Shooting an unarmed man.

[TheFederalistWeasel]

After several threads involving the LE use of Tazers which seems to be a questionable subject these days I just thought I would remind the masses that a person need not be armed for the situation to escalate into a deadly force situation.

I am speaking for LEO, because that is where my training lays. When we go to officer survival each year they pound into our heads this stuff, many times deadly force has been used and the person shot was not armed with a traditional weapon, the shooting was ruled justified.

Here are several examples that are given to us all the time.

Dallas Texas, a female police officer (501, 110 pounds) stops a guy (600, 305 pounds) he jumps out of the car tells the officer he is not going, guy rushes officer she shoots him killing him.

Justified, she testified that he was much larger than she and he could have easily taken her weapon away.

Ohio State Trooper makes a traffic stop, walks up to the car, woman immediately sprays him with pepper spray, he quickly staggers back, she opens the car door and gets out screaming at him. He shoots her multiple times.

Justified, he testified that he has experienced the effects of pepper spray and he knew just how fast it affected him at which time he could loose control of his weapon.

In the first instance a Tazer might have been useful but having seen the video several times I doubt it.

You do not have to be armed for an officer to reach the point where he/she can employ deadly force. I think in many of these encounters a Tazer has probably saved lives because the only other level of force available to the officer is deadly.

 

[Zundfolge]

My only disagreement with the weasel here is that when a police officer goes before that grand jury under those circumstances he's got a much better chance of walking out a free man then us serfs.

"...but some animals are more equal then others."

 

[R.H. Lee]

If you attack an armed law enforcement officer who is not threatening you with deadly force you deserve whatever you get IMO.

 

[Ktulu]

Speaking as non-LE... they sound like good shoots to me. Unfortunately, I don't think the defense that I was in danger of being disarmed holds up for concealed civilian carry.

 

[spacemanspiff]

If you attack an armed law enforcement officer who is not threatening you with deadly force you deserve whatever you get IMO

change 'armed law enforcement officer' to: "anyone", and you'll get my concurrance.

 

[Arc-Lite]

Zund... I can understand why an officer of the law, might get considerations before the grand jury.... considering they are "on line" to protect all of society, from the ones only interested in their own gain. Arc-Lite

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Texas CHL's first shooting was of an unarmed man...

The first shooting death directly involving a licensee occurred only 52 days into the new program.

On Feb. 21, 1996, Gordon Hale III, 42, a welding equipment repairman and scrawy little guy, was involved in a minor traffic accident in Dallas that shattered the side mirror of a delivery van. The men in the delivery van (actually, just the driver) chased Hale through traffic. While stopped/trapped in traffic, witnesses told police, van driver Kenny Tavai, 33 and a large Samoan, walked to Hale's pickup and started punching him in the shoulders, face, and general head areas as he sat behind the wheel, trapped by traffic and his seatbelt.

Hale used restraint even though several facial bones were broken already and he had a damaged left eye that was never to heal properly. Then Tavai, who apparently was not happy with beating Hale repeatedly the first time, turned around and went back to beat Hale again. As he reached into the truck, Hale produced handgun and killed Tavai with a single shot to the chest. Just one shot. Nothing more. Hale was charged with murder, but a grand jury refused to indict him and the charges were dropped.

This was a great case and an excellent example of lethal force being used in the 'face' of overwhelming power. Hale's face was a bloodly mess after the fist assault and all of the conditions for use of lethal force were not only feared, but realized. Hale suffered significant and potentially life threatening injuries as a result of the beating by Tavai. Note that Hale shot Tavai when Tavai returned to administer more punishment. Hale did very well.

Some of the best information from the case came from Tavai's associate in the truck who stated that he did not understand why Tavai was so upset, why Tavai found a need to beat Hale, or why Tavai returned to Hale's vehicle to try to beat him again.
----------------------------------------

While the female Dallas cop example and the Hale example both show large disparities of force, I don't think there is any Texas law that speaks to disparity of force as a justification for using lethal force. Texas law also does not state that lethal force must be used against a person with a weapon. Lethal force can most definitely be used against an unarmed person given the right conditions of the situation.

While not Texas law either, I certainly agree that if you are dumb enough to attack an armed cop, then you are dumb enough to be shot and killed.

 

[artherd]

Fists can kill.

Fists can cause 'great physical harm'.



Either is grounds for the use of lethal force in responce.

 

[hillbilly]

In Arkansas, whether or not the attacker is armed is not really the issue.

What is the issue if whether or not the victim was in "reasonable fear" for his or her life or safety.

The standard of "reasonable fear" depends on where the attack happens.

Out in public, outlisde your house, if you are in "reasonable fear" that someone is going to severely injure you with his bare hands, or maybe even kill you, and you cannot retreat with "complete safety" then you are justified in using deadly force to defend yourself.

So, out in public, if you are a 6-7, 350 pound guy and a 5-4, 98 pound woman attacks you by slapping you with the palm of her hand., you aren't in "reasonable fear" of you life and would not be justified in using deadly force.

But if the same 5-4, 98 pound woman has at you with a 12 inch bowie knife, then yes, you would be in "reasonable fear" for your life and safety.

If you are a 6-7, 350 pound guy and a similarly-sized adult male yells, "I'm gonna kill you!" and attacks you with his bare hands, and you could not with "complete safety" retreat from the situation, then yes, you would be justified in using deadly force to defend your life.

But if the attack happens inside your home, and is perpetrated by someone you did not invite into your home, then all bets are off.

The only thing that matters is that the attacker has invaded your home without your permission, and that, in and of itself, is reason to have "reasonable fear."

At least that is how it's been explained over and over and over by the different cops and attorneys I've hired to teach the legal portion of my CCW courses.

hillbilly

 

[JamisJockey]

If you attack an armed law enforcement officer who is not threatening you with deadly force you deserve whatever you get IMO.

What makes a Cop any better than the rest of us? What if you attack an armed citizen? an unarmed citizen? Do you deserve whatever you get then?



I fully understand disparity of force. Its something I have to wrestle with every time I strap my carry piece on. I'm 5'3" and 155lbs.

"...but some animals are more equal then others."

amen. If I shot that 6' 300lb unarmed man, I doubt I'd make it out of a Grand Jury investigation without an Indictment.

 

[Automatix]

Size matters!

The requirements to become a LEO have changed quite a bit in the last twenty odd years or so........some for the good and some for reasons that are strictly just politics.

My point being, that the SIZE of a police officer is very much consistant with the BG's actions. If they would leave in place a rule that states mininum size requirements you would have a lot less resistance in any LEO to Civilian confrontation.

I was raised a city kid. The beat cop used to be 5'10" feet or taller and 175 lbs. or more. Because of all the hype on hiring issues they have lowered the standards for physical statue. I know that there will be comment on changing times and such...........BUT, do we have too lower a standard that was and is still a big health/safety issue.

Its about escalation of a situation ......... come-on, you have too admit that size is in fact a deterrent to a criminal thinking he can still come out on top.

I quess some will make comment on size not being a issue.........heh, heh............don't kid yourself, it is.

Steroid users need not apply.

BeSafeThisChristmas;
Automatix

 

[WT]

What makes cops better? Well, the State Statutes enacted by the Legislature which is elected by the People.

In my state the police have no duty to retreat. They can pursue felons. They can use the PIT technique to disable automobiles. They can do a lot of things that ordinary civilians cannot due because the statutes permit them to.

In my state all homicides are reviewed by the Grand Jury. Whether a Grand Jury decides to indict or not is up to the Grand Jury, not the police. Don't blame the police for the actions of the Grand Jury.

The Statutes give police officers the benefit of a doubt. I support that.

 

[The Rabbi]

I made these exact points on a thread not too long ago and was told I was going to jail, I scared people, I was trigger-happy, the police would show up and arrest me at gunpoint etc etc.

I would disagree with Zundfolge. The private citizen has the "mantle of innocence" until proven otherwise. Cops can face a lot of scrutiny and questions for a lot of reasons, including greater resources and presumed training. In all the common thread of a lot of situations is to look like the victim. If it looks like an evenly matched fight that deteriorated into a shooting then it will be a lot more difficult.