suspect gains control of an officer's gun, and you are the only one who can help...

[scottgun]

This may sound selfish, but I would decline to get involved unless it direcly poses a threat to myself. That is why I carry concealed, to protect myselft and my family.

I hear this line used by police posting online often - my main responsibility is to go home to my family at the end of the day. Guess what, that is my main responsibility too. I would not take actions that would needlessly put myself in harms way. I don't have the same level of impunity that the police do.

 

[stonecoldsoldier]

I thought there was a law passed recently that makes you criminally liable if you do not assist an officer if he requests it?

 

[MedWheeler]

Having been behind the badge myself, I have considered scenarios involving LEOs in distress. My plan is to provide assistance to the extent of necessity and of my ability. I would, depending on situation, announce myself and my intent to assist to the officer, and tell him to deputize me. In Florida, a LEO can do so merely by requesting assistance.
I only deputized someone once, at the scene of a traffic stop. A passing pedestrian turned out to be a recently-retired LEO from a neighboring agency. I knew him when he worked, and had seen him out for his nighttime walks after retirement. That night, as he passed and stopped nearby, I asked him if he was carrying. When he answered that he was, I asked him to hang out, and deputized him for the duration of that encounter.

 

[stevemis]

I would, depending on situation, announce myself and my intent to assist to the officer, and tell him to deputize me. In Florida, a LEO can do so merely by requesting assistance.

Exactly my sentiments. I'd go one further and have him key up his radio and deputize me so it's on the record. In my mind's eye, the department would likely help shield me from the lawsuits.

 

[BCC]

If I saw a cop about to get killed and I thought I could stop it from happening, I'd get involved and worry about any legal issues later.

 

[cottonmouth]

Help the man! He'd do the same for you.

J.B.

 

[scoutsabout]

...scoutsabout...that's one thing I don't miss for sure...that damned continuum of force...

I totally agree. In exploring all the technicalities, we tend to forget the big picture. Civilians are not required to use deadly force, though we are authorized under certain circumstances. When the "big three" exist, we can be afforded some protection if we choose to act.

Apart from all the EOF/COF crap, I think the decision to assist an LEO in distress is pretty simple on the surface. If the LEO is fighting for control of his own weapons, then it can safely be assumed that the subject is displaying the three factors that validate a deadly force responce. The LEO would be authorized to use deadly force in that situation, and so would anyone assisting the LEO.

Ability - we can assume the perp knows how to use the LEO's weapons. Especially a Glock.

Opportunity - yes, the perp has his hands close enough to acquire and use the LEO's weapons.

Jeopardy - yes, he is endangering the LEO's life.

If the LEO is struggling, I would offer to help and provide assistance only with permission. If the LEO is clearly losing or has lost the struggle, and the perp has a weapon... then I kind of wonder if I could empty my gun into the perp before he hit the ground.

In all reality, this is a tough question... but thinking about these scenarios will invariably help us be prepared for the worst.

The real problem with these scenarios is the gray area. The LEO is still struggling, but could win or lose the fight at any moment. If the LEO has lost the fight, it is a much clearer decision. Would we open fire on a perp that was apparently about to execute an LEO with his own weapon? That is a clearer decision, in my mind.

At any rate... whether you are willing to risk your life for the good of humanity, that is the real question at hand. For those of us who have already done it, the choice is probably clearer still.

Better to die for something than to live for nothing.

***wait a minute*** we're getting too embroiled in the possibilities here. I just took another look at the OP's original question. He affirmed in the question that the perp had already gotten ahold of the LEO's gun... so the choice is very clear, in my mind.

FIRE AWAY. Scream commands at the perp and assurances to the LEO to hopefully aid the LEO, any witnesses, and responding LEO's in identifying you as a good samaritan.

 

[ljnowell]

Wow, that would be a spot to be in, thats for sure. I always say that my first priority is my family and me. However, I would be hard pressed to not intervene to save the life of a LEO. Its not like a situation where you see two plain dressed guys fighting over a gun, with the LEO you can plainly tell who the good guy is.

All that said, I think I would rather explain to the judge why I shot the bad guy than explain to God why I didnt help the good guy.

 

[CoRoMo]

...a law passed recently that makes you criminally liable if you do not assist an officer if he requests it?

How am I supposed to know which one the officer is? Just because one is in uniform, doesn't mean he's the LEO.

Nobody's going to recommend ADEE? Most of these scenarios get the ADEE response, but not this one?

 

[bdickens]

It depends.

 

[devildog32713]

This may sound selfish, but I would decline to get involved unless it direcly poses a threat to myself. That is why I carry concealed, to protect myselft and my family.

I hear this line used by police posting online often - my main responsibility is to go home to my family at the end of the day. Guess what, that is my main responsibility too. I would not take actions that would needlessly put myself in harms way. I don't have the same level of impunity that the police do.

It sounds selfish, because it is, don't go through life like that man,



I would intervene, if I had shot with good backstop. It's the cop or the thug, I'd rather have the cop stick around longer.
If he just had gun at side, or waving in air, shoot to disable, if aiming weapon at cop/civilians (makes no difference which) shoot to kill...

 

[gmark340]

This is a good discussion that points out some of the pitfalls of rushing into a situation and some issues that have to be considered. As a practical matter, in most jurisdictions, an individual is entitled to use deadly force to protect himself or another when confronted with the immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm. However, when defending another, the CCW steps into that person's shoes when he takes action. This means that, if the person being defended could have used deadly force, the CCW who stepped up to defend him could. If the person being defended could not have used deadly force because, for instance, he started or escalated the situation, the CCW is not entitled to use deadly force and could be held liable for doing so.

In my jurisdiction, if someone goes for my duty weapon I have the right to use deadly force to prevent him from gaining control of it because the operating assumption under the law is that he is trying to take it to use against me, ie, he immediately meets the AOJ test and can be dealt with accordingly. In that situation, a CCW who comes upon us struggling would most likely be justified in shooting the perp. However, also in my jurisdiction, a civilian is entitled to use force, up to and including deadly force, to resist an unlawful arrest. If I am attempting an unlawful arrest which results in a struggle and a CCW intervenes on my behalf, he may be exposing himself to liability. The test for the CCW is not what he thought was happening but what was actually happening. There is a famous case, which I unfortunately cannot cite, of a truck driver who stopped to help a young girl being assaulted by a derelict. He didn't shoot the derelict but held him at gunpoint to help the girl get away. It turns out that the person he was holding at gunpoint was an undercover cop who was attempting to arrest a prostitute. The prostitute had no right to defend herself from a lawful arrest and neither, as it turned out, did the truck driver, who went to jail.

I would just caution everyone that the facts are not always what they seem and to take that into account before acting. All that said, I would judge the situation on its face and be prepared to render assistance. If I were in need of help, I'd be glad for it. As well, if the presumed perp has the officer's gun and looks as though he is going to use it, that gives strong support to intervening.

 

[Lou McGopher]

I'd assume it was a case of extreme police brutality, and the "perp" was acting out of extreme fear of his own life.

How can you be so sure someone is on drugs just by looking at them? Maybe they always look like that. Maybe they've got the flu. Maybe they're just having a bad day. Most drug users I've ever known are non-violent, particularly when they're high.

I'm not trying to bash cops, but part of their job is to use or threaten to use violence against people committing non-violent crimes. It's human nature to want to defend yourself from unprovoked aggression. A uniform and a badge doesn't automatically make someone a good guy. And living in a run-down apartment building doesn't automatically make a person a POS. You have no idea what is going on, except that two people are fighting. Beyond that, you don't know anything.

If you saw a cop was about to go to far and shoot an unarmed person, would you intervene? Even in a clear case of police brutality, if you intervene to stop the cop from harming an innocent or defenseless person, you'll be convicted of a felony.

For all you know, that's a crooked cop who decided to seriously abuse his authority, and that "POS" is a victim fighting for his life.

 

[CoRoMo]

You're not bashing cops, but you'd immediately assume that the officer was the one acting outside the law? That's your first assessment?

I'm not trying to bash cops, but...

Yes, you are. The only thing you're doing in your post, is bringing into question the morality of the LEO.

 

[Lou McGopher]

You're not bashing cops, but you'd immediately assume that the officer was the one acting outside the law? That's your first assessment?

No sir, I didn't say all cops were abusive. Just the one in this hypothetical scenario.

The OP and everyone else are jumping to conclusions. Why is it wrong for me to do the same?

 

[MedWheeler]

So, "genius" (right).. any officer who has had his weapon forcibly taken from him has brought this upon himself through an act of "extreme police brutality"? That's the OP's scenario, that the officer has been disarmed by a "drug-crazed POS".

 

[Bhamrichard]

I would find it very difficult, if not impossible, to not intervene. I've never taken a life but in the scenario the OP described (officer already dis-armed) I'd have no problem dropping the perp if I believed it was the only way to save the LEOs life.

Between the various laws in Alabama, Good Samaritan, Fleeing Felon etc, fear of prosecution is the last thing I'd be worried about.

 

[DWFan]

Intervene with whatever force you deem necessary. If the perp does get the officer's weapon, there is no reason to assume he won't use it on you even if he's not on drugs and only fleeing in panic.

 

[Lou McGopher]

So, "genius" (right)..

any officer who has had his weapon forcibly taken from him has brought this upon himself through an act of "extreme police brutality"? That's the OP's scenario, that the officer has been disarmed by a "drug-crazed POS".

That's not at all what I said.

I asked how anyone in such a situation would really know who was the victim and who was the aggressor. All I did was point out that, as described by the OP, the only thing you would know is that there is a fight. You don't even know if the cop is really a cop. You don't know why this person dressed as a cop is fighting with a "drug crazed Pos." The OP didn't even explain how one would know the other person is "drug crazed," or why one would assumethe other person is a "PoS." Maybe it's a drug-crazed cop who's decided to go ballistic on his ex-gf's new boyfriend. You don't know. In this scenario, the critical point is that you weren't there when it started. Nevertheless some people think it would be a good idea to start shooting.

 

[CoRoMo]

All I did was point out that, as described by the OP, the only thing you would know is that there is a fight.

No, you did a little more than that. You said that if you saw this scenario playing out, you would first, "assume it was a case of extreme police brutality, and the "perp" was acting out of extreme fear of his own life."

Your initial reaction would be to give the "perp" the benefit of the doubt, but not the uniformed officer. No, you'd judge him guilty of violating the law.

That speaks volumes.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Please note that the OP supposes that the other person may gain control of a taser or mace, and then asks if you should kill that person.


Let's restate the OP's hypothetical situation with a more realistic estimation of what you would know if you came across such a situation:

Lets say you are walking down the street (legally CCWing), and you come across a melee between a person dressed as a police officer and a person you don't know but who isn't dressed as nicely as you, that spills out onto the sidewalk from a home that's not as nice as yours. The person you don't know but who isn't dressed as nicely as you, through some providence of God gains control of the person dressed as a police officer's sidearm/club/or non-lethal pain compliance device. Is that grounds to not only intervene, but draw your gun and shoot and kill the person you don't know but who is not dressed as nicely as you?


And again I ask, how many of you would intervene if you a cop mercilessly beating, and possibly about to kill a helpless person? Would you say, "to heck with the risk of a lawsuit," and shoot the cop? Or would you just assume, despite the plethora of videos and stories out there about police brutality, that the cop is doing the right thing and stand by as he maims or kills that person?

I guess I just don't think it's prudent to take someone's life based on huge, uninformed guesses.

 

[stonecutter2]

Due to Illinois law, about the best aid I could offer would be to yell encouraging things to the police officer, or disparaging remarks at the perp.

 

[Lou McGopher]

Your initial reaction would be to give the "perp" the benefit of the doubt, but not the uniformed officer. No, you'd judge him guilty of violating the law.

How would that be any less ignorant than the assumption made by the OP?

That speaks volumes.

I agree. I would call it a non-idealistic opinion of policing in America.

And because you didn't see any crime committed by the unknown person, you don't know if he's a perp.

 

[Bhamrichard]

Depends too much on circumstances, i.e. do you believe this is a real LEO, do you see a real police car, can you hear anything on his radio to indicate he's a real officer etc etc, it's all perception.

If I walk up on a scene, where from all appearances there's a real LEO in dire trouble and and struggling with someone else, it would be my belief that he is in fact a 'perp' based on what I see. Assaulting an officer, resisting arrest etc, regardless of any original offense seen or unseen by myself, so it would be my belief at the time he's actually a 'perp' and the officer is in need of all possible assistance.

But as this is entirely hypothetical, there really are a lot of variables that I would LIKE to know, however at the time I think best judgment would have to prevail.

Edit: Went back and read the OP's premise, if the suspect in question has the officers sidearm, ok that's one thing, the officers life is perceived as being in danger and deadly force would be justified. But he also mentions "mace/taser/club", the use of deadly force becomes much less likely to be necessary.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

not what its called in my hood.