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:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/23/off-duty-officer-shoots-robbery-suspect/#
Link to story.

Thanks for the heads up Ed.

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

Just remember, that cops are never "off the clock". The privileges of their duty are in effect at all times...

Born2Lose said:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/dec/23/off-duty-officer-shoots-robbery-suspect/#
Link to story.

Thanks for the heads up Ed.

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

Click to expand...

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

ConsideringOC said:

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

Click to expand...

So what..if i did that i'd be in jail.

take it

Born2Lose said:

So what..if i did that i'd be in jail.

Click to expand...

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.
:shocker:

ConsideringOC said:

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

Click to expand...

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 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 ?

Ca Patriot said:

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 ?

Click to expand...

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.

If you push an old man, and he can't fight, he will just kill you.

Gundude said:

If you push an old man, and he can't fight, he will just kill you.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.