There were no cops involved in this incident, so it’s not relevant to this thread.
As for whether they are wrong, it’s hard to tell from the report. It may well have been legitimate self defence but this part - "Investigators suspect the home invasion escalated from an ongoing feud between two groups that was stoked by social media threats. " - suggests that they may have done something criminal, and certainly worth investigating. Even if they did, though, it might not negate their right to self defence. In other words, too much is still unknown and a full investigation is required.
Men are busting into your house, so you clearly can shoot them. But the men yelled “Sheriff’s Office” so you clearly cannot shoot them. But you know you are having a feud with your neighbors, so you clearly can shoot them. But you know you will be automatically found guilty if they are real police officers, so you clearly cannot shoot them. But they have masks on and don’t look like cops, so you clearly can shoot them. But if they turn out to be cops, you are wrong, so you clearly cannot shoot them. But if they DON’T turn out to be cops, shooting them is the best possible solution, so you clearly can shoot them. Bottom line: Never get into a gun battle with masked men in a trailer.
I don’t see what the problem is. If you’re white and have done nothing illegal there is no reason to believe that cops would come to your door. Just shoot away.
No-one’s said that. Claiming to be a cop doesn’t magically make you one. Someone shouting “police” but who is actually your feuding neighbour in a mask is not a cop doing their job.
Honestly, these “gotchas” are getting ridiculous. Cop shoots armed, threatening man? He must have been lying about seeing the gun, how can you know he saw it? Man shoots someone pretending to be a cop - how did he know they weren’t a cop? In both cases, they clearly did know, and there’s a decent chance they acted correctly, and further investigation will show whether that’s actually the case.
Evidently, you think that cops are just going to say “Gun!” so they can shoot whoever they want to. Really? They cop said, in fact was insistent, that he had a gun. You can hear it in his voice. If he was just saying that so he could justify shooting someone, that’s a damn good job of acting. And, lo and behold he had a gun. Just a lucky coincidence for the cop?
For the record, I never said “the main reason” about anything. Besides, what does it matter what the reason is behind proper behavior as long as its proper behavior? Are you the thought police? BTW, the U.S. Supreme Court says underlying motivations do not matter when it comes to use of force. What does matter is that the force is objectively reasonable. As it was in this case. This one isn’t even close.
I’m fairly certain there has been a recent story of a cop seeing a gun and shooting a guy, when it turns out, it was NOT a gun, it was just a cell phone. Your “gotcha” is completely wrong, yet again. You seem to be wrong more often than not.
Police says “He has a gun”? That’s a reason for shooting a guy? simply possessing a gun? I thought that was our 2nd amendment right?
It’s reasonable to shoot a guy for having a gun? Shouldn’t he, you know, be threatening someone with it, or aiming at someone, or something? Just having a gun means you get shot, that’s what you are going with?
[QUOTE=Steophan;20927785 Man shoots someone pretending to be a cop - how did he know they weren’t a cop? In both cases, they clearly did know[/QUOTE]
In the trailer case, they didn’t know - they assumed, it just turned out they were correct. What would your take be if it *had *been a cop and their defense was “we thought it was those dudes were feuding with”?
The things is, they did know they weren’t cops, and there’s no reason to think they would have shot at any cops. Certainly, when the cops came round later, there was no gunfire.
You can make up what-if’s all you like, but the fact is they easily managed to tell the difference between home invaders and cops. Because that is not a difficult thing to do, even when the invader pretends to be a cop.
But if your hypothetical happened, they can tell their story to the jury, and in the unlikely event they consider it plausible, they get away with killing cops. But, it’s hugely unlikely they will, so purely from a selfish point of view, ignoring the legal or moral issue, don’t shoot cops.
The point that having the gun means that the cop was right to think the person was armed. And yet, amazingly, there are people here arguing against that.
Of course, whether he had the gun doesn’t actually matter when it comes to self defence, what matters is whether the cop reasonably thinks they are being threatened. Telling his fellow officers that the suspect has a gun and is being threatening is evidence that he thinks that, and the suspect having a gun is pretty strong evidence that it’s reasonable.
I doubt this will make any difference though. Even having video of someone brandishing a gun at people, then being seen on video reaching for it as the police approach, is not enough to get people to think that they might be threatening…
No. It’s being reasoanbly percieved as an imminent threat of death or serious injury to either the shooter or someone else (you can shoot in defence of another as well as yourself) that’s relevant. An armed person doesn;t magically stop being a threat by turning away and running, especially if they are running towards others.
Technically, yelling “Sheriff’s Office!” is all kinds of incorrect, so in a case like this, where the presentation is obviously false, the homeowner basically has the white card.
However, there have been other cases where fake police have been much more convincing (or real and vile). At some point, if a person has doubts about the legitimacy of the encounter, they really do have a right to fight back.
Yeah obviously, he saw the guy threatening him with a gun, but it was just a guess. There’s no good reason to think that way, it’s just proof that you’re biased against cops.
If they had been real officers, the greater, more immediate danger to the occupant of the residence is that he would likely be struck by return fire or fire from backup officers. But assuming they were able to apprehend the person somehow, he would not automatically be found guilty for shooting armed intruders, even if they turn out to be officers. There’s a good chance he could be, but a criminal prosecution would have to factor in the circumstances and the state of mind of the person firing the weapon. The same standard is applied, though the circumstances before, during, and after the incident would make such a case unique.
There was video. Suspect had no gun in hands while running away. He was shot in the back while running way and fell face first. There was no gun. You can actually hear other cops saying there’s no gun whilst kneeling beside him. They did not find a gun till the dug it out of his pants. These are facts.
Hence, the cop could not have seen this gun. This is logic.
Since he *could not have seen *said gun, then him saying there was a gun was a guess. A correct guess, but a guess nonetheless.
Kinda like if you and I meet on the street, and I say ‘You have a wallet in your back right pocket!’ If it turns you do have a wallet there, my saying it was *still *a guess.