This is a discussion on Hero shot by cops after disarming hostage taker within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by WildRose In both cases the dispatchers had information from callers that the guns were not real but the dispatchers failed to relay ...
When seconds count, help is only 18+ minutes away!
But the forensics proved the eye witnesses statements to be factually incorrect, didn't they?
The standard for use of deadly force that you describe as applying to LEO's is no different than the standard that applies to anyone else in the state is it? Nowhere does it specifically say that it must be the LEO's life that is threatened does it? A LEO can use deadly force in defense of others as defined by 9.33 just like anyone else can't they?
Without knowing the exact layout of the room and the distances and angles involved we have nowhere near the information to determine if the shoot was justified or not under law. Distances and perspectives are very important aren't they? If you have a person laying on the floor three feet in front of a person pointing a gun straight down between their own feet, and it is viewed by two other people, one fifty feet away in a straight line with the first two subjects and a second ten feet away at a ninety degree angle, are they going to see the same thing?
I am not saying the officer was correct in their actions. What I am saying is that the legal standard under chapter nine hinges on the actors "reasonable belief". Not every bad thing that happens to someone is necessarily a crime. It is quite possible that the "bad shoot" was legal. It could be that it just sucks to be them that night.
Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis
Good thread. I have a couple comments with regard to the intent of the post - being a good guy with a gun when the cops arrive.
1. You don't have to be armed to be considered a threat. We saw this recently with the incident in my city (Wichita) that made the news. A man was the victim of a swatting attempt and was killed by one of the responding officers. While the police thought they were responding to a legitimate man with a gun scenario, the occupant had no clue why the officers were there. We (those of us in this forum) through our conversations here and other shared experience would likely have fared better. I struggle with the reality that while cops train for these types of situations so they don't make mistakes, the people they are dealing with have no training for such a high-stress, life and death scenario and a mistake leads to them being killed.
2. I wonder what would be the outcome if a police officer was to fire at a GG with a gun and that person, fearing for their life, returned fire. Well, I really don't wonder, I have a pretty good idea of what would happen.
What this all underscores is that using deadly force is an extreme response. Because of the risks in the initial threat and potential subsequent risks, it should only be utilized when we are in fear for our lives. Can we potentially be shot/killed by responding officers. Possibly, but if we have an immediate threat we need to take action until that threat is over. Then, yes, we need to consider what will immediately follow.
He responded to an automobile roaring up to his position and the driver slamming on his brakes.
If any commands were given (I'm sure there were) the officer opened fire in what looked to be, maybe, less than 1/2 second.
There was no time provided for Tamir to even respond.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Without having to go back and read the entire thread.............did the good samaritan survive?
He did live. Thank goodness it was not a fatal wound.
Maybe it is just semantics. We use the term “good shoot” to denote you acted in accordance with the law. “Bad shoot” would mean you acted in a manner that broke the law. Nothing moral is implied in those terms. Maybe it means something different to others?
To any reasonable person in the same circumstance it appears he is drawing the weapon to shoot them.
There was no time for the officer who shot to do anything other than draw and fire. He didn't put himself in that position the driver did.
If anyone was guilty of a crime here it was the driver who put him in that position.
A grand jury looks at the case the prosecutor presents and decides whether or not to indict. The first requirement of handing down an indictment is that the prosecution must prove first that a crime has been committed and that the person he wants charged most likely committed it.
No crime, no indictment.
If a shooting is ruled justified it's very difficult to claim it was a crime.
On rare occasions even with such a ruling by the investigating agency you can conceivably be charged and then it falls to the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the crime being charged.
The driver placed the car far too closely in my estimation - admittedly it's easy to QB these types of incidents AFTER THE FACT.
Thanks for the video link!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk