Saw a man get tazed and arrested today

[JB1842]

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.

The LE has to be able to articulate why they used deadly force, not so much requirement for a citizen. The LE also has to follow the guidelines set out in use of force policies and training they receive. Granted, the LE does usually get more legal protection in the event they are involved in a shooting.

 

[Lindberg]

Thank you for the kudos.

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

And he completely ignored the fact that I posted something he said doesn't exist.

I think I've made my case.

Indeed. I didn't even bother to post the law on justification of the use of force for law enforcement in Texas, which has it's own subchapter in the penal code. Not to mention that's only a small part of how the law sees LEO's differently.

 

[pilot_dude]

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.

Please provide stated law to support your belief. What you are reporting to be true is inconsistent with where I live (southeast US). If unholstering and directing the muzzle at the offender terminates the threat there is no crime committed.

 

[pilot_dude]

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.

If you believe your life is in imminent danger or severe bodily harm or death is probably how it reads. That is why it's better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Did you ever find out what the outcome of the encounter was? Was the guy charged with anything?

 

[EdFred]

Please provide stated law to support your belief. What you are reporting to be true is inconsistent with where I live (southeast US). If unholstering and directing the muzzle at the offender terminates the threat there is no crime committed.

Can't find it right now. Perhaps you missed that.

Feel free to look through Michigan's code of laws here

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rx4oykyormv54ikvdyguuthl))/mileg.aspx?page=ChapterIndex

 

[pilot_dude]

Can't find it right now. Perhaps you missed that.

Feel free to look through Michigan's code of laws here

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(rx4oykyormv54ikvdyguuthl))/mileg.aspx?page=ChapterIndex

You are correct, I did miss where you indicated you couldn't locate the statute.

 

[EdFred]

You are correct, I did miss where you indicated you couldn't locate the statute.

I have been looking but I can't remember the exact wording. As I use a keyword search to narrow it down, the results I get are not from the section/act they should be. I remember reading through it right after I got my CPL, but can't find it now - and am obviously misremembering the keywords to help me locate it.

 

[weilke]

Did you ever find out what the outcome of the encounter was? Was the guy charged with anything?

Trespassing and resisting arrest. His name is 21-year-old Christian James Heinz of Danville, someone who knows the databases can probably find what the disposition of the case was.

And of course, stupid NBC focuses on the fact that the cop used a taser on an 'unarmed' man who was 'face down on the ground' completely ignoring the fact that he had pulled away from the cop earlier and was getting up when he got tased again.

That cop showed more patience than warranted. The intruder had already eluded a lawful detention in the hallway, should have tased him right at the bottom of the stairs where he had few people around him.

 

[SkyHog]

Trespassing and resisting arrest. His name is 21-year-old Christian James Heinz of Danville, someone who knows the databases can probably find what the disposition of the case was.

And of course, stupid NBC focuses on the fact that the cop used a taser on an 'unarmed' man who was 'face down on the ground' completely ignoring the fact that he had pulled away from the cop earlier and was getting up when he got tased again.

That cop showed more patience than warranted. The intruder had already eluded a lawful detention in the hallway, should have tased him right at the bottom of the stairs where he had few people around him.

Believe it or not, I completely agree. Lots of patience shown. Man got tased, then got up and was tased again. Better the taser than the gun that was pointed in his face.

 

[FastEddieB]

Somehow, I envision denverpilot in this debate at John Cleese in this immortal bit:

 

[Norman]

Believe it or not, I completely agree. Lots of patience shown. Man got tased, then got up and was tased again. Better the taser than the gun that was pointed in his face.

Looking down that .40 caliber 'subway tube' subdues a lot of bad guys with never a shot fired.

 

[Henning]

Why would you even follow them? Maybe I'm missing something, but I would just keep moving in my direction and continue with my business.

If you get the right exclusive footage, it's worth $$$$$.

 

[denverpilot]

Thank you for the kudos.



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



I think I've made my case.

Since you ignored the point. What specific law says you as LE can kill someone for a different reason than any other Citizen? You have one example that was significantly different than other citizens. And it was a weak enough one (fugitive, since it'd be hard to shoot a white collar fugitive and get away with it even as an LE) that it's in the noise level.

When may I shoot? To protect my life.
When May you shoot? To protect your life.

The only difference is in how Prosecutors charge the same Citizens, LE or non-LE with crimes after the fact, and who's paying the defense attorney.

You haven't proven otherwise on the base idea I presented. No even close.

 

[weilke]

Since you ignored the point. What specific law says you as LE can kill someone for a different reason than any other Citizen?

Depends on the state of course. But in Texas for example, a peace officer is authorized under TPC 9.51 (c) to use deadly force to effect an arrest or search.
Under paragraph (d) of that section a civilian acting in the presence and by request of a peace officer is also authorized to use deadly force to effect an arrest.
Under section (b) of that law, a person other than a peace officer can use force to effect an arrest, but the use of deadly force is specifically limited to LEOs under section (g).



Same concept in NY Penal code S 35.30 (1-3) A police officer is authorized to use deadly force under certain circumstances to effect an arrest (felons etc). Under paragraph (4) a 'private person on his own account' may use 'physical force other than deadly force' to effect an arrest under certain circumstances. So as a civilian, if you encounter someone carrying your TV out of our house and refuses to stop, you can tackle them. A cop in the same situation can threaten to shoot him.



Like it or not, in many states the written law gives police officers/peace officers/sheriffs the authorization to do things that go beyond what a non-LEO is allowed to do. The folks elected to the legislature must have decided at one point or another that it is beneficial for the operation of society if they give those tasked to enforce the law the actual power to enforce the law.

 

[Lindberg]

Since you ignored the point.

Did you ignore the fact that I posted something you said doesn't exist?

But nevermind that now.

You're missing the big picture in this use of force argument: I don't have to look at statutes to tell you that in every state, a law-enforcement officer can legally use force to effect an arrest for a crime committed outside of his presence. Yet you cannot. If an arrestee resists, and deadly force becomes necessary, the officer is justified in using it. You would most likely not be. This is only the most obvious example, and it's true everywhere.

 

[denverpilot]

You two mince words pretty well.

Note that one said "threaten" to shoot them even though the written law says they can shoot them.

And the other says carefully "if they resist". Not authorized as a way to arrest without resistance.

Without an element of self defense, neither would fly in front of a jury of peers, either. But it rarely gets to that point. Prosecutors simply won't play. Change to a non-LE civilian and they'll charge immediately and make the civilian spend a fortune and the threat will be examined six ways from sideways.

It's only recently we've seen high profile cases where the public actually wants an accounting of what the credible threat was. Think there'd be that attitude if that legal loophole wasn't the most abused tool in every arrest?

(And I'm just pointing out why it's happening. I'm of the firm belief that there's often grave danger to officers and generally agree with most use of deadly force. ABQ dumbasses arresting the camper outside of town, aside. Not that one.)

Of course the result has been obvious. Everything is "resisting arrest", no matter what.

Who didn't see that one coming?

And who didn't know that difference was specifically put there to be where things will be abused, legally?

Doesn't matter what anyone says, without a video camera running, everyone any officer ever meets was "resisting" and it's always added as a charge. You can hear it on virtually every arrest video these days, four people sitting on someone yelling "stop resisting!" as loud as they can for the video cameras they know are running, over and over. It's the cop equivalent of "get out of jail free". Everyone is resisting. No matter what. If they're not, pin em real hard and cause pain until they squirm and then start yelling that they are. Over and over. As if any adult with a 250 lb guy with a knee in their back or on their arm or leg isn't going to try to squirm away.

Duh.

It's a great loophole. That's why it's there. And the more thuggy cops use it instead of their brains. Luckily they rarely decide to shoot someone for it.

The guy in Ohio did. In the back. That was a stellar monument to brainpower. Even had time to take a nice shooting stance for long range pistol shots. Quite the winner there. Of course his lawyer claims the guy he was shooting in the back was going to go out every resident in the city at grave risk, even if he had to run all night to get to all their houses. Haha.

"Threaten to shoot" isn't the same as "shoot" and even with that law you'd still have a rough time in front of a jury.

"Resisting", well there's the easy way out for damn near any behavior of someone being captured in any fashion. And it gets abused. And the respect level continues to drop... even in supporters like myself. It's too often not really resistance and becomes a tainted and weak reason to unhoster a firearm and take a life.

You know. You worked with some of the over-users of that sometimes ill-advised excuse. It's cliche'.

 

[weilke]

You two mince words pretty well.

Note that one said "threaten" to shoot them even though the written law says they can shoot them.

The TX law says:

'A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another'

There is no mincing of words. There are further qualifications of when this is justified, pretty much restricting it to dangerous felons. But there is no need for the LEO to feel threatened by the person, if a cop knows that he has a dangerous felon in front of him (e.g. based on the warrant paperwork) and he believes that deadly force is necessary, he can use it. Now there is plenty of case law, liability concerns etc. that put further limits on this, but a LEO can't be prosecuted for using deadly force under the penal code.

 

[Highlander46]

Re: Saw a man get tazed and arrested today

Something which has not been commented upon so far disturbs me. Surely, there are several LEOs on the forumn. The man was tased and down, yet the officer was shown later attempting to handcuff him standing up. If one of my security officers did that, he would have several days off without pay in order to reflect on the error of his ways. You would not believe how ferocious a person becomes when they feel the first handcuff being closed. For this reason all of our staff are trained to handcuff only with the subject face down and with a knee in the small of the back...no over agressive move, just protecting the officer.

 

[Henning]

Since you ignored the point. What specific law says you as LE can kill someone for a different reason than any other Citizen? You have one example that was significantly different than other citizens. And it was a weak enough one (fugitive, since it'd be hard to shoot a white collar fugitive and get away with it even as an LE) that it's in the noise level.

When may I shoot? To protect my life.
When May you shoot? To protect your life.

The only difference is in how Prosecutors charge the same Citizens, LE or non-LE with crimes after the fact, and who's paying the defense attorney.

You haven't proven otherwise on the base idea I presented. No even close.

You can also shoot to protect someone else's life, same as LEO.

 

[denverpilot]

You can also shoot to protect someone else's life, same as LEO.

That's usually not in the legal code unless you're home or they are a relative, depending on the State.

And it's VERY risky if you're going to be prosecuted by a certain type of prosecutor who's election was paid for by certain people.

It's a very personal decision as to whether or not you could live with yourself if you don't, but there are jurisdictions that'll happily send you to prison for doing so.

The safest legal stance is to defend yourself and your family and the law leans toward letting everyone else fend for themselves.

Obviously that's not a very "human" response. But it's the safest under the law. It's unlikely whoever you defend will be paying your legal bills.

And they'll be big enough they'll bankrupt you in most cases. Even if you win. No judge will be forcing the prosecutor and the legal jurisdiction to pay them if they lose.

Just reality. The chips are stacked against you even if you were right.

 

[FastEddieB]

That's usually not in the legal code unless you're home or they are a relative, depending on the State.

Florida, again...

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person. (Relevant portion, bolded mine)

(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.

What is a "forcible felony"?

776.08 Forcible felony.—“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy*; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Usual disclaimer - state laws differ, but FL at least is an exception to your assertion.

Seems to me you've seen certain limitations in certain jurisdictions, and have made the hasty generalization they apply most places, or "usually". May or may not, but you may want to limit your assertions to jurisdictions you're familiar with.


*Glad to see that one!

 

[EdFred]

Also legal in Michigan.

Nate - time to fold 'em. You seem pot committed, but you missed the inside straight on the river.

 

[FastEddieB]

For example, in FL if someone is dousing your home with gasoline and about to light it, you can shoot them to prevent the forcible felony of arson.

Which is not unreasonable, right?

 

[weilke]

Usual disclaimer - state laws differ, but FL at least is an exception to your assertion.

Seems to me you've seen certain limitations in certain jurisdictions, and have made the hasty generalization they apply most places, or "usually". May or may not, but you may want to limit your assertions to jurisdictions you're familiar with.

FL is hardly unique.

In both NY and ND defense of ones own person and defense of a third person are dealt with under the same section of the law..

NDCC 12.1-05-04. Defense of others.A person is justified in using force upon another person in order to defend anyone else if:
1.The person defended would be justified in defending himself;
.
.


NDCC 12.1-05-0707. Limits on the use of force-Excessive force-Deadly force.
2.Deadly force is justified in the following instances:
.
.
b.
When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such force is
necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury,
or the commission of a felony involving violence......

Of course, there are all the usual limitations about reasonableness, not being the aggressor etc.

 

[Circuit Flyer]

FL is hardly unique.

In both NY and ND defense of ones own person and defense of a third person are dealt with under the same section of the law..

NDCC 12.1-05-04. Defense of others.A person is justified in using force upon another person in order to defend anyone else if:
1.The person defended would be justified in defending himself;
.
.


NDCC 12.1-05-0707. Limits on the use of force-Excessive force-Deadly force.
2.Deadly force is justified in the following instances:
.
.
b.
When used in lawful self-defense, or in lawful defense of others, if such force is
necessary to protect the actor or anyone else against death, serious bodily injury,
or the commission of a felony involving violence......

Of course, there are all the usual limitations about reasonableness, not being the aggressor etc.

This appears to be the standard approach. One can use, to defend another, such force as you could justifiably use to defend oneself.
In practice, it's very tricky territory, since a person who happens upon an apparent altercation between strangers may have a tragically inaccurate perception as to which is the aggressor and which the victim. It could be the reverse of what it appears in the moment, it could be mutual combat, it could be a set-up, it could involve an under cover officer, it could be horse play, or a movie shoot, it could be domestic violence with a victim who will throw Galahad under the bus. You could hit a bystander. You could accidentally kill the victim. You could be walking into a gang initiation and be hopelessly outgunned. If you are not killed, you may very well be criminally prosecuted and/or sued civilly.
To combine horse metaphors, intervene chivalrously if you can, but not cavalierly.

This is another case in which the law expressly treats law enforcement differently, by design, for better or for worse. The citizen can intervene as above, and may have a defense of justification (it may or may not work). The law enforcement official has the additional defense that his intervention was pursuant to his official duties. It still might or might not work, but he has one more affirmative defense at his disposal than the lay citizen.

 

[Clark1961]

This appears to be the standard approach. One can use, to defend another, such force as you could justifiably use to defend oneself.
In practice, it's very tricky territory, since a person who happens upon an apparent altercation between strangers may have a tragically inaccurate perception as to which is the aggressor and which the victim. It could be the reverse of what it appears in the moment, it could be mutual combat, it could be a set-up, it could involve an under cover officer, it could be horse play, or a movie shoot, it could be domestic violence with a victim who will throw Galahad under the bus. You could hit a bystander. You could accidentally kill the victim. You could be walking into a gang initiation and be hopelessly outgunned. If you are not killed, you may very well be criminally prosecuted and/or sued civilly.
To combine horse metaphors, intervene chivalrously if you can, but not cavalierly.

This is another case in which the law expressly treats law enforcement differently, by design, for better or for worse. The citizen can intervene as above, and may have a defense of justification (it may or may not work). The law enforcement official has the additional defense that his intervention was pursuant to his official duties. It still might or might not work, but he has one more affirmative defense at his disposal than the lay citizen.

It's been awhile since my CHP training but IIRC ya gotta be careful about defending others in Colorado. They've got to be in your group or family. Definitely not a generic protection of others clause. Some LE and DAs were worried (and publicly stated) that there would be blood running in the streets when the shall issue law was passed. Since then some of those LE and DAs have publicly admitted that they were wrong but I haven't heard about the law being changed to permit general protection of others.

The training also covered the unknowable circumstances you pointed out. The advice was to not get involved unless it's unavoidable since the unknowns include a potentially fatal situation for the permit holder.

 

[weilke]

This appears to be the standard approach. One can use, to defend another, such force as you could justifiably use to defend oneself.

The way I have seen it worded is that it is lawful to use deadly force if the person being assisted would be justified in using deadly force.

In practice, it's very tricky territory, since a person who happens upon an apparent altercation between strangers may have a tragically inaccurate perception as to which is the aggressor and which the victim.

It is tricky if you substitute 'stranger' for 'another person'. I am sitting at my kids swim practice. If I saw anyone dragging my daughter away I would be justified to use any and all force necessary to stop him, no need to be a LEO, no need to move to any particular state.

 

[FastEddieB]

In practice, it's very tricky territory, since a person who happens upon an apparent altercation between strangers may have a tragically inaccurate perception as to which is the aggressor and which the victim.

Pretty sure I've mentioned this before.

Dispatched to a fight in progress with a knife involved, I arrived to find a woman on her back, man on top with a knife, struggling. I ordered the man off at gunpoint and he said "But...". I repeated my command and he pushed off hard and got some distance and said, "Man, that b***h is crazy!" Turns out the woman had the knife and the fellow was restraining her.

Shoot too soon and you shoot the wrong person. Wait too long and a stabbing could occur while you hesitate. All you can do is go with the best info you have and hope for the best.

 

[jesse]

It's been awhile since my CHP training but IIRC ya gotta be careful about defending others in Colorado. They've got to be in your group or family. Definitely not a generic protection of others clause. Some LE and DAs were worried (and publicly stated) that there would be blood running in the streets when the shall issue law was passed. Since then some of those LE and DAs have publicly admitted that they were wrong but I haven't heard about the law being changed to permit general protection of others.

The training also covered the unknowable circumstances you pointed out. The advice was to not get involved unless it's unavoidable since the unknowns include a potentially fatal situation for the permit holder.

Nebraska got this part somewhat right at least. If the person you're defending would be justified to use lethal force than you are justified as well for the most part.

For example, if you were in a gas station, and a guy was swinging a gun around threatening cashiers, use of deadly force even with his back turned towards you would be justified (not always smart, but justified).

You also do not have to retreat if retreating means you can't ensure the safety of whomever you're trying to legally protect.

Lethal force is also justified in our state if it's needed to stop kidnapping or forced sexual intercourse whether it's against you or someone else you're defending.

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409
and
http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1410

 

[Circuit Flyer]

The way I have seen it worded is that it is lawful to use deadly force if the person being assisted would be justified in using deadly force.







It is tricky if you substitute 'stranger' for 'another person'. I am sitting at my kids swim practice. If I saw anyone dragging my daughter away I would be justified to use any and all force necessary to stop him, no need to be a LEO, no need to move to any particular state.

I agree completely. I would never hesitate to act if the "other person" is my family member.

 

[Circuit Flyer]

Pretty sure I've mentioned this before.



Dispatched to a fight in progress with a knife involved, I arrived to find a woman on her back, man on top with a knife, struggling. I ordered the man off at gunpoint and he said "But...". I repeated my command and he pushed off hard and got some distance and said, "Man, that b***h is crazy!" Turns out the woman had the knife and the fellow was restraining her.



Shoot too soon and you shoot the wrong person. Wait too long and a stabbing could occur while you hesitate. All you can do is go with the best info you have and hope for the best.

Right. Hard to know what to do even if you've had excellent training. Good example.

 

[denverpilot]

It's been awhile since my CHP training but IIRC ya gotta be careful about defending others in Colorado. They've got to be in your group or family. Definitely not a generic protection of others clause. Some LE and DAs were worried (and publicly stated) that there would be blood running in the streets when the shall issue law was passed. Since then some of those LE and DAs have publicly admitted that they were wrong but I haven't heard about the law being changed to permit general protection of others.



The training also covered the unknowable circumstances you pointed out. The advice was to not get involved unless it's unavoidable since the unknowns include a potentially fatal situation for the permit holder.

Correct Clark, and what I based my assertion upon that one may not want to get involved at all. It's interesting to see FL and MI allow defense of others not in one's party.

Current law in CO doesn't allow it. FL in particular has been interesting in he thread in that they carve out a much bigger difference for LE and also for the individual.

You defend someone else in CO, you're literally (as in, the letter of the law) a the mercy of the Prosecutor. And we have a few who would happily hang you for doing so because of their political ideology.

 

[denverpilot]

Nebraska got this part somewhat right at least. If the person you're defending would be justified to use lethal force than you are justified as well for the most part.



For example, if you were in a gas station, and a guy was swinging a gun around threatening cashiers, use of deadly force even with his back turned towards you would be justified (not always smart, but justified).



You also do not have to retreat if retreating means you can't ensure the safety of whomever you're trying to legally protect.



Lethal force is also justified in our state if it's needed to stop kidnapping or forced sexual intercourse whether it's against you or someone else you're defending.



http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1409

and

http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/statutes.php?statute=28-1410

Colorado instructors use this same scenario. In Colorado, your only options are to retreat or get the bad guy to turn and threaten you, legally anyway.

There are prosecutors who aren't stupid and who'd know that prosecuting you for defending the clerk would play out badly for them in the press, but here's also enough who are paid by the anti-gun lobby that you'd better know where you are before you help a fellow Citizen survive.

It still may play out badly in the press for an ideological Prosecutor but they'll have a new job as a consultant to someone in their political party next week, paid for by political donors, and you'll be facing bankruptcy and prison.

You have to decide what your morals are beforehand.

Even then, my point is still valid. If you're LE, you're placed on "administrative leave", handed a lawyer and a continued paycheck, and likely not prosecuted for a "clean" shoot. In CO you're running a significant risk if you shoot as a private individual in defense of another, you might be arrested and out in a few days, you might never get out of the "justice" system.

It's a very personal call here. Back away as per the law and hope the cops show up fast enough. You have to ask yourself if you could live with yourself watching the clerk die. The law says the clerk could have chosen to defend themselves, assuming their employer allowed them to. But you don't get to.