That’s true from a legal viewpoint. But there’s also the real world.
Regardless of whether it’s a criminal pointing a gun at you, a police officer pointing a gun at you, a police officer acting illegally pointing a gun at you, or George Zimmerman pointing a gun at you, the common factor is you have somebody pointing a gun at you. It’s generally a good idea to do what a person pointing a gun at you says. It’s only afterwards, assuming you’re still alive, that it becomes relevant whether the person was pointing the gun at you legally or illegally. Whether you get shot or not shot matters a lot more than whether you get shot legally or shot illegally.
A police officer pointing a gun at you could kill you and get away with it. So take it easy there please…
What point would there be in arming officers if every time they pulled the gun it was justified to retaliate by killing them? Of course they have the right to point a gun at you. It’s a cop. Of course that does not mean they intend to kill you! A cop will pull the gun to avoid violence, not to have a shooting death to deal with and end their career.
In a free society, the right of a police to point a gun at you is limited by laws. When the police go outside those laws, people are entitled to defend themselves.
Of course 99% of the time a police officer points a gun at someone it is justified. We are addressing the 1% when that, or any other force, is not justified.
I’m curious about some things:
Do you know what those rules are, when to pull your gun? How are you the judge of those criteria in the moment? Does it matter legally if you feel yourself to be innocent or guilty?
What would you do if a cop pulled a gun on you? Would you assume he was going to kill you, and that you had one chance like in the movies?; or would you assume he was arresting you?
Would you protest that he was unjustified in pulling it? What venue?
How is it even conceivable to attack a cop pointing a gun at you?
It’s like your mind is grasping at an argument, but you’re not quite sure how to make it. When you decide, then make it, and I’ll be happy to respond.
FWIW, I would never use force against a cop unless the life of a family member was in danger, I was substantially certain that the cop was acting unlawfully, and I was reasonably likely to succeed without causing any more death. It’s very hard to imagine a scenario in which that would all be true. There’s plenty of other situations in which using force against a cop would be lawful, but I would not trust the justice system to treat me fairly. That said, lots of people have been acquitted on self-defense grounds when they have used force against police. It does happen.
Sorry if I posted without reading the whole thread.
I am reading this right now. I live around here. It involves the Bulger situation peripherally but its more about the law enforcement entities around here. Stunning: Even so you can’t attack a cop. just don’t work.
And a home owner in Texaskilled a sheriff’s deputy and escaped any charges related to the killing, even though there was marijuana in the home (and the man is or was still facing charges strictly related to the drugs–I don’t know what the status of the case is at this point). Of course, that one is in Texas.
You get just the right fact pattern in just the right community, and you might not be killed by the other cops, or be executed, or be sent to prison for the rest of your life. (Although that’s definitely not the way to bet.)
What’s curious about that case is he wasn’t convicted of the third crime. A civilian, Sarah Pina-Ruiz, was with the police officers as part of a community ride-along program.
When the incident occurred, the two police officers fought with Penn. Pina-Ruiz stayed inside the police car. Penn shot both officers (wounding one and killing the other). He then also shot Pina-Ruiz (wounding her).
Now I can see the possibility of a self-defense argument involving the two police officers. But it’s hard to see how Penn’s lawyer was able to make a self-defense argument over the shooting of Pina-Ruiz.
It’s been a long time, but as I recall it, the defense argument was that Sagon Penn had reason to believe that any law enforcement officer, at that time, would automatically conclude he was a dangerous and violent felon, and he was afraid of being gunned down in the street by anyone who saw him.
He fled the scene for that reason. (Also, just plain panicked.) The fact that he turned himself in helped his defense a lot.
A fascinating case, with a lot of mistakes made by pretty much everyone. I believe the jury did the right thing, but many did not agree with the verdict.
Still, for the purposes of this debate, it’s a case where self-defense was successfully used as a defense for shooting a policeman. The abstract principle is upheld.
If I get shot and killed while being arrested for jaywalking, I don’t think that what I could prove in a court of law is going to matter to me that much, really.
“I don’t really give much of a shit what dey do after dey sterilize de Oit, Paulie…” – Fast Eddie Costigan
Didn’t know about that case, so I googled it. First result is a news item about Sagon Penn’s suicide after 15 years of continued police harassment since that verdict, that pretty much ruined his life (according to his godmother, anyway). So there’s that.
Scenario - you carry or have immediate access to a firearm for self defense.
You find a police officer, in full uniform and in possession of a gun, committing a major crime. You just witnessed him shoot an individual in the back of the head, or he’s trying to committ a rape.
The thing is, in a situation like this, if you say “hey. Leave her alone!” or “hey, I just saw you kill that guy” - the most likely scenario is the officer will shoot you dead and say he feared for his life.
You basically have to shoot first and don’t give the criminal a chance to surrender. Or you can choose to die. It’s an awful situation because you better have a body worn camera, or you’re going to be arrested and sentenced to death row. Pretty much guaranteed. But if you don’t shoot first, the officer will probably win the gun battle since he has superior firearm training and body armor.
A police officer is a fellow human - Given special privileges with a badge -is for their security - but it can and does get abused. A family quarrel or a person fleeing is not a good reason to shoot at them. Any person with a gun in their hand can get freaked out about their surroundings - but shooting an unarmed man or a questionable suspect is no reason to shoot to kill another human being -
The more misjudged shooting air on the news just places the police into a poor light.
Oppps - does not bring back the dead - It seems that the police are gaining a reputation of seeming like the crips and the bloods. Not a good light for the boys of blue to be thought of as -
I have noticed that now people are starting to shoot at law enforcement - I think that this is how some are thinking - revenge plays as a factor.
Having a weapon does give the officers more power over the none armed but using it respectively is the hard bulling factor to control.
At common law, one could resist an unlawful arrest with only the force necessary to thwart the arrest. Deadly force was not permitted if the only thing you feared was an unlawful arrest. Most states have done away with this rule and found that you must submit to an unlawful arrest and then sue for damages. I believe about 10 states retain the common law rule permitting force.
If you are talking about battery or other violence against you unrelated to an arrest, you can absolutely use force to resist it.
What is the test for the difference between these things? It is what a reasonable person would think in your situation.
That’s my main beef with the states that forbid force against an unlawful arrest. If the arrest is itself unlawful, and I submit like a good citizen, it is unclear where the facts would show the difference between a mistaken unlawful arrest and outright intentional crime.