• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

OT: Off duty cop shoots car thief

WalkingWolf

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
I want that officer to articulate in detail what the movement was, down to every last finger. This should be expected anytime a life is taken.
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
WalkingWolf said:
I want that officer to articulate in detail what the movement was, down to every last finger. This should be expected anytime a life is taken.
Click to expand...

I want the winning numbers for tomorrow night's Lotto before 10 PM tonight.

It'll be a race to see who gets what they want first.

stay safe.
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
The TV Nooz has identified the shooting victim and that there was no handgun or other weapon found in the vehicle. They also mentioned that the pistol used by the off-duty Richmond cop was not his duty weapon "and may have been his personal handgun". (As opposed to, for instance, a gun borrowed from the gun store across the street?[/sarcasm])

The TV Nooz legal expert says cops do not enjoy any lesser threshold than the proles on using deadly force, and then speculates whether or not the car might have been used as a weapon. (Everything I have read so far puts the cop at the driver's side door throughout the incident. Hmmm.)

stay safe.

Moar nooz - Chesterfield Commonwealth Attorney is investigating but may turn the case over to some other CA or the State Police due to potential conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
skidmark said:
As an aside, "off duty" cops are still "on duty" when they choose to enforce the law, which gives them the privilege/dispensation to display their firearm under circumstances denied to the proles. Reports say that the cop identified himself as such.
Click to expand...

So what are the rules for a police officer pointing a gun at a suspect who is engaged in a non-violent theft and who passively refuses to obey orders?


WalkingWolf said:
The deceased made a sudden movement which would make it justified.
Click to expand...

A sudden movement that was reasonably interpreted as creating a threat to innocent life and limb would justify the use of deadly force. What has me more troubled is whether the off-duty officer was legally justified in pointing the gun at the suspect (assuming media reports are accurate in this regard) before the suspect made any sudden or furtive movements. IOW, is the off duty officer (who elects to go "on duty" to enforce the law when doing so protects his own property) legally allowed to point his gun at someone--to threaten deadly force--as a compliance method for a non-violent property crime?

WalkingWolf said:
I want that officer to articulate in detail what the movement was, down to every last finger. This should be expected anytime a life is taken.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree that if someone uses deadly force based on a sudden or furtive movement, he darn well ought to articulate what the movement was and why it caused him a reasonable man belief that said movement represented a credible risk to innocent life or limb. There are certainly cases where such movements will create a reasonable man fear for life and limb. But not always. And judgment needs to be made on the specifics of the situation and the alleged movement that caused the fear. Part of that needs to consider whether a gun was justifiably being pointed at the bad guy at the moment the movement was made or whether the gun was being pointed at him without justification. "Furtive movement" needs not to be an excuse or justification for an itchy trigger finger that legally should not have been on the trigger yet in the first place.

My concern here is really whether an off-duty officer is enjoying benefits roundly denied to the general population regarding the protection of private property. (He is already enjoying certain benefits like not having his name released, not being booked into jail and having to bail out after admitting to shooting and killing someone, etc.)

On the one hand it is hard to muster too much sympathy for car thieves. OTOH, I suspect most decent men are generally agreed that simple car theft isn't and shouldn't be a capital offense; and it is tough to justify deadly force or threat of deadly force for a non-violent property crime. Non-deadly force should be justified to attempt to stop such a crime, and if the criminal escalates to where credible and reasonable man fear for life or limb comes into play, that is one thing. But for a property owner to escalate from non-violent property theft to deadly force--say by pointing a gun--is tough to support.

Charles
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
utbagpiper said:
So what are the rules for a police officer pointing a gun at a suspect who is engaged in a non-violent theft and who passively refuses to obey orders?


Charles
Click to expand...

Cops can display a firearm and threaten the use of deadly force to obtain compliance with orders/instructions.

Cops can even merely brandish a firearm in the performance of their duties.

Cops may or may not be constrained from actually using deadly force unless there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Pick your legal "expert" to get an "opinion".

Apparently based on training and experience cops may - or may not - determine that certain furtive movements may - or may not - present an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Cops have qualified immunity, and there seem to be a large number of reasonable cops with similar training and experience who, so situated, would have perceived the same imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

As a prole you are held to a much higher and more stringent standard.

stay safe.
 
OC for ME

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Brown was in the process of committing a felony. Not that that warrants getting shot. But, the story is not about the car but about brown and this alleged furtive movement.

Furtive movement = stay outta jail.

There is no crying in LE!
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
OC for ME said:
Brown was in the process of committing a felony. Not that that warrants getting shot. But, the story is not about the car but about brown and this alleged furtive movement.
Click to expand...

So I guess my question remains. Under Virginia law, would a non-cop LAC have remained an LAC for confronting Brown in a similar manner, gun drawn such that it was possible to shoot him over the claimed furtive movement?

Charles
 
scouser

scouser

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2011
Messages
1,341
Location
804, VA
utbagpiper said:
So I guess my question remains. Under Virginia law, would a non-cop LAC have remained an LAC for confronting Brown in a similar manner, gun drawn such that it was possible to shoot him over the claimed furtive movement?

Charles
Click to expand...

what do you think ???
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
scouser said:
what do you think ???
Click to expand...

I could wager a guess and probably be right. But I thought I'd ask the locals before surmising that an LAC would likely be out of compliance with law had he acted as the off-duty officer elected to in this case....and that even if the trigger never got squeezed.

Please surprise me and tell me I'm wrong about Virginia State law.

Charles
 
Grapeshot

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
utbagpiper said:
I could wager a guess and probably be right. But I thought I'd ask the locals before surmising that an LAC would likely be out of compliance with law had he acted as the off-duty officer elected to in this case....and that even if the trigger never got squeezed.

Please surprise me and tell me I'm wrong about Virginia State law.

Charles
Click to expand...
You ask many interrelated questions - not the least of which is the physical confrontation that developed.. The brandishing law is certainly vexing as it potentially limits being prepared.

BTW - the perp would seem to have been engaged in a felony.

§18.2-102: unauthorized use of a vehicle
http://www.norfolkcriminaldefenseattorneys.com/criminal-defense/theft-crimes/car-theft/
 
U

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Grapeshot said:
You ask many interrelated questions - not the least of which is the physical confrontation that developed.. The brandishing law is certainly vexing as it potentially limits being prepared.
Click to expand...

A couple of years back the Utah version of "brandishing" (we call it "Threatening with or using dangerous weapon in fight or quarrel") was modified to make it permissible to refer to your gun or display a firearm in self defense. IOW, we can legally "brandish" a firearm to end a threat without having the fact that we didn't fire the gun being used as evidence that the gun wasn't needed.

But deadly force can only be used or threatened in defense of life or limb, so even this recent amendment wouldn't protect an LAC in Utah who was stealing a car. Theft of car is not considered to endanger life or limb here unless the car is occupied at the time the theft is attempted (carjacking) or if the car is overtly used as a weapon (or a cop claims it was going to be used as a weapon at some point in the distant future).

Grapeshot said:
BTW - the perp would seem to have been engaged in a felony.
Click to expand...

I think Martha Stewart did as well. Does Virginia law allow pointing a gun at anyone engaged in a felony? Or is it limited to felonies that endanger life and limb (and to cops protecting their personal property in ways not permissible for the rest of us)?

Maybe there are actually advantages to carrying around a cop rather than (or in addition to) a personal gun if the cop can do such a better job protecting my property than I am allowed to do.

I just haven't seen any data yet to suggest the car thief was presenting a real threat to either the cop's life or limb or those of anyone else. There is certainly a part of me that won't mourn if car thieves get shot. A lot fewer car thefts I suspect if that were to become widespread. And I certainly recognize that a cop has to have more leeway to use force to effect an arrest than a private citizen needs who isn't making arrests. But deadly force for not immediately complying with orders to stop stealing personal property out in public seems a bit more than we commoners could expect to get away with.

Charles
 
skidmark

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
Grapeshot said:
In Va one is not "pemitted" to use deadly force.

No single rule/law will apply here.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is one single rule that will apply. Did the person doing the shooting have a reasonable apprehension of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury AND does the event meet all of the case laws standards?

http://www.virginia1774.org/Page6.html

http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opnscvwp/1010071.pdf
The "bare fear" of serious bodily injury, or even death, however well- grounded, will not justify the taking of human life. "There must [also] be some overt act indicative of imminent danger at the time."
Click to expand...
(internal citations omitted)

What Is Great or Serious Bodily Injury?

Commonwealth v. Bernard Payne, Va. App. (1996 Unpublished)
" Bernard Payne was charged with violating the felony provision of Code § 46.2-817. The trial court held that the term "serious bodily injury" was unconstitutionally vague and dismissed the felony charge. The Commonwealth appeals...
Furthermore, in determining the meaning of a statute, "[t]he validity of using other Code sections as interpretive guides is well established. The Code of Virginia constitutes a single body of law, and other sections can be looked to where the same phraseology is employed." King v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. App. 708, 710, 347 S.E.2d 530, 531 (1986). Code § 18.2-369, which concerns abuse or neglect of incapacitated adults, reads: "For purposes of this subsection, 'serious bodily injury or disease' shall include but not be limited to (i) disfigurement, (ii) a fracture, (iii) a severe burn or laceration, (iv) mutilation, (v) maiming, or (vi) life threatening internal injuries or conditions, whether or not caused by trauma." The term "serious bodily injury" can also be found in other statutes. See Code § 10.1-1455 (handling of hazardous wastes), 16.1-228 (family abuse definition), 16.1-269.1 (transfer of juveniles to circuit court), 17-237 (sentencing guidelines), 18.2-67.3 (aggravated sexual battery), 29.1-740 (duty to stop and render assistance); 54.1-2400.1 (duty of mental health service providers to prevent violence), and 54.1-3434.3 (denial, revocation, and suspension of pharmacy registration).

With such widespread use of the term, it is plain that the term does have a common and well-recognized meaning. As such, ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and the inclusion of the term in the statute does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, the term is not unconstitutionally vague."
Click to expand...

Brandishing a Deadly Weapon In Defense of Personal Property is A Criminal Act

Commonwealth v. Alexander, 260 Va. 238, 531 S.E.2d 567 (2000). (sorry, the link I have is broken)

"In this appeal, we decide whether a deadly weapon may be brandished in defense of personal property.
....
The law is clearly stated by a learned judge in State v. Morgan, 3 Ired. 186, 38 Am. Dec. 714, as follows: "When it is said that a man may rightfully use as much force as is necessary for the protection of his person and property, it should be recollected that this rule is subject to this most important modification, that he shall not, except in extreme cases, endanger human life or do great bodily harm. It is not every right of person, and still less of property, that can lawfully be asserted, or every wrong that may rightfully be redressed by extreme remedies.
....
You can only kill to save life or limb, or prevent a great crime, or to accomplish a necessary public duty.
....
The threat to use deadly force by brandishing a deadly weapon has long been considered an assault."
Click to expand...

Paraphrasing a learned person - if you are going to shoot, shoot.

"This Court has held, in connection with robbery, that "'the word "fear" . . . does not so much mean "fright" as it means "apprehension"; one too brave to be frightened may yet be apprehensive of bodily harm.'" Seaton, 42 Va. App. at 749, 595 S.E.2d at 14 (quoting 3 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 20.3(d), at 187-88 (2d ed. 2003)) (emphasis in original).

In other words, "'[w]hen the pertinent test is cast in terms of a victim being put in "fear" of injury, it is not necessary that the victim be frightened; it is necessary merely that he be reasonably apprehensive of injury.'" Id. (quoting Charles E. Torcia, 4 Wharton's Criminal Law § 462, at 21 (15th ed. 1996)) (emphasis in original). The dispositive issue in this case, therefore, is whether there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Moon was reasonably apprehensive of bodily harm induced by Huffman brandishing the gun in her presence.
Click to expand...

Now - in thirty seconds or less, using thirty words or less, tell us what that means.

stay safe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top