Self-Defense vs. Vigilantism

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

Was watching a new reality show last night called "Police P.O.V." where cops where head camera's from Taser called Axon so you can see what they see.


One officer goes to a call where there is a man lying on the ground with a gunshot wound to his buttocks. There is another man near a work truck. Plenty of other officers on scene and the wounded man is receiving medical treatment from EMS. Apparently the man near the work truck was loading up his truck when the wounded man had accosted him with a pistol and told him to give him his wallet. The worker gave him his wallet and while the robber was pre-occupied with that he shot the robber with his own concealed weapon and then called the police and ambulance. It didn't appear a CCW permit was involved although it happened in Memphis, I'm not sure of the laws there.



What I couldn't believe was when the female officer said, "This is a hard one. I don't want to promote people taking the law into their own hands although this appears to be self-defense."


This was obviously a clear cut case of self-defense. I don't understand how she could even construe this as taking the law into his own hands. What would have been vigilantism would have been if he had seen the robber two hours later and instead of calling the cops he goes over and shoots him.


Now maybe this gal was just talking to talk but I'm happy she not making judgement calls over me. I'm also not one to Monday Morning Quarterback other officers, but I thought it interesting. And at least all's well that ends well.

.

 

[MachIVshooter]

Well, no, it's not obviously a clear case of SD. Furthermore, even if she believed it was, she was not at liberty to say so prior to investigation.

In most states, SD statutes read basically "in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury". If you shoot a robber in the back after he's already got what he wanted and was trying to make his getaway, it's reasonable to say that he was probably no longer a threat. Obviously, that's not an absolute, as there are a lot of variables that could result in him taking a round to the posterior even though he wasn't running away and was still a threat. But that would be why she said it was a tough one.

My personal view? The guy got what he deserved. He's still alive, but paying for his crime. Would I have done the same? Probably not. My wallet ain't worth going to prison for assault with a deadly weapon. That said, if I thought I could tackle the guy or pop him a good one with my fist without getting shot, most likely I would. I hate thieves.

 

[gunnutery]

I rarely watch TV, but I happened to see that program recently (not the episode you're talking of). I really didn't care for it. They cut scenes so much that you really don't have a clear picture of timeline and conversations between LEO's. All they give you is a brief comment by one LEO hindsight (but talking as though they're just taking time out from the incident).

I also question the source of the camera footage. Did the production company provide so many officers with cameras specifically to use as a TV show, or are they cameras provided by the Dept. and the the TV show gets handed the material?

 

[addedpulp]

How likely is a robber who has what they want, but is willing to carry a gun to do so (not a knife, not suggestions of a weapon, but actually carrying a loaded gun) to turn around and harm you just because? Or so you can't point them out? Honestly, I'd call that self-defense. But the law is pretty damn stupid, so who knows what they'd call it?

 

[Sam1911]

MachIVshooter has this right (except for assaulting the mugger afterward...)

The officer was speaking out of turn, but that's what the cameras want.

She did not know exactly how the situation happened, nor what order of events took place. The "defender's" actions may have been justified. Or they may not. No good officer is going to make a snap decision based on first impressions and such limited information.

I hear overzealous and ridiculous "come git some" type comments so often any more that I'm starting to feel like that officer, myself. What most folks DON'T know about what is lawful self-defense -- and especially what ISN'T -- really worries me.


... How disappointing it would be to find out a month from now that the "victim's" and "robber's" testimony both support that the guy handed over the wallet, the mugger started to run off, and the "victim" shot him down for having stolen from him. Now the hero of our little story is on trial for manslaughter or even murder.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

MachIVshooter:

Who's to say the danger is over once the bad guy has what he supposedly wants? That's a dangerous assumption. Just recently a man was beaten when the robber who asked for his victims wallet got "what he wanted", but when he found out the man didn't have any cash he brutally assaulted the man. As long as the robber is in relative close proximity with his gun the imminent threat is still there. You also don't know if the robber may decide he doesn't want any witnesses left alive.

Tackling a guy with a gun is probably not a great idea and assaulting him afterward is probably not the best.

Also, the robber wasn't leaving nor did he have his back to him. The robber was turned at an angle.


The D.A. can later decide to charge the "victim/shooter" later by complaint but in this case it will most likely not happen as the officers who write the report said it was self-defense and it will be written as such.

 

[Loosedhorse]

"This is a hard one. I don't want to promote people taking the law into their own hands although this appears to be self-defense."

This is simply an officer not understanding that the words she is saying actually mean something different than what she thinks they mean. She equates resisting an armed robbery (rather than complying) as "taking the law into your own hands."

I think what she meant to say is that she doesn't want to promote resisting an armed robbery attempt. But she recognizes that when the robber ends up shot as a result, that's on the robber, not the victim.

By the way, I think it is also important to distinguish vigilantism (which had a very noble tradition in the US in late 1800s of providing law and order in areas where official law enforcement had no practical presence) from "taking the law into your own hands" (which I equate to substituting your own judgment and punishment for that of an available, legitimate legal system).

 

[Owen Sparks]

In a free society the law should be in the hands of the people. The police are simply guards hired who serve to deter the threat of crime so that we can be free to go about our daily business in peace. Any time the state assumes a monopoly on the use of force the people become servants to the state.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

Loosedhorse, you are in-correct. What she said meant was taking the law into your own hands, thus she said, "taking the law into your own hands."


She meant exactly what she said.

 

[gvf]

If she said it during an interview she knew a wide audience would see it and likely meant what she said as a representative of Law Enforcement: it's not good for citizens to take the law into their own hands but this case may have been something different.

It's a reasonable official comment in my view.

 

[NMBrian]

Doesnt matter what the officer says or thinks, it all comes down to the DA deciding what charges to press or not.

She could have said it was attempted murder and it wouldn't make a difference.

The only thing I watch on TV these days are sporting events and the occasional history/discovery documentary. Everything else is just way to scripted and edited.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Seems like far too much gnashing of teeth over an off-the-cuff, uncalled for, equivocal and probably unprofessional comment by an LEO. It was at the earliest stage of the investigation, and no one really understood exactly what happened. She was basically just "flapping her gums."

...Who's to say the danger is over once the bad guy has what he supposedly wants?...

And who's to say it's not?

The thing is, whether or not a dangerous condition existed that justified the use of lethal force will depend on exactly what and how something happens. And that will seldom be immediately obvious.

This situation will be investigated and a decision made by the authorities in due course. If the truck driver is unlucky, the question of whether or not his use of lethal force was justified will have to be answered by a jury.

 

[usmarine0352_2005]

.

You can't always read someone's demeanor when they are on tv, but you can get somewhat of an opinion of what they said.


I wonder how many people commented on "what she really meant" and they haven't even seen that episode in person.

.

 

[9mmepiphany]

.
What I couldn't believe was when the female officer said, "This is a hard one. I don't want to promote people taking the law into their own hands although this appears to be self-defense."


This was obviously a clear cut case of self-defense. I don't understand how she could even construe this as taking the law into his own hands. .

But I do have some experience in this...having been the de facto "Can we get a reaction from a street cop" officer on my watch. I'm not sure if it was because I was the minority officer on the shift or if everyone else just hated the media so bad. The Fourth Estate seemed to liked me, both print and television, as I was pretty open and formed nice sound bites.

I haven't seen this show. I seldom watch cop shows, unless it was about my department...and that was just to make fun of the officers involved later.

I'll bet there was a pause between the words hands and although or even a rising tone...even allowing for the speech pattern in Memphis.

Here is the way I read/hear it:

This is a hard one. - I don't have all the facts yet

I don't want to promote people taking the law into their own hands - This is departmental policy

although this appears to be self-defense. - it sure looks like the right thing happened here

From your description of what was shown, I don't think this is as clear a case of self defense as you might think

 

[JellyJar]

What people need to understand is that lawful Self defense or defense of another is indeed taking the law into ones own hands!

In law this is called "self help".

Where taking the law into ones own hands becomes vigilantism is when a person takes the law into ones own hand beyond the bounds or lawful SD of defense of another.

For example. You come home and find your TV has been stolen. You know who took it so you get your gun use it to get your TV back. That would be taking the law into ones own hand and vigilantism. And in this case illegally.

However, if someone breaks into your house while you are there in order perhaps to steal your TV and he places your life and that of your family in harms way you would have the right to defend your home, yourself and your family. That also consists of taking the law into ones own hand but legally.

However, if society should ever collapse and the rule of law come to an end then you and your neighbors would be in the right to form a vigilance committee and take the law into your own hands to do what ever may be necessary for your self preservation.

Lets hope it never ever gets that bad!

 

[MedWheeler]

I didn't see the episode. However, I take no issue with what she is quoted as having said, and believe that it is what she meant. "Taking the law into your own hands" and "self defense" are two different things, and it is certainly possible to condone one and not the other.
Also, it is indeed becoming more common for thugs, even after having obtained compliance from their victims, to commit violence against them anyway. Last summer, in a county south of me, a man shot and executed two men in a convenience store after completing a robbery of the store and victims (one was the clerk, the other a customer.)
About thirty minutes later, the same suspect entered another store that had two male clerks on duty. When he displayed his firearm and announced his intention, one of the clerks dove for cover, and the suspect fired at him. The other clerk then drew his own gun and fired a single shot at the suspect, who then fled. Police found him in the street a short distance away, suffering from what would shortly become a fatal gunshot wound to the chest.

 

[Jim K]

I for one don't believe those shows are "reality" at all. I remember the "survival on a desert island" show that was shot a few hundred yards from a four-star hotel where the actors and crew stayed when they were not in the jungle, fighting to survive.

That noted, many (most?) cops just can't stand the idea of anyone but cops having guns. They don't care about your safety, they care about their jobs and their power over the public. Guns are power and many psychologists say that the desire for power is the major factor influencing human behavior. (Not sex or money, but the power both represent.)

Jim

 

[Cosmoline]

If you shoot a robber in the back after he's already got what he wanted and was trying to make his getaway, it's reasonable to say that he was probably no longer a threat

If he's running away, that's one thing. But being preoccupied counting cash or whatever is NOT running away or fleeing the scene. If he grabs and runs off, then let him go. If he's verifying you've given him what you have on you and is distracted for a second, or is distracted for some other reason, that may be your one and only chance to survive.

A great many robbers have decided, once they've verified the cash, that there's no reason at all to leave a live witness. Happened a few blocks from here a while back and the cops still haven't found out who did it. Shooting your victims is actually a very effective way to avoid prosecution. But a smart criminal will wait to verify sufficient green before doing so. They don't want to have to root around your bleeding body because it will leave traces of them on you and visa versa.

The imminence of the threat does not end because you give the criminal your wallet and he momentarily turns from you. He's still armed and you must assume he will kill you. "Your money or your life" is not a binding contract either way.

And that will seldom be immediately obvious.

It should be pretty obvious if he's a mugger, has a firearm in his hand, and is within a few yards of where the victim was. Within those parameters it ought not to matter which side of the criminal the bullet went in. That doesn't mean all DA's or juries will be logical, of course. Many are still hung up on bizarre notions that you have to give the criminal your cash and a fair fight. But the first goal is survival and the only safe assumption to make, until the criminal is clearly and unambiguously in flight and a safe distance away, is that he will make good on his threat of deadly force.

 

[gvf]

Well, there's the law and then there are people who are involved in the law - police, DAs, Judges etc., etc. So, decisions by people determine also what's legal and not - from the start. Here, likely is a case that depends greatly on who the DA is, and what the tone of this area is: tight on guns and self-defense, or looser, the police investigators.....

Anything could happen here legally. It's not clear cut. Depends on who applies the law.

Anyone what actually did happen after, what the outcome was?

 

[jad0110]

Anything could happen here legally. It's not clear cut. Depends on who applies the law.

As Cosmoline points out, given the fact that the thug stopped to count his money and was still standing before the victim a few feet away (assuming the BG still had his gun pointed at or very near the victim), it is pretty clear to me. If that's how it went down, I'd say it was a clean case of SD. The BG had a gun pointed at him (ability), he used that gun to threaten the victim (intent) and he was only a few feet from the victim (opportunity). All 3 of those legs of the stool are clearly present from the info provided; given that it is clear to me. I wasn't there, but I likely would have done the exact same thing.

 

[gvf]

Just saying, who applies the law can make a big difference.

--------------------------------------------------------

Nothing to do with this case: but on the subject of possible "bad shoots" this is a corker from my area a few years ago: owner of bar and the bartender the day I describe, the man's bar had been robbed several times in the past by BGs with guns. This day it happened again and no opportunity for the owner to go for his hidden gun he had (dunno if he had it legally or not).

So the BG takes off out the door after getting the money, and the owner, absolutely furious, grabs his gun, races out the door chasing the BG down the street while firing at his back, the street fairly crowded at the time. He misses the BG but shoots a little girl waking with her mother. Luckily the little girl had a superficial wound and was OK later.

BUT: the guy is going to get fried by the police, DA etc. Then something amazing happens:

The cops don't charge the guy in time to beat the legal deadline for doing so. The guy walks!

Friend of mine (attorney) and his firm handled the guy's defense against the civil suit of the family of the little girl. (He didn't walk from that.)

 

[bigfatdave]

Reality TV is edited and cut to make it more controversial.
People on the "confessional camera" and people saying things in a summary are frequently prompted and asked leading questions.

So ... I don't care what is depicted on the heavily edited and slanted reality show.

===

The subject that really matters here is the assumption that handing over property is a way to ensure safety. That's placing a lot of trust in someone willing to threaten your life for a measly wallet, isn't it? The documented cases of robery-turned-execution demonstrate the stupidity of trusting your new friend to not harm you.

 

[sig232]

BUT: the guy is going to get fried by the police, DA etc. Then something amazing happens:

The cops don't charge the guy in time to beat the legal deadline for doing so. The guy walks!

Are you talking about the BG or the bartender?

 

[Ole Coot]

If this is true the LEO was doing what most folks do, covering her rear end. Not making a positive statement is SOP.

 

[Sam1911]

True. Even here, where we are generally strongly in favor of lawful self-defense, we'd expect folks to take a very cautious, measured stance.

"Well, score one for the good guys! Sure wish more folks would man-UP and just shoot people who done 'em wrong!" probably isn't the sort of response we'd expect -- OR WANT -- from law-enforcement officers responding to the scene of a shooting.