eye95
Well-known member
The standard that a jury would have to apply would be the same for an officer as for a citizen.
I agree with what you are saying, but what stands out to me is that our justice system doesn't apply the same standards to citizens that they apply to police officers.
When something might be a gun is justification for an officer to shoot, a citizen in the officers shoes will almost certainly find themselves with much more of a burden to prove they were in fear for their life. Where an Officer may reasonably believe that what they were seeing could have been a gun, a citizen my not be held to the same standard of reason that an officer would.
The standard that a jury would have to apply would be the same for an officer as for a citizen.
And I respectfully beg to differ with you. Police can carry guns where we can't. The government gives them special privileges because of their special training and special job choice. The government should hold them to a higher standard.
Let's say, for instance, it was me that shot the guy on the porch because he was holding a water nozzle. If I can convince a jury that I thought I saw it was a gun, because I have no training in weapons recognition, because I have no training in recognizing a dangerous situation, then the shooting should be ruled as justified.
NOW - should a cop be able to use that same reasoning?!? HELL NO. WHY? Because the government trusts them with guns in places that it does not trust me BECAUSE OF THEIR SPECIAL TRAINING! Their privileges that they get extended to them because of their special training also means that their special training should cause them to have more responsibility as well.
+1000
Police officers should NOT be justified in every self-defense shooting that I might be justified in making because the damn government says that police officers are safer to carry guns in schools, in bars, in other states that I am because they are specially trained to not shoot when they ain't supposed to.
This I agree with, EXCEPT, what is determined to be reasonable belief by a "highly trained" police officer should be different that what would be expected to be reasonably believed by Joe Schmoe non-cop.
Additionally, in law, cops generally have more justifications available to them for shooting someone than Joe Schmoe Citizen does. Troy Meade is a prime example. Ruled justified, but not in self-defense by the jury.
Guess we need a law that says that water nozzles must be florescent green with bright orange tips so the cops don't mistake them for guns.
Zerby's sister, Eden Marie Biele, said officers made no attempt to talk to her 35-year-old brother or get his attention before shooting him to death.
"They didn't say 'Put your hands up' or 'Freeze' or anything," Biele told The Associated Press Monday. "He was killed in cold blood."
McDonnell said the officers took positions to observe Zerby, who appeared intoxicated, and believed he had a gun as described by the callers, but focused on setting up containment of the area rather than contacting him.
"He never knew there was a problem. Police snuck down the corridor and shot him," Biele said. "He was a drunk sitting on a stoop fumbling with a hose nozzle."
The Long Beach officers were dispatched to an apartment building after two people reported a man with a gun sitting on a backyard porch landing, McDonnell said. In an excerpt of a 911 call played for reporters, a male caller said the man appeared to have a "tiny six-shooter."
Has anyone noticed in the video????
The cops claim 6 rounds from a handgun and 2 rounds from a shotgun..
Why then can you clearly see 9 bullet strikes in the wood rails on the porch???
MAGIC BULLETS?
Buck Shot?
Let me be absolutely clear as context was not considered:
If it comes before a jury that someone felt his life was in danger because of a "gun" being pointed at him and he fired on that person, claiming self-defense, the standard of justification would be the same for both LEO and non-LEO alike: did he reasonably believe that he was facing deadly force?
It just amazes me how some here would demand the above standard for an OCer involved in a shooting, but expect a higher hurdle for the LEO to justify his actions. I am in no way saying that LEOs do not have other justifications under the law. I am saying that they do not have fewer justifications or a lesser ability to justify their actions--as some here seem to be implying.
My point was (and still is) solely that LEOs may use the same justifications available to non-LEOs use when defending themselves from criminal charges due to a shooting.
This is true; however, they have many more 'defenses' than are available to the citizen. That is my point, and fact. It is not that they have less; they have more.
Circling the wagons when an LEO kills an innocent civilian, however, is not part of the job description.
True. I was not addressing them as the defense that would be used in this case would be, "He was pointing something at me that looked like a gun. He was holding it like a gun. I thought it was a gun. I thought he would shoot me, so I shot to stop him from doing that." In such a defense, the standard that would be applied would be the same standard applied for any citizen: reasonable belief.