Time for another little "self defense" hypothetical. A police officer stops a group of three suspects, and attempts to arrest them. The suspects refuse to be arrested. The officer pulls out his gun and one of the suspects begins walking away. The officer orders them to stop, but they ignore the order. The officer shoots the suspect in the leg. One of the other suspects in the group pulls out a gun and, as the officer immediately turns his gun towards this armed suspect, the suspect shoots him in the head, before there is a chance for a word to be spoken. The suspects are later caught. However, it turns out they have committed no crime other than the actions described above. The question is, should the one who killed the police officer be charged with murder? Keep in mind that if this had happened the other way around, the police officer would have had the right to kill if he felt his life was being threatened. The subject of this little hypothetical revolves around the murky question of whether law enforcement officers have more right to use defensive deadly force than ordinary people.
Don't need to take the poll, there is not enough information here to determine why the officer attempted to arrest them. Don't need to take the poll, not enough information to determine why the officer pulled his or her gun, refusing to be arrested doesn't put the officer in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. don't need to take the poll, you don't clarify why the officer shot the suspect in the leg, was it in self defense or a shoot to wound. Large difference between the two and not an option for the poll. Don't need to take the poll, not enough information was given to make an intelligent answer. Don't need to take the poll because you need to include or describe in more detail more of the events in your hypothetical. Given what you have provided a prosecuting attorney would send the report back to the LEOs and the leadership chain and ask them to give more detail. IMHO Don't need to take the poll because in your theoretical situation your information lacks too much information to make a determination either way!
They should have given themselves up to the cop, and then sued him for false arrest. That said, I would charge him with murder. Can't have people resisting arrest and then shooting cops.
So would it be fair to say you do not believe individual citizens have the right to use force to protect themselves when their attacker is wearing a police uniform? What if the suspects were law enforcement officers too? That is, one law enforcement officer confronting another group who appear to be law enforcement officers, but whom the officer has reason to believe may be committing a crime. How would your logic apply then? Maybe the cop should have given himself up to the suspects, and allowed himself to be vulnerable. If the cop got kidnapped or killed, the suspects could be prosecuted for it later. That's obviously ridiculous, but I use this to try to illustrate how your perspective may be rather senseless too. Wouldn't the suspects have the same motivating reasons for acting as the cop? Neither side can really be certain of the intent of the other. Just something to think about.
It would depend on more specific details but it's certainly possible. If they have a legitimate belief their life was in danger and shooting is necessary to prevent it. I'd expect (legally) armed civilians have similar rights though. It's worth noting that in your example (based on the limited information), the two suspects who remained probably didn't have reason to fear for their lives prior to drawing their own gun. It's only murky because of people like you trying to play an "us versus them" game against the police (and authority in general). Police have a specific job to do and that job requires certain rights (and responsibilities) that will inevitably be different to people who aren't doing that job. Rather than trying to compete with them for rights, why not simply take a practical and rational view of how us - police and law-abiding citizens - best deal with them - criminals? Unless you're not one of us of course.
Well, the problem is the answers to ridiculous scenarios tend to be strange. Why are you so obsessed with the self-defense rights of law-breakers?
And yet, law enforcement officers are presumed to have a legitimate belief that their life is in danger, and are justified in shooting, whenever anyone else they encounter has a gun drawn. Why would we expect the police officer to fear, but not the other two suspects in this situation? So you do believe that law enforcement officers should have more rights than ordinary citizens. What if it is an off-duty police officer? Or a retired former police officer. Do they not have the same preemptive self defense rights anymore? What about undercover law enforcement not wearing uniform? For one thing, when self-defense is made against the law, the term "lawbreaker" begins to lose relevance to self-defense rights in that situation. By the way, there really are no fundamental rights without the right to act in defense of those rights. Some people may not really understand this. That of course does not mean there should not be extreme reluctance to exercise these rights. These are serious issues being discussed here, these things could get people imprisoned the rest of their life or lead to people being killed. You do not see why it is important to discuss this topic? This really comes down to the fundamentals of natural human rights, and whether the law should respect them.
Not by me. There are some kooks who presume the police are always in the wrong and some kooks who presume the police always in the right. Normal people assess individual incidents on their individual merits. In the hypothetical situation you invented, the police officer was in the wrong in shooting in the first place. Again, you're trying to make this competitive between the police and civilians when it should be nothing of the sort. To a certain extent yes, more rights and more responsibilities - they're inexorably linked. So do doctors, fire-fighters, security guards, taxi-drivers and a whole load of other people in other jobs to some extent or other. I never said police officers have different rights in relation to "pre-emptive self defence" (you know that because you specifically cut that statement from my quote). There are some practical differences because police officers are required to put themselves in potentially dangerous situations but the same fundamental principles should (and largely do) apply.
Sorry, your scenario is pure crap, let me put in one other thing which takes it in a totally different direction. The subject started to walk away, towards a baseball bat laying on the ground. Does the officer at this time now have justification to shoot him? Yes, because he is ignoring commands and indeed walking towards what is considered to be a weapon. Unless the one who pulls out the gun has a legal CCW (which I bet they would not), then they are going to face a long string of criminal charges, including murder. Come back when you want to talk seriously about such a topic, not set up such a scenario where we can only somehow agree with you.
Citizens resisting arrest does nothing to stop crooked cops. Citizens being arrested and suing crooked cops does stop them. There is a difference between a cop and citizen, in terms of lethal force. That said, I do think that cops that commit crimes should be punished more harshly than other people.
The imbalance between the rights of police to self defense and the rights of citizens to self defense is extreme. Currently, police can pull a gun on anyone the officer perceives might be dangerous, whether suspected of or wanted for any crime, and if the person makes any movement the officer perceives might endanger the officers they may empty their guns into that person - calling it "self defense." A private citizen can do none of that. As for the OP, I would not indict or vote guilty. It is criminal assault with a deadly weapon for the officer to have shot the one in the leg. Since the officer was engaged in aggravated assault with a deadly weapon those men had a right to defend themselves being fired upon criminally. I understand most people believe you just have to let yourself be murdered by police, for which then you relatives can try to sue over it. This is contrary to perspectives about government most Americans had towards government in the past. There is plenty of info to answer the theoretical of the OP. Those who won't answer it won't because it is UNBEARABLE for them to ever criticize the police.
Uhhh, sorry, it is not. You really hate cops, don't you? This is obvious, as well as your complete ignorance of the law and what authorized force is. Tell you what, kindly tell me what part of the Penal Code authorizes a cop to pull a gun on somebody wanted for 'any crime". Or that even making a movement authorizes deadly force.
You don't know me. Claiming I hate cops is wrong. You might even notice I rarely use "cops," but instead "police," "officers," or "law enforcement." It is the reality of what has often happened. Many videos of this happening has been posted on the forum.
An example of the belief that everyone has a duty to allow themselves to be murdered by police. The officer opening fire on someone merely for walking away is attempted murder. It is absolutely 100% fact the officer shooting was criminal and reasonable attempted murder, even if the shot hits the person in the leg. It is so absolutely known that the officer could not shoot that person, it is absolutely known to all those there the officer is in the act of criminally shooting someone in violation of law. If someone is attempting to murder and shooting someone, you have a right to defend that person and to defend yourself. This does not change if the shooter/wannabe murderer is a police officer.
Messages on this thread again show why there is growing police abuse. People who on juries absolutely will not hold police accountable for criminal acts they commit and are total police-worshipping groupies. Exactly every officer knows you can't just shoot someone in the back for walking or running away. That is exactly the OP situation. At that moment, the officer was no different in law than anyone else shooting someone of a group in the back. That the officer hit the person's leg? Changes nothing. At that point, the officer was an armed assailant who had open fired on people with no legal justification. None in that group had to just allow that shooter to gun them down. It is absolutely established law that police can not shoot people because they are fleeing unless they poise imminent dangers to others, which is not in the OP example. Yes, you personally can allow people to just murder you and people around you if that's what you want to do. You have no legal duty to protect yourself or anyone else. You could just eat a sandwich watching someone gunning people down. Total apathy is legal. Cowardice is legal. But contrary to law you don't have to allow yourself and others to be murdered. This does not change if the wannabe murderer is a police officer.
Evaluate this similar situation: Leaving a high school football game in a crowd of people and cars, one car slams into the back of another causing significant body damage to the car in front. The driver of that car gets out and is alone. 3 men get out of the car that hit his, all 3 holding open beers. The lone man says he's phoning in the accident to the police and for the driver to wait for the police. But 1 of the 3 says to the other 2, "let's just leave" and they all turn around walking back to their vehicle. The lone man pulls a 9mm shooting in the back the 1 of the 3 who was the driver who hit his car, but it turned out not to be a lethal wound, and he then turning his 9mm to the next. But that next one is a skilled CCWer who fast draws a baby 45acp shooting that lone man in the head, killing him. Apparently most on this thread claim that CCWer should be convicted of murder.
From Texas Penal Code, section 9.1 (c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified: (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
Good luck in the courts with that as a defense, I cannot think of anyone that has ever used it and won here in Texas.
Man Shoots Police Chief; No Charges http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2015/01/ok-man-shoots-police-chief-no-charges.html Also http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/07...ke-sues-he-thought-they-were-intruders-135205 WASHINGTON COUNTY A Burleson County Grand Jury declined to indict the man who shot and killed a Burleson County Sheriff's Deputy who was serving a search warrant in December. http://www.kbtx.com/home/headlines/...led-by-Grand-Jury-243993261.html?device=phone
breaking into a man's home without a warrant is a crime, cops are not above the law, that was not a valid example a cop shot in those circumstance would not be protected by the law from being shot .
