Do LEO have right to defend themselves?

S

shortwave

New member
Two different scenario`s going on in Ohio. 1st scenario: family was just awarded by courts $500,000 for shooting of mentally challenged man. Police get called on a disturbance to a very active apartment complex. When they arrive to address, a man is standing outside with knife. LEO gets out of cruiser tells man to drop knife. Man runs at LEO with knife, they shoot him. According to video, from time LEO got out of cruiser till man was shot was 34-37 seconds. Video taken by LEO dashcam and apartment security cam. Sherrif 100% backs deputies actions. Courts give settlement saying since man was mentally challenged different procedures should have been followed. Sherrif says all procedures were followed. 2nd scenario: Just happened this week.Seventeen year old girl shot by LEO holding gun partially under blanket. Apparently LEO gets call to scene as person with gun. Cops get there girl turns towards them with gun they shoot her. Gun ended up being fake(replica of what looked to be an m16, didn`t get good look). Family now claiming shooting unjustifiable. Wonder how much money their family will be awarded?
 
In both cases...too bad, so sad. Just because someone's an idiot doesn't mean they need to be protected/treated differently like an endangered species.

Seems that the gene pool is a little cleaner now.
 
shortwave, you have a link for the first incident? Chances are, there is more to the story than self defense.

As for the second story, lots of people claim shootings by police are unjustified. Big deal.
 
I'll agree that if you advance on a cop while holding a knife, or turn and point what reasonably appears to be, a fireram in the direction of cops, that they have every right to shoot, and if you die, it was becasue of YOUR actions, not the cops. Dont want to get shot? dont threaten cops with weapons. Maybe we need to start teaching that in the schools or something, ya know, for the children....:rolleyes::p
 
Double Naught, article was in the Columbus Dispatch last week. I will try to find link. Problem with alot of these cases is scenario happens, people or group of people sue, city or state figures it will cost more in legal fees to defend case so they settle out of court for x amount of dollars. In this case court awarded monies. I will suspect there will be suit filed in behalf of girl, we`ll see.
 
I have seen a lot of stories on "Most Dangerous" or whatever other cop shows are on TruTV. It has amazed me that police don't shoot SOONER than they do.

I guess people think police are superheroes with skin coating made of tank armor. Both of those stories sound like good shoots to me, I don't care if the victim is mentally deficient or holding a fake gun. The police SEE a weapon that could kill them in the hands of someone who is acting in a dangerous manner they should be fine in stopping the threats to their lives.

That from someone who is pretty tough on some questionable shootings and who thinks that no knock warrants should be disposed of completely.
 
Double Naught, article was in the Columbus Dispatch last week. I will try to find link. Problem with alot of these cases is scenario happens, people or group of people sue, city or state figures it will cost more in legal fees to defend case so they settle out of court for x amount of dollars. In this case court awarded monies. I will suspect there will be suit filed in behalf of girl, we`ll see.
Click to expand...

Once again, big deal.

You asked if LEOs have the right to defend themselves and then cite civil issues. From the standpoint of both civil and criminal law, they have the right to defend themselves. HOWEVER, many states have civil laws that allow for suits in such matters where the shootee's rights may have been violated in some manner. So the shootees sue. It is part of the process and does NOTHING to change whether or not LEOs have the right to self defense. Whether or not it costs the government money to fight such suits has nothing to do with the right to self defense either.
 
In those types of situations the officer only has a split second to make a choice. Right or wrong, mental or not, sound like rightous shoots. and yes more than likely the girls parents will sue (seems to be the American way now a days), blame some one else for your own stupidity/unattention.
Sorry for the rant i'm in one of those moods:p
 
Here is a link to the news story that Shortwave was referring to:

http://www.dispatch.com/live/conten...ABDI.ART_ART_06-17-08_A1_CIAGUKV.html?sid=101

Stuff like this is rather easy to find on the Internet. Just practice using Google.

The lawsuit was over the issue of whether the Franklin County Sheriffs department had given their officers adequate training in how to deal with the mentally ill. That was the focus of the case, and why the County government got sued. Part of the settlement in fact requires that the Sheriffs department come up with new training and procedures for dealing with folks who are mentally ill.

Anyway, that was the context for this lawsuit.

.
 
LanceOregon, Thank you for site. The only thing I have is dial-up on computor and its very slooow. Sometimes very time consuming searching things. Anyway, reading about this guy with knife attacking LEO as soon as they got out of cruiser,the fact that he was mentally challenged should not be a factor unless LEO that where called to scene knew he was handicaped. According to Sheriff, they did not. Where is there a civil case? These officers didn`t have a chance to even talk to guy. He attacked them within 34-37 seconds of them getting out of cruiser. Two sets of vidios confirmed that. Does it matter if he`s handicaped. There was a similar scenario that happened in north end of Cols. in mid 90`s. I was much closer to that inccident. This person attacked LEO with broken bottle in hallway of apartment. Again family awarded big money cause of men. handicap. Judge felt LEO should have backed off guy after talking to him and seeing his suicidal condition(which in this case LEO had chance to talk to him) regroup and handle things different. Didn`t matter to judge that there were three other people in apt. that perp. was threatening to kill. Sad situation but again I fail to see civil suit there as well. When a beat cop response to a call there`s alot of info. he wish he had about people he`s about to deal with. Unfortunately thats usually not the case. When he exits cruiser and perp. turns weapon on him, at that point(again LEO not knowing of any handicaps) is it civily wrong in shooting perp.?
 
shortwave, the article doesn't say why the county is paying money. They would not pay if if they didn't do something wrong. Nowhere does it say that they had to pay the $500K because the shootee was mentally handicapped. You are drawing a conclusion that isn't supported by the information and then backing it up with another case for which you haven't presented information that is verifiable.

On top of that, the Franklin County case isn't even about whether or not the officers had a right to defend themselves. It is about whether or not the county trained them to deal with the situation correctly. The officers weren't sued, were they?

In short, you are confusing some very different but somewhat related issues and mixing and matching information to suit your views. It doesn't fly. Nothing about the Franklin County case or the new case you have just brought up suggests they pertain to the right to self defense by LEOs.
 
Dont want to get shot? dont threaten cops with weapons. Maybe we need to start teaching that in the schools or something,
Click to expand...

This was meant as a joke, but I think it's VERY TRUE.

There are many, many people who don't know how to act/react when dealing with law enforcement. These are probably people whose only knowledge of LE comes from relatives and/or community that have had only negative experiences (i.e. getting arrested) with police.

It sounds like common sense to just cooperate with them, but we all know how common common sense is...

Maybe a couple of classes in junior and high school (maybe in home ec.) with general instruction would help. I'm serious. I received some of the training in security guard school and in my CHL class. Why not some for the general population?
 
They would not pay if if they didn't do something wrong.
Click to expand...

This is not always true. Many private and public entities settle because it's just cheaper. There seems to be a backlash against this now (which I like), but I'm sure it still happens.

The company I used to work for was like this. They'd calculate the estimated cost of fighting it out versus settling, and take the cheaper route. After about the year 2000, however, they realized that people had figured this out and were likely suing just for the smallish settlement. This then caused a complete shift in their thinking. They tripled their legal staff and started fighting most cases hard. The number of lawsuits dropped immediately as they gained a reputation for aggressive defense.

This is not to say they were actually saving (very much) money, but at least they were paying employees, and not plaintiffs.
 
The key to this is that the officers knew beforehand that he was mentally ill.
Click to expand...

That is made very clear in the newspaper report that I posted earlier, which is why I'm surprised that this factor is still being argued about here by others.

A court had ordered that this man be committed to a mental health facility. The officers were dispatched to enforce that commitment order, and take him into custody and transport him to the facility.

.
 
I think that with the girl the Cops could have waited a bit longer. i am sorry about the mentally challenged man with the knife, it is really unfortunate but I think the officers did the right thing.

Why do most gun owners dislike lawyers? I have noticed this over the years and there is definitely some bitterness there. Care to explain anyone?

YK
 
The key to this is that the officers knew beforehand that he was mentally ill.
Click to expand...

So a mentally disabled person would stab a person with a knife in a less lethal manner than a person who isn't?:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top