• 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.

Lucky LEO!!!

M

Mirge

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Broken Arrow, OK
eye95 said:
Not only would it be "OK," in almost every jurisdiction (except where running and hiding is required by law), it would be justifiable self-defense. Here in Alabama, if I reasonably believe that I am in grave danger, I can (and will) shoot.
Click to expand...

Gotcha. I couldn't imagine that being illegal... but wanted a second opinion.
 
D

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
Mirge said:
Gotcha. I couldn't imagine that being illegal... but wanted a second opinion.
Click to expand...


But let's not forget about the guy up in WA state (sorry cant find the link right now, it is in the WA forums somewhere) that noticed a house he owned and was remodeling was being broken into, he stayed the night to protect it, suspects entered heard "click" and started running. Home owner was blinded by head lights and fired instinctively, shot one of the perps in the back and ended up being tried for 2nd degree murder.

Just adding this anecdote here to remind everyone that it is FEASIBLY possible for the ordinary "lowly" citizen to get charges filed against them for something that is ok for (most of them with less training in firearms and use of deadly force than joe blow firearms owner) LEO's to do....
 
M

Mirge

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Broken Arrow, OK
devildoc5 said:
But let's not forget about the guy up in WA state (sorry cant find the link right now, it is in the WA forums somewhere) that noticed a house he owned and was remodeling was being broken into, he stayed the night to protect it, suspects entered heard "click" and started running. Home owner was blinded by head lights and fired instinctively, shot one of the perps in the back and ended up being tried for 2nd degree murder.

Just adding this anecdote here to remind everyone that it is FEASIBLY possible for the ordinary "lowly" citizen to get charges filed against them for something that is ok for (most of them with less training in firearms and use of deadly force than joe blow firearms owner) LEO's to do....
Click to expand...

Wow, was he convicted?
 
D

devildoc5

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2010
Messages
791
Location
Somewhere over run with mud(s)
Last edited:
M

Mirge

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
73
Location
Broken Arrow, OK
J

jrob33

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
60
Location
oklahoma
CenTex said:
Article states: "The suspect was shot in the back while driving away and died on scene after crashing." (emphasis mine)

This LEO made the decision to shoot back "after" the man started to drive away. The immediate threat was over. You have to admit, from what we can see from the video, the LEO was no longer in immediate danger, yet he kept firing until his pistol was empty during the time the man was obviously fleeing. Now, if the man in the vehicle had started backing up toward the LEO, then the LEO had every right to fire his weapon until the immediate threat ended.

Before you argue the LEO had every right to fire his weapon at a "fleeing" suspect who had just fired a weapon at him . . . I agree. I am actually supporting the right of the LEO ending this man's life. It was the suspect's intention to kill this officer. Consequently, the suspect had just forfeited his right to life. The LEO was professional, calm, and polite to the suspect. He did nothing to elicit the reaction of the suspect.

So, having said that, why cannot law-abiding citizens use the same discretion when they are attacked by someone intending to do them great, bodily harm or killing them? Why are law-abiding citizens charged with a felony when they commit a commensurate action toward their assailants?

In conclusion, police officers should have no more right to protect themselves than ordinary law-abiding citizens should have in protecting themselves. LEOs should be limited by the same laws that limit us or we should have the same options that they have when protecting ourselves. This is my point and the end of my diatribe (criticism).
Click to expand...

As a general rule police officers are allowed to shoot fleeing felons as long as they REASONABLY represent an immediate deadly threat to another person or the general public. It is usually understood that the bad guy does not represent a threat to that particular LEO at the time. Therefore it can be assumed that the officer is NOT acting in SELF defense, but in his capacity as an officer to protect the general public. Where as a private citizen it is generally held that you can use deadly force in SELF defense.
 
Last edited:
M

MontanaFLHT

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
5
Location
Darby Montana
devildoc5 said:
But let's not forget about the guy up in WA state (sorry cant find the link right now, it is in the WA forums somewhere) that noticed a house he owned and was remodeling was being broken into, he stayed the night to protect it, suspects entered heard "click" and started running. Home owner was blinded by head lights and fired instinctively, shot one of the perps in the back and ended up being tried for 2nd degree murder.

Just adding this anecdote here to remind everyone that it is FEASIBLY possible for the ordinary "lowly" citizen to get charges filed against them for something that is ok for (most of them with less training in firearms and use of deadly force than joe blow firearms owner) LEO's to do....
Click to expand...
He was blinded by flashlights, not head lights. And the sheriff exonerated the man, but as a parting gift after losing the election, the prosecutor has charged the man. It has not gone to trial as a new prosecutor is now in office. I own property just a 1/4 mile away from this guy in Onalaska, Washington. I believe he has/d the right to defend himself and his property with deadly force if necessary. When blinded by two people using flashlights, I believe it would have been very stupid to wait to find out what the several times convicted burglar and meth user was going to do.
 
M

MontanaFLHT

New member
Joined
Dec 11, 2010
Messages
5
Location
Darby Montana
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top