tree (that was used for cover). it is difficult to tell if this officer was on his property.
interestingly, the video says that only one undercover officer may have been trespassing and not two. the 2nd officer engaged the gunfight probably as a backup role.
TCB in TN wrote:
The whole issue relates to whether the LEOs in question were in fact trespassing or not. If they were trespssing then what you or I think is immaterial, as the FL LAW says that he has the right to run them off using force.
i think there is a legal distinction between the use of force and the
imminent threat of deadly force. that is where alot of the discussion is centering around. using force from what i can see
does not include using the threat of deadly force while brandishing a firearm. that is the imminent use of deadly force, and the only way to defend oneself against the imminent use of deadly force is with deadly force itself, right? what you are implying is that if Person A believes Person B is trespassing he can use any force he feels, including the imminent threat of deadly force, to remove Person A off of his property and that Person A is hereby deprived of any right to self defense and can only run away. that is not what the law says. the old man clearly used an inappropriate and excessive amount of force in this situation and escalated the situation.
this is how some see it:
officer trespassed and was told to leave twice by the homeowner. officer should have reasonably known that when the homeowner left he was going to return with a gun and use it to remove him off of his property.
this is how others see it:
homeowner left the situation and went back inside his home. rather than call 911 like he should have, he got a gun and confronted the trespasser. homeowner should have reasonably known that confronting someone with a gun and making death threats would escalate the situation into a deadly force confrontation.
i think the officers could not have reasonably known this man would return with a gun. i think the citizen should have reasonably known that returning to the confrontation with a gun in his hand making death threats would most likely result in a violent confrontation.
insiduous_calm wrote:
There is a specific florida statue governing the use of force to terminate an unlawful trespass. The law does not care about your feelings, it does not mention the application of a reasonable man standard, it simply says one can use force to terminate an unlawful trespass.
the law i believe makes a distinction between the use of force and the imminent use of deadly force. that is where you and i disagree. you believe that brandishing a gun and making death threats is not tantamount to using deadly force because there was no discharge of a firearm. what i am saying is there is no legal expectation to be shot at before you can defend yourself with deadly force, hence, the imminent use of deadly force (i.e. brandishing a gun and making death threats) is much more than just a simple use of force.
The officers had a legal duty to retreat if they were trespassing before they could use deadly force. By all accounts so far they advanced from wherever they were.
im not sure if you saw the video that paco pointed out but it shows the officer took cover behind a tree that was a few feet away from him. i dont think that qualifies as advancing a trespassing incident. i think that is a simple rule in surviving a gunfight (moving to available cover).
I understand they you and Joab are willing to believe the cops can do no wrong. The law in this case does not support those assertions though. The simple fact of the matter is that probably 60% of the people on this board would have confronted a couple of drug dealers on their property with gun in hand.
well i do believe the cops can and do commit crimes, heck, one was sentenced here in Austin yesterday for official oppression. he deserved it too. on duty and groped a female college student and convicted by a court of 3 judges (no jury). no jury swaying in that incident. he was a bad cop that deserves the felony conviction he received.
here's the news link to that situation:
http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/020207kvuedeputygroping-cb.44ff5154.html
for the record i dont blindly support cops. when the blatantly violate the law they need to have a stiffer penalty than an ordinary citizen due to their law enforcement status. but in this incident involving this old man i do think they acted accordingly to the imminent threat of deadly force.
Frankly, I've gone out of my way to be open minded and even keeled here. I've already been called a cop basher and a bigot when clearly that's not true. This is done by people like Joab and you because you can't excuse the behavior of the officers so you attack those that complain about it or call for equal application of the law. For once will someone have the integrity to admit that cops are not above the law, they deserve no special treatment, pro or con, and if they screw up they deserve the same treatment, punishment, and attention that any other joe schmoe would get?
as have i.
i haven't called you a cop basher or a bigot, perhaps someone else has. i think you may need to re-read the posts to see exactly who is calling you names, it certainly isn't me. i haven't attacked you, and if i have i'd like to see where i have?
i have already stated the cops are not above the law and deserve no special treatment, and if they blatantly screw up they deserve a stiffer sentence.
as far as the police pursuing him to the rear of his property, by then he had already fired shots at them and they had already shot him at least once. of course they have a legal duty to locate him for 2 reasons: (1) they had to see if he was wounded and to provide medical attention for him and (2) if he was still a public safety hazard discharging rounds then they need to address that situation still.
someone asked about the legality of police doing things undercover, like buying/selling drugs. if you want some case law that i found that shows that an the US Court of Appeals recognizes undercover police involved in drug transactions as being legal look at this:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=1st&navby=case&no=021248