TheeBadOne
Member
A no trespassing sign was clearly posted at the officer's driveway.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/121603_local_copshoot.html
Last edited:
Off-duty officer shoots and kills man in cop's own driveway
- Thread starter TheeBadOne
- Start date
- Status
A no trespassing sign was clearly posted at the officer's driveway.
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/news/121603_local_copshoot.html
Andrew Rothman
Member
Aw, c'mon. Post the story. These things tend to evaporate in a couple of weeks. Plus, we're lazy!
cool45auto
Member
Seems cut and dry but I'd like to hear more details.
HABU
Member
No trespassing. Trespassers will be shot. Really.
Steve in PA
Member
Don't like to arm chair quarterback these things.........but how did the LEO know that the person wasn't reaching for a cell phone, etc.......and not a weapon.
He's going to have a lot of explaining to do.
He's going to have a lot of explaining to do.
TheeBadOne
Member
Steve in PA
Member
I'll play devils advocate here........
"threatening and harassing phone calls"........threatening as in I'm gonna kill you......or threatening as in I'm going to rip you a new a@#hole??
"threatening gesture"...........again, reaching into the glove compartment?? Was there a gun or weapon found in there? Was anything found in there??
"told to leave"..........why weren't the local police called? Was the officer coming home with the family......was the officer already inside the house when the guy arrived.......if he was in the house then he should have called the local PD and let them handle it.
There is alot left out of the story.....and again with some arm chair quarterbacking.....I think it should have been handled differently.......but I wasn't there.
As a LEO Firearms Instructor I instruct my shooters about the three requirements for use of deadly force,.....all must be in place before they can use deadly force. Work for both on and off futy.........
Ability....did the guy in his driveway have the ability to inflict death or serious bodily injury?? No weapon was seen......only "threatening movement". If no weapon was found.....I think a lawyer is going to eat him up in civil court for sure......criminal court??? Doesn't look good
Opportunity.....did the guy have the opportunity?? Don't know......don't know what he was reaching for.
Immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.......was the LEO in fear? Perhaps.....but I don't see it from article. But again, articles like these are knwon to leave alot of facts out.
"threatening and harassing phone calls"........threatening as in I'm gonna kill you......or threatening as in I'm going to rip you a new a@#hole??
"threatening gesture"...........again, reaching into the glove compartment?? Was there a gun or weapon found in there? Was anything found in there??
"told to leave"..........why weren't the local police called? Was the officer coming home with the family......was the officer already inside the house when the guy arrived.......if he was in the house then he should have called the local PD and let them handle it.
There is alot left out of the story.....and again with some arm chair quarterbacking.....I think it should have been handled differently.......but I wasn't there.
As a LEO Firearms Instructor I instruct my shooters about the three requirements for use of deadly force,.....all must be in place before they can use deadly force. Work for both on and off futy.........
Ability....did the guy in his driveway have the ability to inflict death or serious bodily injury?? No weapon was seen......only "threatening movement". If no weapon was found.....I think a lawyer is going to eat him up in civil court for sure......criminal court??? Doesn't look good
Opportunity.....did the guy have the opportunity?? Don't know......don't know what he was reaching for.
Immediate fear of death or serious bodily injury.......was the LEO in fear? Perhaps.....but I don't see it from article. But again, articles like these are knwon to leave alot of facts out.
Thumper
Member
That's great...for Northeastern PA. This is Texas. Did y'all know that criminal mischief at night is a shootable offense down here?
Detachment Charlie
Member
No Trespassing.
Violators will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.
They mean it: Don't mess with Texas.
Violators will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.
They mean it: Don't mess with Texas.
Carlos Cabeza
Member
Well put Det. Charlie. I have a private drive too. I had to put up a gate and close it every time I enter or leave (PITA) because of people driving in and out of my driveway.
Daniel T
Member
It is not legal to use deadly force to prevent trespassing in Texas.
Criminal mischief at night can be prevented with deadly force. Where in the article did it say that this happened at night?
edit: sp.
Last edited:
The problem is the cop told him to leave after drawing his weapon. Was the guy attempting to comply and was reaching into his glove compartment for the keys he'd tossed there? The fact that the cop told him to leave eliminates the argument that this was a furtive movement. The cop couldn't reasonably believe that he was reaching for a gun when the cop himself ordered the person (with a drawn weapon no less) to take an action that required movement.
Edward429451
member
Looks like it was clearly posted. I don't see how a person could handle it any better than that. It makes no difference with this one that it was an officers place. A mans home is a mans home. Leo or non.
Buzz, I disagree, the problem with this was that the man was on private property!
Buzz, I disagree, the problem with this was that the man was on private property!
hansolo
Member In Memoriam
Only the LEO knows
First off, I wasn't an eye witness, so I'm not judging: what I'm thinking is, would the outcome have been different if a total stranger defied the "No Tresspassing" sign, as opposed to this (dead)guy who already had a history with the officer.
I visited my Bro-in-law on his ranch in the Texas Hill Country last Summer: he also has a gate and is a-way off the highway. Being a City Boy, I loved the place, but if a stranger drove up to the house and started
towards his glove box, my bet is he wouldn't be driving home -- IF it were at night, per TX law.
I sure hope the investigation clears the LEO.
First off, I wasn't an eye witness, so I'm not judging: what I'm thinking is, would the outcome have been different if a total stranger defied the "No Tresspassing" sign, as opposed to this (dead)guy who already had a history with the officer.
I visited my Bro-in-law on his ranch in the Texas Hill Country last Summer: he also has a gate and is a-way off the highway. Being a City Boy, I loved the place, but if a stranger drove up to the house and started
towards his glove box, my bet is he wouldn't be driving home -- IF it were at night, per TX law.
I sure hope the investigation clears the LEO.
Daniel T
Member
Edward, as I said before, it is not legal to prevent trespass with deadly force in Texas.
By the way, to make it obvious, I'm not saying that this wasn't a justified act of self-defense. I'm saying that trespassing cannot be used as an excuse for deadly force.
By the way, to make it obvious, I'm not saying that this wasn't a justified act of self-defense. I'm saying that trespassing cannot be used as an excuse for deadly force.
Mute
Member
I don't see the problem. If I pointed my gun at some guy who's made threatening phone call and he reached into his glove compartment (knowing he's being covered by a gun), the result will probably be the same.
The No Trespassing sign is just a red herring. It has no relevance to what occured.
The No Trespassing sign is just a red herring. It has no relevance to what occured.
Oh, he didn't of course. There's no way to know WHAT he was reaching for (IF he was "reaching", of course.) What an officer SHOULD do when a potentially dangerous person reaches for something is to wait until they have whatever it is in plain sight, THEN decide if it's a threat or not.
Of course, if he happened to be reaching for a gun, the officer has just let him get his gun into play. That's not a problem, of course. If I'm confronted with someone who is threatening me, I'm CERTAINLY going to give him the chance to get his gun into plain sight before I decided whether or not to shoot him.
Not.
We don't have a right to ask cops to wait until a gun is in clear sight before firing on someone. I sure wouldn't do it. If I have a reason to consider someone a deadly threat, and I have them covered, they reach they get shot. Any other course of action is risking my life for no good reason.
Look, it's real simple:
- Man makes threatening phone calls to officer.
- Man shows up on officer's property, disregarding a clearly posted No Trespassing sign.
- Man makes more threats.
- Man refuses to leave when ordered to do so.
- Man makes "threatening gesture".
- Man gets his stupid butt shot.
[/list=1]
A person has been killed, so an investigation is in order. Whether this is a good shoot or not depends on the nature of the "threatening gesture". Flipping the bird to the officer is NOT grounds for shooting. Reaching into his car or jacket IS.
NOBODY is morally obligated to hide in his house and wait for the police to come rescue him from the big mean man who won't leave the property! If your state has a legal requirement that you do so, shame on your state.
If someone is trespassing on your property and you tell them at gunpoint to leave, you can and will be charged with murder if you shot them when they attempt to comply. "Oh, so you shot him because he moved? Didn't you tell him to move? So you shot him when he complied with the explicit instructions you gave him?"
Once you tell a suspect to do something, you lose the ability to argue furtive movement. A furtive movement is an action taken which is inconsistent with the actions a reasonable person would take in the given situation, such as reaching into a pocket when a person points a gun at you and says not to move.
As for killing trespassers onto property (as opposed to intruders in one's home), that hasn't been legal at any time in this nation's history.
Okay, so if a cop tells you to pull out your wallet and then blows your head off when you comply, should he then be able to say "he moved" and that be that?
What people are not understanding is the COP TOLD THE GUY TO DO MOVE AND THEN SHOT HIM WHEN HE DID! If you tell someone to do something at gunpoint, you have to wait to see if that movement is in compliance with your instructions or not. That's why every academy and ccw instructor tells you not to order them to do anything but freeze.
No, buzz, he didn't just "move". He made a "threatening gesture". What that gesture was, we don't know. IF he opened the door of his car, I wouldn't call that a threatening gesture. If he quickly reached under his jacket, I probably would.
It all hinges on WHAT the movement was, not just the fact that he moved.
Of course, in the cop's position, I'd probably have ordered him to freeze, and had someone else call in the Cavalry. Having been threatened already, and having him show up on my property, AND continue to threaten me, would be reason enough for me to want to press whatever charges I thought might stick. Even if he just gets a $50 fine, at least his conduct is well documented.
And none of this has anything to do with his job, except that it's possible that the trespasser's animus is due to having been on the wrong end of the officer's actions in the line of duty at some point in the past. But it could as easily have been a parking space disagreement at Wally World that set this chain of events in motion.
It all hinges on WHAT the movement was, not just the fact that he moved.
Of course, in the cop's position, I'd probably have ordered him to freeze, and had someone else call in the Cavalry. Having been threatened already, and having him show up on my property, AND continue to threaten me, would be reason enough for me to want to press whatever charges I thought might stick. Even if he just gets a $50 fine, at least his conduct is well documented.
And none of this has anything to do with his job, except that it's possible that the trespasser's animus is due to having been on the wrong end of the officer's actions in the line of duty at some point in the past. But it could as easily have been a parking space disagreement at Wally World that set this chain of events in motion.
You defend your stance on our lack of knowledge of what the gesture was. We know what it was: he reached into his glove compartment. Whether he was reaching for his gun or his keys, the officer didn't know. That lack of knowledge means that it was at most a potentially threatening gesture, and you aren't allowed to shoot on those. It must be reasonable, and I don't believe a reasonable person would agree to allowing you to shoot another human being where it is just as likely the suspect was trying to comply with your orders.
TheeBadOne
Member
buzz don't forget this was not joe blow, but a criminal who had threatened the Officer previously and now had tracked him down at his house, continuing to threaten him. Adds a little more to the scenario.
Edward429451
member
Nah, I wasn't arguing that. Legal slegial, it happens is the point. I don't know about you folks, but I take posted signs very seriously irregardless of the law.
And if, like TBO said, the man made previous threats to him, the homeowner owed him nothing. The moral of this story? Take signs seriously and do be polite to people when you're on their land.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked