Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Off-duty San Diego police officer shoots suspect

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Off-duty San Diego police officer shoots suspect

    If a private citizen whether carrying openly or concealed was faced with the same situation and took the same action, the private citizen would more than likely be arrested!


    Off-duty San Diego police officer shoots suspect trying to steal his motorcycle

    December 23, 2010 | 7:42 am
    An off-duty San Diego police officer shot one of two men Wednesday night who were trying to steal the officer's motorcycle from his apartment in the Nestor neighborhood, police said Thursday.

    The published San Diego Sheriff's Documents for CCW Training clearly state:

    4. Laws/Rules of Carry/Use

    a. Penal Code Sections
    i. § 12035
    ii. § 12036

    b. Rules for Concealed Carry
    i. Gun for protection of life only
    ii. Escape if possible
    iii. Concealed means concealed
    iv. Don't get emotional
    Last edited by Edward Peruta; 12-23-2010 at 11:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...bery-suspect/#
    Link to story.

    Thanks for the heads up Ed.

    Rules don't apply to cops..just ask them.

  3. #3
    Regular Member demnogis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Orange County, California, USA
    Posts
    912
    Just remember, that cops are never "off the clock". The privileges of their duty are in effect at all times...
    Gun control isn't about guns -- it is about control.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California, USA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...bery-suspect/#
    Link to story.

    Thanks for the heads up Ed.

    Rules don't apply to cops..just ask them.
    The story lays out that it wasn't until after the 2nd physical confrontation that he thought he was in imminant danger when the guy reached for his wasteband. He had already Identified himself as an officer. That guy should not be alive to suck up our healthcare

  5. #5
    Regular Member Born2Lose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    PRK, East County San Diego
    Posts
    262
    Quote Originally Posted by ConsideringOC View Post
    The story lays out that it wasn't until after the 2nd physical confrontation that he thought he was in imminant danger when the guy reached for his wasteband. He had already Identified himself as an officer. That guy should not be alive to suck up our healthcare
    So what..if i did that i'd be in jail.
    "If I don't have my pistol, I feel sort of naked." -Unosuke Gunfighter in the movie Yojimbo

  6. #6
    Regular Member 1 2 many's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    so cal victim ville
    Posts
    41

    take it

    Quote Originally Posted by Born2Lose View Post
    So what..if i did that i'd be in jail.
    If someone wants to steal my car or bike go ahead. That's why I pay for insurance. its not worth it. But then again police officers are above the law.

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by ConsideringOC View Post
    The story lays out that it wasn't until after the 2nd physical confrontation that he thought he was in imminant danger when the guy reached for his wasteband. He had already Identified himself as an officer. That guy should not be alive to suck up our healthcare
    The point being is Cops are supposed to be more restricted in the use of deadly force, I agree though but would like to see citizens, afforded the same ability to protect themselves and their property.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ca Patriot View Post
    I was under the impression that in California and most places, the threat, fear or prospect of getting beat up ISNT grounds to use deadly force.

    Am I right ?
    INAL, but I think the key phrase is that you must be in fear of "death or GRAVE BODILY INJURY." If you end up having to defend yourself later, then it seems that what is crucial the likelihood of that happening had you not. Was there disparity of force? Was it one attacker or a group? Did the attacker have any sort of weapon?

    AFAIK, if there exists a disparity of force such that you are outnumbered, etc. you're not required to take a beating to find out if you'll suffer grave bodily injury so long as the potential for such exists. One thing I wonder, that I hope others might shed light on, is whether or not you are expected to exhaust leaving the scene or "flight" as an option? Could I have taken steps to avoid or evade the confrontation? Sometimes the smartest move is to bail out if it's possible.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691
    If you push an old man, and he can't fight, he will just kill you.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right‘s existence is all the reason he needs.

  10. #10
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Quote Originally Posted by Gundude View Post
    If you push an old man, and he can't fight, he will just kill you.
    And he would have a good case as there would be disparity of force. Flip side is if someone is a 200+ lb, 6'+ able-bodied young male, and someone of similar or even smaller stature sucker punches them in a bar, and they shoot them, I assume they are quite likely to go to prison.

    Disparity of force is another reason that a woman might for example be able to shoot a male attacker, even if that man might be unarmed. The man's physical size advantage could cause one to reasonably conclude that the woman could be overpowered and she had no other viable option to prevent death or grave bodily injury to her person.

    I emphasize that I am not a lawyer, but some of this was covered in a CCW class I attended, and it's what I took away from that. If I'm in error on this please correct me.

    As for what the ODO did-- I assume that as a private citizen if I did that, I'd be in major trouble. I might also be facing a civil suit from the thief whom I shot?

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Oakley, California, United States
    Posts
    637
    I think that the only thing the cop did wrong, and inturn, if it has been a normal citizen, was shoot the guy in the rear.

    How do you shoot someone in the ass and be under attack? Kinda like shooting a guy running away from you.

  12. #12
    Regular Member RockerFor2A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lemon Grove, CA
    Posts
    145
    Do you think that as I was wondering, if a private citizen had done this, he'd likely be facing a civil action brought by the wounded thief?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    2
    Am I missing something here. The officer pushed the suspect away on 2 seperate occasions "to maintain a safe distance between them". If he had physical interaction with the suspect he was way to close! Had I been this officers commanding officer I would have put him on suspension for allowing such close contact with a threat.

    If a suspect gets within that 21' bubble zone, and is advancing on you, you are in certain danger, and have all the provocation you need to pull the trigger to stop the threat. The fact that this guy made 2 serperate advances on the officer is more than enough to warrant deadly force. He identified himself as a police officer, he displayed a firearm and was barking commands. If the man had gotten in the van and they drove off then the officer could not have fired on the car because the suspects were not an imminent threat at that point.

    I think this officer acted reasonably and prudently.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Motofixxer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Somewhere over the Rainbow
    Posts
    974
    I would tend to agree, the officer was acting reasonably, assuming he identified himself clearly, and the thief advanced toward him and physically assaulted him. Whether the officer placed himself too close to the situation can be debated by the individual departments policies. But I think he was justified given the apparent situation.
    Click Here for New to WI Open Carry Legal References and Informational Videos--- FAQ's http://Tinyurl.com/OpenCarry-WI

    The Armed Badger A WI site dedicated to Concealed Carry in WI

    "To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, Speech of June 14, 1788

    http://Tinyurl.com/New-To-Guns to DL useful Info

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •