Saw a man get tazed and arrested today

Lindberg said:
That's all you saw in the video, huh?
Click to expand...

I did not see the tazed person threaten anyone or put them in imminent and severe danger in Nick's video. Perhaps you injected your own thoughts into it. I just took it at face value.
 
FastEddieB said:
That strikes me as insane.

Though laws differ from state to state, I cannot imagine the victim of an attempted robbery ever being charged with a crime for using a firearm in self defense, including the pointing of that weapon at a perpetrator.

Read this:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

(Bolded mine)

Since "mugging" - actual strong-armed robbery - is a forcible felony, pointing a gun at a perpetrator is fully justified - in Florida, anyway!
Click to expand...

For me an unarmed mugger is not imminent or life-threatening danger. I would also have a very hard time convincing the judge/jury that I was in such a situation. Especially if they pull by background.

Armed, yes. I can draw and point under self defense.
Unarmed - I'm going to jail. Even I would say I was guilty.
 
You can use force, pointing a firearm at a person for example, in defense of yourself or a third person. I think with him rushing the gate, then pushing the cop, and resisting you could articulate that the guy was a threat.

I will also say the Air Marshal service is known for having the most difficult firearms qualifications in the nation so I feel pretty confident that the Marshal was well aware of where his firearm was pointed and the legalities of pointing the firearm.
 
EdFred said:
For me an unarmed mugger is not imminent or life-threatening danger. I would also have a very hard time convincing the judge/jury that I was in such a situation. Especially if they pull by background.

Armed, yes. I can draw and point under self defense.
Unarmed - I'm going to jail. Even I would say I was guilty.
Click to expand...

I would say that a mugging either with a weapon or by threat of harming you while unarmed would be a forcible felony, so the threat of force would be justified.
 
EdFred said:
I did not see the tazed person threaten anyone or put them in imminent and severe danger in Nick's video. Perhaps you injected your own thoughts into it. I just took it at face value.
Click to expand...

Well that's different from what you said before. But we know that the arrestee in the video interfered with security personnel at the airport and evaded screening. Felonies. We also see him attempting to evade and resisting arrest. The use of force was 100% appropriate.
 
EdFred said:
For me an unarmed mugger is not imminent or life-threatening danger. I would also have a very hard time convincing the judge/jury that I was in such a situation. Especially if they pull by background.
Click to expand...
Read it again. Those are "ors" not "ands." You may be Jean Claude Van Dam, but you can still use deadly force if necessary to prevent a robbery.
 
Lindberg said:
Read it again. Those are "ors" not "ands." You may be Jean Claude Van Dam, but you can still use deadly force if necessary to prevent a robbery.
Click to expand...

Not here. I can only use deadly force if my life (or that of another) is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death.

"Give me your wallet" with no weapon is neither of those things.
 
EdFred said:
There's a bit of wiggle room with that here. The gun can come out in some non-life threatening situations, but still not allowed to point it at the person. Like being mugged without the mugger having a weapon.

"Give me your wallet!"
"Sure, let me get it." (remove weapon)

Still can't point it at him and tell him to get lost though.
Click to expand...

"Brandishing"
 
paflyer said:
"Brandishing"
Click to expand...

Not under Michigan statue. This scenario was specifically covered and is not considered brandishing.

Were I to encounter a loudmouth that I just wanted to shut up and displayed the weapon while saying "shut your mouth" - even if still in the holster - that would be brandishing, and probably assault charges of some sort to go along with it.
 
In VT, displaying a weapon in a holster could not be considered "brandishing", as VT is an open carry state. In fact, it's a closed carry state as well, no CCW permit needed.
 
Lindberg said:
Well that's different from what you said before. But we know that the arrestee in the video interfered with security personnel at the airport and evaded screening. Felonies. We also see him attempting to evade and resisting arrest. The use of force was 100% appropriate.
Click to expand...

This is where I think the biggest disconnect between citizens and police lie, personally. I don't think that simply having committed a non-violent felony is justification for use or threat of use of deadly force by either a citizen or a police officer. What you are saying is common, and I hear police and their fans say it all the time: "He committed a crime, so the use of deadly force was justified."

That gap is likely where most of the frustration lies.
 
SkyHog said:
That gap is likely where most of the frustration lies.
Click to expand...

Cops get your goat?

goat_1432320578399_18684681_ver1.0_640_480.jpg
 
jbaker72157 said:
I will also say the Air Marshal service is known for having the most difficult firearms qualifications in the nation so I feel pretty confident that the Marshal was well aware of where his firearm was pointed and the legalities of pointing the firearm.
Click to expand...


It's also impossible to tell where the muzzle is actually pointed in the video from the angle it was taken. It doesn't take much of an angle to go from a low ready to on target when you're pointing in the general vicinity of someone on the ground.

Also fairly difficult to see his trigger discipline in the video. Finger off the trigger, doesn't matter where it's pointed, it's not going to fire.

Ed's point is well taken, though. Officers draw fairly often to apprehend, not defend. Whether they should have special rights over other Citizens to do so in the exact wording of the law, is an interesting circle-jerk mental debate, but no Prosecutor is going to charge them with a crime for it.

Many prosecutors won't charge any other Citizen for drawing either, but some will. The problem is the inconsistency, similar to a great many other government problems.

Usually depends on who paid for their campaign funding these days. Billionaire campaign donators usually get the behavior they desire out of their politicians.
 
EdFred said:
Not here. I can only use deadly force if my life (or that of another) is in imminent danger of severe bodily harm or death.

"Give me your wallet" with no weapon is neither of those things.
Click to expand...


The typical defense for that, even if a Prosecutor is willing to run the political risk of prosecuting someone defending their wallet from a criminal they haven't dealt with and who they probably let back on the streets (can have a field day with that in the Press and they know it), is that you were unsure if they were hiding a weapon.

Legally you're still in for an expensive battle if you're already to that point and the prosecutor has decided to tank their career, and the defense is sketchy, but put it in front of a jury, a good attorney has a better than 50/50 chance of convincing them to acquit, no matter what the legal words say. Especially if the area is high crime and the jury is sick of it before they even get into the box.

And any politicized judge along the way can remove the ability to let a jury decide what the intent of the law was.

Dangerous, but that's the usual defense.

Officers on the other hand, get to claim the "I didn't know if they had a weapon" defense without even the bat of an eyelash, and the assumption is that they're right about it until the weapon is not produced and they shoot from behind.

Very different standards are applied for supposedly equal Citizens under the law in this.
 
azure said:
In VT, displaying a weapon in a holster could not be considered "brandishing", as VT is an open carry state. In fact, it's a closed carry state as well, no CCW permit needed.
Click to expand...

Which is schizo considering the political bent of the state...
 
paflyer said:
Which is schizo considering the political bent of the state...
Click to expand...
Thinking about it from a left/right point of view, it does seem very weird. I think the state is on the correct side of a lot of issues, including this one. For example, being socially very liberal, which might be more a New England thing than strictly VT. But on some other issues, like annual car inspections, taxes galore, overboard with "green" energy but being totally opposed to nuclear... well, it's not for nothing that it has been called The People's Republic of Vermont. ;)
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
This is where I think the biggest disconnect between citizens and police lie, personally. I don't think that simply having committed a non-violent felony is justification for use or threat of use of deadly force by either a citizen or a police officer. What you are saying is common, and I hear police and their fans say it all the time: "He committed a crime, so the use of deadly force was justified."
Click to expand...
The police are different from you and I. They are agents of the sovereign, and they are responsible for enforcing the laws. They don't have additional "rights" in the "human rights" sense, but the law treats them differently. It has always been so, and it will always be so. Otherwise they'd just be mall security guards. You have a problem with the police exercising their authority to enforce the law, and that is OK. But some of the stuff you say borders on the silly. The police do not use deadly force on someone just because he committed a crime. That isn't how it works outside of comic books. But if the police could not even threaten to use force in order to make an arrest for a non-violent crime, how would they ever effect the arrest of say, a burglar, or a car thief, or a midnight bank robber? Criminals do not just get in the car and ride to the station willingly. Your own video demonstrates that. In this case, should the cops have just given up and let the crazy dude wander wherever he wanted to go in the airport?

That gap is likely where most of the frustration lies.
Click to expand...
Most of my frustration lies with people who don't understand the legal issues and twist the facts to suit their preexisting agendas.
 
Lindberg said:
Most of my frustration lies with people who don't understand the legal issues and twist the facts to suit their preexisting agendas.
Click to expand...

you must be frustrated all the time just by reading this web page.
 
warthog1984 said:
For certain groups with training, the standard for use of force is higher. EdFred is saying he is in one of those groups.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're being facetious, but...

I looked back and he's made claims about the legality of pointing a gun at someone, not that in his particular case it would be wrong.
 
FastEddieB said:
Does not have to be in FL.

Did you read the bolded part about "forcible felony"?

That's all it takes.
Click to expand...

Is that a federal law, because that is not allowable here in Michigan for civilians - unless I missed a regulation somewhere. We went over a number of situations in our training on what is legal, what is gray area, and what gets you put in the slammer. What was emphasized was "equal force".

"Give me your wallet" - One can show/draw and not get hit with brandishing. One can't point.

"Give me your wallet" (with a knife or other weapon)One can show/draw/point and is still within the law.

"Give me your wallet" (with a knife and advancing/not backing down) - Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, click, click, click.


However with me, because of my training background my gray area gets a little bit bigger, and my lawyer and I can both see the prosecutor making the case of - "well, with your background you didn't *have* to shoot"
 
EdFred said:
Is that a federal law, because that is not allowable here in Michigan for civilians - unless I missed a regulation somewhere.
Click to expand...

I've said several times that the law will differ from state to state.

I quoted FL law, since that's what I'm most familiar with.

If one is going to carry, one should be familiar with the laws in the state/county/city in which he carries.

But I would place legality one rung below survivability. "Better to be tried by twelve than to be carried by six".
 
EdFred said:
Is that a federal law, because that is not allowable here in Michigan for civilians - unless I missed a regulation somewhere. We went over a number of situations in our training on what is legal, what is gray area, and what gets you put in the slammer. What was emphasized was "equal force".

"Give me your wallet" - One can show/draw and not get hit with brandishing. One can't point.

"Give me your wallet" (with a knife or other weapon)One can show/draw/point and is still within the law.

"Give me your wallet" (with a knife and advancing/not backing down) - Bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, bam, click, click, click.


However with me, because of my training background my gray area gets a little bit bigger, and my lawyer and I can both see the prosecutor making the case of - "well, with your background you didn't *have* to shoot"
Click to expand...
Self-defense in MI appears to mostly be based on the common law. And while I'm not familiar with MI law, I can't really see the common law making such fine distinctions. But if that is what your MI attorney told you, then you should definitely go with it.

ETA, I've heard of particular training or skills being argued to alter the degree of force being used (e.g. a professional boxer punching someone in the head might be considered deadly force, but it wouldn't be if I did it), but I've never heard of that being used to argue against justification for the use of force in the first place. And I'm really having trouble imagining what in your background would change the reasonableness of your fear of great bodily harm.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
The police are different from you and I. They are agents of the sovereign, and they are responsible for enforcing the laws. They don't have additional "rights" in the "human rights" sense, but the law treats them differently. It has always been so, and it will always be so.
Click to expand...

That's not true in a great many jurisdictions. I'd like to see a LAW from your jurisdiction that has a carve out for Law Enforcement as relates to the use of Deadly Force, if it exists.

Otherwise you're maintaining a common fallacy, which is fine. Lots of people *believe* as you do, but when asked to show a law where there's a difference actually written into the law books, they can't.

I suspect you won't look, but if you do, let's see it. Because it's VERY rare.

Lindberg said:
Most of my frustration lies with people who don't understand the legal issues and twist the facts to suit their preexisting agendas.
Click to expand...


Do you understand the legal issues? Let's see a law that relates to use of deadly force in any circumstance, that has special wording for how it should be applied to Law Enforcement vs non-Law Enforcement.

In most jurisdictions, you won't find one. Citizens are equal. Some just have a tough job called Law Enforcement.

In a similar vein, show an actual law that allows LE to speed, run red lights without their lights or sirens going, or any typical traffic violations -- you won't. But they do it every day of the week in most jurisdictions. There's always an EXCUSE and Judges and prosecutors often let them use those excuses, but they're breaking the law, regularly, nevertheless.

I had a cop blow past me on the freeway doing 100 on Friday. No lights, no sirens, endangering everyone. Maybe he was rolling to cover a partner in trouble at a domestic, or maybe he just wanted to blow off some steam at 2AM.

Nobody is going to pull him over or enforce the laws of the city he was doing it in, as they are written. In that city officers may not use lights or sirens if it will endanger someone, as in, needing to come up quietly and not escalate a domestic violence scene, for example. I doubt him running 100 MPH for ten miles on the Interstate was done to remove danger from anything going on.

In that municipality I could easily have turned on a scanner and checked to see what he was being dispatched to.

In others, they've removed the ability for accountability by encrypting all radio traffic, even mundane stuff.

Let's not even go into how dangerous unmarked police vehicles are these days with impersonators. There's a few circumstances where they're actually needed for officer safety and a whole lot more circumstances where they're just used for mundane stuff a marked cruiser would be fine for. And much much safer for the public they serve.
 
denverpilot said:
That's not true in a great many jurisdictions. I'd like to see a LAW from your jurisdiction that has a carve out for Law Enforcement as relates to the use of Deadly Force, if it exists.
Click to expand...

I best know FL law, and your request seemed trivially easy to grant.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

776.05, 776.051, 776.06 and 776.07 all grant special rights or privileges to law enforcement officers.

That's what you were asking for, right?

I assumed this type of special treatment was commonplace. Maybe others can look up their own states and let us know. I'll check GA and report back, since that's where I live now.

Edited to add:

GA also carves out exceptions.

http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf

That's two!
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
I best know FL law, and your request seemed trivially easy to grant.



http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html



776.05, 776.051, 776.06 and 776.07 all grant special rights or privileges to law enforcement officers.



That's what you were asking for, right?



I assumed this type of special treatment was commonplace. Maybe others can look up their own states and let us know. I'll check GA and report back, since that's where I live now.



Edited to add:



GA also carves out exceptions.



http://www.djj.state.ga.us/policies/DJJPolicies/Chapter19/Attachments/DJJ19.3AttachmentA.pdf



That's two!
Click to expand...


For use of deadly force? (Since you didn't say, I'm going to assume not.)
 
denverpilot said:
In a similar vein, show an actual law that allows LE to speed, run red lights without their lights or sirens going, or any typical traffic violations -- you won't. But they do it every day of the week in most jurisdictions. There's always an EXCUSE and Judges and prosecutors often let them use those excuses, but they're breaking the law, regularly, nevertheless.
Click to expand...

From the Texas Transportation Code:

Sec. 546.001. PERMISSIBLE CONDUCT. In operating an authorized emergency vehicle the operator may:
(1) park or stand, irrespective of another provision of this subtitle;
(2) proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, after slowing as necessary for safe operation;
(3) exceed a maximum speed limit, except as provided by an ordinance adopted under Section 545.365, as long as the operator does not endanger life or property; and
(4) disregard a regulation governing the direction of movement or turning in specified directions.

Sec. 546.003. AUDIBLE OR VISUAL SIGNALS REQUIRED. Except as provided by Section 546.004, the operator of an authorized emergency vehicle engaging in conduct permitted by Section 546.001 shall use, at the discretion of the operator in accordance with policies of the department or the local government that employs the operator, audible or visual signals that meet the pertinent requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.


Sec. 546.004. EXCEPTIONS TO SIGNAL REQUIREMENT. (a) A volunteer fire fighter who operates a private vehicle as an authorized emergency vehicle may engage in conduct permitted by Section 546.001 only when the fire fighter is using visual signals meeting the pertinent requirements of Sections 547.305 and 547.702.
(b) An authorized emergency vehicle that is operated as a police vehicle is not required to be equipped with or display a red light visible from the front of the vehicle.
(c) A police officer may operate an authorized emergency vehicle for a law enforcement purpose without using the audible or visual signals required by Section 546.003 if the officer is:
(1) responding to an emergency call or pursuing a suspected violator of the law with probable cause to believe that:
(A) knowledge of the presence of the officer will cause the suspect to:
(i) destroy or lose evidence of a suspected felony;
(ii) end a suspected continuing felony before the officer has obtained sufficient evidence to establish grounds for arrest; or
(iii) evade apprehension or identification of the suspect or the suspect's vehicle; or
(B ) because of traffic conditions on a multilaned roadway, vehicles moving in response to the audible or visual signals may:
(i) increase the potential for a collision; or
(ii) unreasonably extend the duration of the pursuit; or
(2) complying with a written regulation relating to the use of audible or visible signals adopted by the local government that employs the officer or by the department.
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to draft you a memo on the use of force by law enforcement officers, for my usual hourly rate. :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
For use of deadly force? (Since you didn't say, I'm going to assume not.)
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to be argumentative.

Just read the FL statute.

It includes the words "any force", and later discusses deadly force.

To save you from clicking...


776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:
(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;
(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or
(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:
(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or
(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.

Note that these are uses of force, any force, not normally granted to civilians.
 
FastEddieB said:
I'm not trying to be argumentative.



Just read the FL statute.



It includes the words "any force", and later discusses deadly force.



To save you from clicking...





776.05 Law enforcement officers; use of force in making an arrest.—A law enforcement officer, or any person whom the officer has summoned or directed to assist him or her, need not retreat or desist from efforts to make a lawful arrest because of resistance or threatened resistance to the arrest. The officer is justified in the use of any force:

(1) Which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to defend himself or herself or another from bodily harm while making the arrest;

(2) When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have escaped; or

(3) When necessarily committed in arresting felons fleeing from justice. However, this subsection shall not constitute a defense in any civil action for damages brought for the wrongful use of deadly force unless the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent the arrest from being defeated by such flight and, when feasible, some warning had been given, and:

(a) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon poses a threat of death or serious physical harm to the officer or others; or

(b) The officer reasonably believes that the fleeing felon has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm to another person.



Note that these are uses of force, any force, not normally granted to civilians.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that one in 2 is pretty broad. Any escapees can be shot. If read literally.

Nice. Sounds like the South...

The rest is virtually identical to other's rights almost everywhere other than the wording that they may defend others.

And of course the removal of liability. Those chunks of boilerplate come and go depending on how intelligent the particular legislator was.

I use the word "may" on the defense of others thing, since our SCOTUS has clearly stated there's no mandate to defend anyone else. At all. Ever. Full stop. So the fact that some LE do, is fairly amazing.
 
As I said, FL and GA both carve out deadly force exceptions for cops.

This was in response to what I assume was a good faith request on your part for someone to show a law, any law, which did so. So I did. Twice.

I'm 2 for 2 in the states I've checked. Don't have the time nor inclination to check 48 more and D.C.

If anyone cares to, just type in "Law Enforcement Deadly Force <name of your state>" and report back if there's anything in the law addressing what denverpilot asserted/implied could not be demonstrated.

Thanks - should be interesting. Also interesting if denverpilot can ever actually just admit he was wrong and not keep digging.

Oh, and it's society and their elected representatives that are responsible for the laws as written. There's an understanding, at least in some states, that the potential future harm an escaping felon could perpetrate is enough that any force to prevent that escape by a law enforcement officer is permissible. I guess the option is to shrug, allow the escape, and deal with the fellow after the next murder, rape, robbery or whatever. Society's choice.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleeing_felon_rule
 
Last edited:
denverpilot said:
...Let's see a law that relates to use of deadly force in any circumstance, that has special wording for how it should be applied to Law Enforcement vs non-Law Enforcement.
In most jurisdictions, you won't find one.
Click to expand...


Actually, all States have such exceptions. For example, Louisiana Revised Statutes section 14 provides in pertinent part:

§18. Justification; general provisions
The fact that an offender's conduct is justifiable, although otherwise criminal, shall constitute a defense to prosecution for any crime based on that conduct. This defense of justification can be claimed under the following circumstances:
(1) When the offender's conduct is an apparently authorized and reasonable fulfillment of any duties of public office; or
(2) When the offender's conduct is a reasonable accomplishment of an arrest which is lawful under the Code of Criminal Procedure; or
(3) When for any reason the offender's conduct is authorized by law; or
; or
; or
(7) When the offender's conduct is in defense of persons or of property under any of the circumstances described in Articles 19 through 22.

This is by no means to suggest that police have, or should have, carte blanche, but their official duties and arrest powers are explicit defenses -- "justifications" -- to actions that would be unjustified crimes if committed by non-police. Without such exceptions, police could not realistically perform their job. For example, in states without open carry, such as Texas for the moment (unless I've missed the memo), New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and localities such as Denver, police could not carry guns at all.
 
FastEddieB said:
Oh, and it's society and their elected representatives that are responsible for the laws as written. There's an understanding, at least in some states, that the potential future harm an escaping felon could perpetrate is enough that any force to prevent that escape by a law enforcement officer is permissible. I guess the option is to shrug, allow the escape, and deal with the fellow after the next murder, rape, robbery or whatever. Society's choice.
Click to expand...

Most of those laws codify the fleeing felon common law concept. Between the civil liability of Tennessee vs. Garner and the ever present threat of DOJ civil rights litigation, most departments policies on the use of force to apprehend a fleeing individual are much more stringent than what state law allows.
 
FastEddieB said:
As I said, FL and GA both carve out deadly force exceptions for cops.

This was in response to what I assume was a good faith request on your part for someone to show a law, any law, which did so. So I did. Twice.
....

Thanks - should be interesting. Also interesting if denverpilot can ever actually just admit he was wrong and not keep digging.
Click to expand...
Eddie, I admire your patience and balance. I'll bet it makes you a great instructor. I'm generally much less kind to folks who posture and throw stones and make hyperbolic declarations despite being 100% wrong. I think part of that comes from my not making the same assumption that they're acting out of good faith and not just dumbassery. Thank you for setting a good example.
 
Last edited:
FastEddieB said:
If anyone cares to, just type in "Law Enforcement Deadly Force <name of your state>" and report back if there's anything in the law addressing what denverpilot asserted/implied could not be demonstrated.
Click to expand...


I clearly said you found a SINGLE item in your post. You can shoot an escapee. I didn't disagree with you. Or say there wouldn't be ANY differences. Read it again. I said there would be FEW differences and folks should look up their local laws. Just as you have suggested.

The other items listed are all reasons ANY Citizen may use deadly force and virtually all involved self-defense.

You've clearly missed the point, if you think I said none could be found. I asked people to go look for themselves in their local jurisdiction.

What you'll find is 99% of the "exemptions", aren't. They're the same wording as any other Citizen gets. You'll find minor tack-on words like "defending others" which aren't part of the legal mandate of LE as I've also pointed out. LE doesn't have to defend anyone. And tack on stuff for "escapees" in some. (Most are way more detailed about that one that Florida. Florida's appears to not have any limits on the escapee being reasonably assumed to be dangerous. Shooting a white collar crime escapee would be legal under the letter of that law.)

My point was...

A great many think LE has these big carve outs and special privileges in the use of deadly force, and LE simply doesn't. You know this.

There's a reason people believe this, and it's rooted in how prosecutors do their jobs. Not in the law.

Under the letter of the law at it's most basic, LE can shoot the bad guy threatening them and so can anyone else. The problems start, not from the law as written, but when civil servants (in this case Prosecutors) don't do their job and uphold the laws as written and apply them differently. You do that long enough and people start to believe there's actually a difference in the law.

There was virtually no difference between what you posted and the Citizen's standard rights in Florida. And I'm fine with the few things that were different.

My point was that people think there's a significant difference. There's not. Not in deadly force, and not in traffic laws. They think there's a difference because prosecutors have given them enough evidence in how the cases are handled, to believe so.
 
Here let me summarize a different way Eddie, because I think you think I'm anti-cop which wasn't my point.

Most people have no idea who THEY can legally shoot, so they assume when they see an Officer carrying a pistol that the Officer has more right to shoot than they do.

That's generally ignorant and not what the majority of deadly force laws actually say.

Make more sense that way?

The law of who a Citizen can shoot and who an LE can shoot share more in common than most people realize.

I simply challenge them to go look. Most don't.
 
Lindberg said:
Eddie, I admire your patience and balance. I'll bet it makes you a great instructor. I'm generally much less kind to folks who posture and throw stones and make hyperbolic declarations despite being 100% wrong. I think part of that comes from my not making the same assumption that they're acting out of good faith and not just dumbassery. Thank you for setting a good example.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the kudos.

Looks like denverpilot is still just moving goalposts around, which is fine.

I think I've made my case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top