Man with a gun call ends tragically?

[eye95]

Except the armed citizen wouldn't be able to use this defense if they approached a man on his own property with weapons drawn. In such a situation, the armed citizen would be an attacker and the man on the porch would be acting in self defense (If they think I have a gun, maybe they will go away!). The police should be held to a higher standard, if for no other reason, because they spend so much of their time on Other People's Property. They were the aggressor in this situation, and so the burden of proof should be much higher.

Again, true, but ordinary armed citizens are not sent out to investigate MWAG calls.

Once the officers are in a situation, however they (lawfully) get into it, of having what they reasonably believe is a gun being pointed at them, they have available to them the same justification defense that any other citizen would have should they decide to shoot. The standard put before the jury would be (and should be) the same: reasonable belief.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

The above is a rationalization of abuse of power by LEO who are supposed to use more restraint.

 

[Kirbinator]

I find it somewhat silly that "in a dark place" the officer responding didn't turn his spotlight on the house or use his flashlight to check what he's looking at.

Of course, that's California, where guns aren't commonplace, so only criminals have guns.

 

[palerider116]

I find it somewhat silly that "in a dark place" the officer responding didn't turn his spotlight on the house or use his flashlight to check what he's looking at.

Of course, that's California, where guns aren't commonplace, so only criminals have guns.

Turn on that light - BAM.

You are dead because you revealed your position.

Using a spotlight in a car to light up a possibly armed person - its like having a light on a coffin.

So if you are running around in an armed confrontation, please do use a flashlight or spotlight to give yourself away. It will end it quickly.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

Turn on that light - BAM.

You are dead because you revealed your position.

Using a spotlight in a car to light up a possibly armed person - its like having a light on a coffin.

So if you are running around in an armed confrontation, please do use a flashlight or spotlight to give yourself away. It will end it quickly.

So you agree that it is okay for police to stealthily approach a 'suspect' on his own property, with a shotgun, and to unload at the first hint of a 'threat'. I'm not even clear on whether they announced themselves, or even spoke to the 'suspect' at all.

In a court of law, it would be my contention that the police were using excessive force, and the deceased was attempting to defend himself with the only 'weapon' he possessed. Due to his inebriated state and the unclear intentions of the police, the police officers are lucky they don't work in a state where armed citizens have castle doctrine to back them up.

Edit to add: eye, I agree that once the shots are fired they should be helt to the same standard of scrutiny as an armed citizen defending himself. The problem is that the police are often the aggressors, and must be held to a higher standard when it comes to the circumstances surrounding the shooting. An officer/citizen minding his own business who is attacked or drawn on has a right to self defense. An officer/citizen approaching an unknown element has no right to attack. There should have to be a clear and present danger from which to defend oneself.

 

[eye95]

Yes, the question is solely on the circumstances leading up to the drunk pointing a nozzle (one which looks amazingly like a gun), with two hands extended, at an officer. Once the situation arrived a that point, barring criminal activity by the officers who shot, the officers simply became people who reasonably believed they had a gun pointed at them.

Too many TV programs have left many with the impression that there are a lot of options when someone has a gun pointed directly at you. If I think that I am a trigger-pull away from dead, I'm firing. No warning, no "freeze," no "let me see your hands. Just bang.

We don't have the details of what transpired immediately before the shooting. We don't know if the officers took it upon themselves to approach the drunk without trying to talk to him first, thereby startling him, causing him to behave in what appeared to be a threatening way. We don't know if the officers were indeed asking him to keep his hands in sight as they cautiously approached him, when, in a drunken stupor, he thought that pointing the nozzle at the officers with a two-handed grip would be funny.

My point was that, once the situation evolved into the drunk pointing what uninvolved witnesses and the police all said looked like a gun, using a two-handed grip, the officers who actually fired the shots have available to them, in court, the same defense that a civilian could use: justification due to the reasonable belief of being in grave danger.

Criminal or civil liability could result from the way the officers handled the situation leading up to the shooting, but we don't know those details, and making assumptions based upon predispositions towards officers and outrage at the horrific result does not lead to rational conclusions.

 

[palerider116]

So you agree that it is okay for police to stealthily approach a 'suspect' on his own property, with a shotgun, and to unload at the first hint of a 'threat'. I'm not even clear on whether they announced themselves, or even spoke to the 'suspect' at all.

You didn't read that from me, and I certainly didn't say that. But I will break it down for you in easy to digest segments.

1) Its tactically unsound to be looking for someone with a gun with lights blazing away. A stealth approach is safer so you can TRY to find the danger before it finds you. When you have to use a flashlight, hold it away from your body. Light draws fire.

2) Somebody pointing anything looking at a gun held with a two handed grip is playing a very dangerous and stupid game. The person in question was reportedly intoxicated. Read Graham versus Connor (1989) about hindsight. You can Monday morning quarterback this all you want, but you aren't talking about an officer or officers walking up to somebody on the street and executing him.

3) You said you aren't clear on whether they announced themselves or even spoke to the "suspect" at all - but you are sure they mowed him down at the first chance. Were you there? If the person pointed something that resembled a gun at the officers, should they wait until fired upon? Do they need to say "Stop in the name of the law" or "Police, Halt" or "Citizen, lay down your firearm" and get shot at first before discharging their weapons? Read Tennessee versus Garner (1985) about issuing verbal warnings before deadly force is used.

Based on your posting, the officers should have come in with every light on; shouted, "Stop in the name of the law" at least three times and two of those times on a PA; waited to get fired upon despite a person pointing something that resembles a firearm; and radioed for permission to fire.

I wasn't there for the shooting. However, if anyone claims self defense and there is an explanation that creates reasonable doubt against a criminal charge, I am going to accept it.

There are a lot of people that love to use the terms RAS and PC. Lets add a new one: reasonable doubt.

/rant

 

[since9]

Yes, the question is solely on the circumstances leading up to the drunk pointing a nozzle (one which looks amazingly like a gun), with two hands extended, at an officer. Once the situation arrived a that point, barring criminal activity by the officers who shot, the officers simply became people who reasonably believed they had a gun pointed at them.

This is your second attempt to unjustly justify an action that resulted in the death of an unarmed citizen. Heaven help us should anyone ever have to sneeze around dusk and they bring dark handkerchief up to their face!!!

BLAM!

Judge: "Why did you shoot her, Officer Doe?"

Off Doe: "I reasonably believed the little old lady was pointing a gun me, your honor."

Judge: "Oh, well ok then. Case dismissed."

Forget about the fact the little old lady was dressed in black because she was attenting a funeral...

I know I'm overstating the point, but I'm making another: Circumstances don't matter. It's the LEO's responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to mitigate whatever circumstances. If it's night and you're hearing sharp reports of gunfire, there's not a lot of mitigation one can do. But on a calm, well-lit afternoon, with no such reports, there's a whole lot of mitigation which can, and should have been done.

Yet it wasn't. Rather, they jumped to an errant conclusion and started blasting away.

I guarantee you if any citizen in the U.S. had done the same thing in the same situation, they'd be headed straight for jail for Murder. Maybe not premeditated, but definately murder, and the point that's been made is that LEOs have a greater, not lesser responsibility, to exercise diligence and caution.

If that's taking another minute to grab a pair of binoculars, then take another minute to grab a pair of binoculars. Meanwhile, let the guy on the porch make pointing gestures. In the last 10,000 years of recorded history, pointing, even with both hands, has yet to result in a single loss of human life.

dont talk to the cops!

I hear you. More than a few of them couldn't handle a rational discussion on the issue. Way too much cage-rattling. They seemed to take things pretty rationally with last year's OC thread, but this was too much, perhaps too close to home, and many members on the forum just lost it.

 

[eye95]

This is your second attempt to unjustly justify an action that resulted in the death of an unarmed citizen. Heaven help us should anyone ever have to sneeze around dusk and they bring dark handkerchief up to their face!!!

BLAM!

Judge: "Why did you shoot her, Officer Doe?"

Off Doe: "I reasonably believed the little old lady was pointing a gun me, your honor."

Judge: "Oh, well ok then. Case dismissed."

Forget about the fact the little old lady was dressed in black because she was attenting a funeral...

I know I'm overstating the point,... yada, yada, yada...

How's that ignore thing workin' for ya? :lol::lol:

Once again, I am pointing out one thing and one thing only: An officer who reasonably believes that he is in grave danger can make the same claim to a jury that a civilian with the same belief can. If the jury agrees that the belief was reasonable, then the justification defense will work.

It is tougher to refute what someone actually says than to to make a strawman and set it on fire. I used to expect better. Before I was "ignored," that is.

Moving on.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

You didn't read that from me, and I certainly didn't say that.

Just trying to keep this on topic.

1) Its tactically unsound to be looking for someone with a gun with lights blazing away. A stealth approach is safer so you can TRY to find the danger before it finds you. When you have to use a flashlight, hold it away from your body. Light draws fire.

That sounds like good advice, but I'm not sure what it has to do with this thread. Also, I would contend that it is better to light up the subject and ruin his night vision than to let him get the drop on you. It all comes down to the circumstances you find yourself in.

2) Somebody pointing anything looking at a gun held with a two handed grip is playing a very dangerous and stupid game. The person in question was reportedly intoxicated. Read Graham versus Connor (1989) about hindsight. You can Monday morning quarterback this all you want, but you aren't talking about an officer or officers walking up to somebody on the street and executing him.

You are absolutely correct. The actions have to be judged based on what the cop would have known and the way a reasonable person with that information would have responded. We don't have that information.

3) You said you aren't clear on whether they announced themselves or even spoke to the "suspect" at all - but you are sure they mowed him down at the first chance. Were you there? If the person pointed something that resembled a gun at the officers, should they wait until fired upon? Do they need to say "Stop in the name of the law" or "Police, Halt" or "Citizen, lay down your firearm" and get shot at first before discharging their weapons? Read Tennessee versus Garner (1985) about issuing verbal warnings before deadly force is used.

I read Tennessee v. Garner, and I think you might want to take another look at it yourself. The case I read specifically condemned an officer who used deadly force when it wasn't warranted. It also makes mention that guilt cannot be determined if the suspect doesn't live to trial.

Yes, I am saying the use of deadly force should be reserved for use after all other reasonable means have been exhausted. I'm saying that officers should be held to a higher standard than the average armed citizen because they are supposed to have placed the interests and well-being of the public ahead of their own. I'm saying that it is better for a guilty man to live than an innocent man to die.

Based on your posting, the officers should have come in with every light on; shouted, "Stop in the name of the law" at least three times and two of those times on a PA; waited to get fired upon despite a person pointing something that resembles a firearm; and radioed for permission to fire.

I don't believe that to be reasonable any more than you do. The officers should have (and may have) taken every reasonable step to apprehend or disarm the suspect before opening fire. What those reasonable steps are is dependent on the situation.

I wasn't there for the shooting. However, if anyone claims self defense and there is an explanation that creates reasonable doubt against a criminal charge, I am going to accept it.

There are a lot of people that love to use the terms RAS and PC. Lets add a new one: reasonable doubt.

/rant

I think we agree on this. The only difference is you are advocating for the officer's actions and I would be advocating for the victim's. There is enough doubt on both sides of this situation that, reasonably, it never should have escalated to this point.

 

[palerider116]

There are a lot of variables in this situation. Would I call it murder? No. The person who pointed something that looked like a gun at officers made a very poor choice. This poor choice cost him his life. If John Doe shot him, I would be arguing the very same thing.

Expecting the LEO to get shot at first or verify the gun has a round in the chamber is unreasonable, and unfair. A citizen does not have to do this, and should not have to do this.

Hindsight is 20/20. Who knows if they even have binoculars. They may not be part of their equipment load out. But we can second guess this all day. We can second guess any shooting. I've seen a few self defense shootings where a weapon wasn't even produced, but implied or verbally threatened. Ruled self defense, not even resulting in the first charge.

My solution - and Jonathan Swift would be proud...
The only way to be sure that a person is armed, and actually intending on harming or killing you is to wait for them to fire the weapon, and at least one round has to hit you. The round can't miss you, because that would be a warning shot, or he is just intending to scare you. He fires the weapon + 1 hit to your person = permission to return fire.

 

[eye95]

...If John Doe shot him, I would be arguing the very same thing.

Expecting the LEO to get shot at first or verify the gun has a round in the chamber is unreasonable, and unfair. A citizen does not have to do this, and should not have to do this...

Yep, you made the point I was trying to make more eloquently.

And, yes, your proposal was quite modest and quite Swiftian.

 

[palerider116]

snip...
I read Tennessee v. Garner, and I think you might want to take another look at it yourself. The case I read specifically condemned an officer who used deadly force when it wasn't warranted. It also makes mention that guilt cannot be determined if the suspect doesn't live to trial.

Having read TN versus Garner plenty of times, having studied it, and use it... You are referring to nonviolent felons and the use of deadly force against them.

The section in reference to fleeing violent felons and self defense reads:

Section IIB
"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given."

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

Having read TN versus Garner plenty of times, having studied it, and use it... You are referring to nonviolent felons and the use of deadly force against them.

The section in reference to fleeing violent felons and self defense reads:

Section IIB
"Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given."

That is a somewhat fancier way of saying what I was taught 32 years ago before hitting the street.

 

[palerider116]

Yep, you made the point I was trying to make more eloquently.

And, yes, your proposal was quite modest and quite Swiftian.

A bad shoot is a bad shoot - no matter who is involved. There should be clear standards for a self defense shooting, and for apprehending a fleeing violent felon that are universal for all.

Just remember, a police officer is prosecuted in court just like any other person. If he cannot be afforded the same expectations for self defense, he must be tried in a different court system, by his own peers (LE). A non LEO citizen would not constitute a "peer" because that non LEO citizen would not be able to relate to the officer.

 

[palerider116]

That is a somewhat fancier way of saying what I was taught 32 years ago before hitting the street.

Speaking plainly has never hurt anyone.

 

[eye95]

A bad shoot is a bad shoot - no matter who is involved. There should be clear standards for a self defense shooting, and for apprehending a fleeing violent felon that are universal for all.

Just remember, a police officer is prosecuted in court just like any other person. If he cannot be afforded the same expectations for self defense, he must be tried in a different court system, by his own peers (LE). A non LEO citizen would not constitute a "peer" because that non LEO citizen would not be able to relate to the officer.

True. Even if the officers are not guilty of murder because they had proven a justification under the law, they may still be judged as having gone against procedure. That may not be a criminal matter, but still could bring disciplinary action from within their department.

However, most of the facts in this case are still unknown. The proper outcome of this case could range from the officers did nothing wrong, to they did not follow procedure but committed no crime, to they are guilty of wanton murder.

We must all be willing to maintain an open mind until the facts are in.

 

[Brimstone Baritone]

Expecting the LEO to get shot at first or verify the gun has a round in the chamber is unreasonable, and unfair. A citizen does not have to do this, and should not have to do this.

*snip*

My solution - and Jonathan Swift would be proud...
The only way to be sure that a person is armed, and actually intending on harming or killing you is to wait for them to fire the weapon, and at least one round has to hit you. The round can't miss you, because that would be a warning shot, or he is just intending to scare you. He fires the weapon + 1 hit to your person = permission to return fire.

Once again, I do not believe that is reasonable. I don't know why (or if) you think I think that is reasonable.

The only part where I and eye95 agree on this seems to be that, when it comes down to whether or not you pull the trigger, you had better believe your life is on the line. Other than this point, I am in the camp that officers should be held to a higher standard than the armed citizen, defending himself from an aggressor.

Let's try it this way. Lets say I am sitting on my front porch, cleaning my gun (Because in Alabama, you are allowed to own guns), drinking a beer. The police get a MWAG call, and head over to investigate. This being Alabama, I have castle doctrine to back me up. In this case, depending on how the officer handles the situation, we could end up with a dead officer, a dead me, or both. (If he handles it well, we both never even have to clear leather.) When it came down to my day in court, I could try to convince a jury that I reasonably believed my life was in danger. So could the officer. The difference is, the officer would have been the aggressor and should be held to a stricter standard than I would be defending myself on my own property.

That is my only point, and my only reason for continuing in this discussion.

 

[OldCurlyWolf]

True. Even if the officers are not guilty of murder because they had proven a justification under the law, they may still be judged as having gone against procedure. That may not be a criminal matter, but still could bring disciplinary action from within their department.

However, most of the facts in this case are still unknown. The proper outcome of this case could range from the officers did nothing wrong, to they did not follow procedure but committed no crime, to they are guilty of wanton murder.

We must all be willing to maintain an open mind until the facts are in.

When I was a certified, commissioned LEO, our department procedures and guidelines were more restrictive on the use of deadly force than the statutes concerning the same civilians had to abide by, with one exception.

That exception was fleeing felons. We could shoot (use deadly force) in the instance of a fleeing felon where a civilian in the same circumstances would have been prosecuted if they did so and it was brought to the attention of the "wrong" members of LE and DA's office.

Some LEO's and DA's will actually use logic when applying the law. They don't necessarily prosecute every violation.

 

[palerider116]

Once again, I do not believe that is reasonable. I don't know why (or if) you think I think that is reasonable.

The only part where I and eye95 agree on this seems to be that, when it comes down to whether or not you pull the trigger, you had better believe your life is on the line. Other than this point, I am in the camp that officers should be held to a higher standard than the armed citizen, defending himself from an aggressor.

Let's try it this way. Lets say I am sitting on my front porch, cleaning my gun (Because in Alabama, you are allowed to own guns), drinking a beer. The police get a MWAG call, and head over to investigate. This being Alabama, I have castle doctrine to back me up. In this case, depending on how the officer handles the situation, we could end up with a dead officer, a dead me, or both. (If he handles it well, we both never even have to clear leather.) When it came down to my day in court, I could try to convince a jury that I reasonably believed my life was in danger. So could the officer. The difference is, the officer would have been the aggressor and should be held to a stricter standard than I would be defending myself on my own property.

That is my only point, and my only reason for continuing in this discussion.

Good example. You both should live if everyone does everything correctly. Now, upon seeing the officer, you point your gun at him. He sees what looks to be a gun pointed at him. Is reacting to that unreasonable? Secondly, its important that the 911 call taker asks valid questions.

HE HAS A GUN!!!
What is he doing with it?
HE'S CLEANING IT.
Have a good day citizen. Welcome to America.

HE HAS A GUN!!!
What is he doing with it?
HE'S POINTING IT AT PEOPLE AND HOUSES!
Okay, units are on the way.

In example 1, you cleaning a firearm shouldn't have officer's dispatched. There needs to be better call screening. Example 2, it could be a gun, a water nozzle, or a hot glue gun. I sure wouldn't point anything at the police or anybody else because I don't want to come up on the short end of the stick against a gun.

Trust me, this is not a great situation all the way around. I'm sure these guys didn't wake up hoping to off someone. Then compound it with the fact that the guy didn't even have a gun. It looked real enough to constitute a threat in their mind. It's like someone using a finger in a pocket to rob someone. It doesn't have to be real to convey a threat.