Self Defense Against Unidentified Gun-Brandishing Police

Scenario: Plain clothes police officer brandishes gun at you w/o identifying himself.

  • Self defense is OK, since from your perspective it is nothing other than a threatening stranger.

    Votes: 16 100.0%

  • Self defense is not OK.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
lawnboy,

I understand where you're coming from. The reason I created the thread was not to be anti-cop. The reason I posted was because after seeing some examples of off-duty police officers wielding their weapons without identifying themselves, it raised concerns in my mind for the safety of both the citizens AND the officers.

Officers really need to make sure to identify themselves, and also only draw when warranted. The example of the off-duty officer in the grocery line did not warrant drawing a weapon, and as many other people have suggested, regardless of whether he was a LEO or not, at that moment in time, he was just another human being assaulting innocent civilians with a deadly weapon because they had too many grocery items.

*So the concern for the LEOs is, if they aren't trained to identify immediately, in states that allow CCW, they are liable to get shot, legally, if brandishing outside their legitimate powers.

*On the other hand, the dilemna to the civilians is that if they always have to hesitate to wonder whether a threating stranger MIGHT be an off-duty LEO, it could result in law abiding CCW's not being able to effectively defend themselves against TRUE criminals.

So for both LEOs to not have to worry about getting shot by law-abiding CCWers, and for law-abiding CCWers to not worry about hesitating out of uncertainty during a realy attack, a clear understanding needs to be in practice. The best solution is for LEOs to ALWAYS identify themselves (hmm, maybe that's why it's already a requirement). If the LEO doesnt abide by the requirement, could be his loss.
 
I rather strongly disagree.

If you're in the middle of committing a crime or escaping after committing a crime, there's no point at which anything you do can be considered self defense (especially in states with the felony murder rule). If there's a criminal context to the situation, you have to assume that police are going to be involved, and even if not, if you act out of even legitimate self defense, your butt still deserves to rot in jail forever.

It seems to me like you're trying to redefine a hypothetical situation to where the police are naturally at fault.
Click to expand...

No, I'm posing a question where there is no criminal fault. The video exerpt I included showed no criminal conduct. Perhaps there was criminal context in early portions of the video, but I was using that specific excerpt just as a visual example. My question pertains to the scenario where there is no fault.
 
Officers really need to make sure to identify themselves, and also only draw when warranted. The example of the off-duty officer in the grocery line did not warrant drawing a weapon, and as many other people have suggested, regardless of whether he was a LEO or not, at that moment in time, he was just another human being assaulting innocent civilians with a deadly weapon because they had too many grocery items.

*So the concern for the LEOs is, if they aren't trained to identify immediately, in states that allow CCW, they are liable to get shot, legally, if brandishing outside their legitimate powers.

*On the other hand, the dilemna to the civilians is that if they always have to hesitate to wonder whether a threating stranger MIGHT be an off-duty LEO, it could result in law abiding CCW's not being able to effectively defend themselves against TRUE criminals.

So for both LEOs to not have to worry about getting shot by law-abiding CCWers, and for law-abiding CCWers to not worry about hesitating out of uncertainty during a realy attack, a clear understanding needs to be in practice. The best solution is for LEOs to ALWAYS identify themselves (hmm, maybe that's why it's already a requirement). If the LEO doesnt abide by the requirement, could be his loss.




Bravo. Well said. A lesson that LEO's should only ignore at their peril.



BTW, although it is irrelevent to the discussion, the hypothetical being set forth that we have no knowlage of prior misconduct by the motorcyclist, the last time I checked, speeding on a motorcycle was not a felony, nor anything that would trigger being threatened with an unholstered firearm by anyone. It's just speeding.


Willie


.
 
Technosavant:

If there's a criminal context to the situation, you have to assume that police are going to be involved, and even if not, if you act out of even legitimate self defense, your butt still deserves to rot in jail forever.
Click to expand...

Aside from the topic of this thread, what if it's a crime that is illigitimately illegal? There are plenty of oppressive regimes that outlaw whatever they want. Does that mean somebody who disobeys that law is inherently deserving of rotting in jail forever? What if you lived in Nazi Germany, yet you assisted an innocent Jew; does that make you inherently deserving of punishment? Fortunately laws in America are generally just, but it is ignorant to not recognize the difference between malum prohibitum versus malum in se law.

For those who don't know: a maulm in se law involves an offense that is evil in itself, whereas a malum prohibitum law involves an offense that is wrong only according to an arbitrary prohibition.
 
"If you're in the middle of committing a crime or escaping after committing a crime, there's no point at which anything you do can be considered self defense"


OK, so... in my tiny town I roll thru a stop sign, drive off and then exceed the speed limit on the road out of town. I am a criminal fleeing the scene of a crime? And when I am run off the road by a guy in plain clothes driving a car not identifiable as a police car, and he jumps out yelling and waving a gun, I have given up my right to self defense because my *traffic violation* (or my two traffic violations in my example) has caused me to lose my right to protect myself?


Uhhh.... No.




Willie


.
 
If I'm minding my own totally lawful business and I suddenly see a random guy standing in front of me with a weapon drawn, in a solid stance, aiming at my center mass my first response will not be to go for my gun. It will be to put my hands up. Even if I'm sure he's a BG.

If I do that he might not shoot me. If I try to draw he probably will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top