Is a person charged for violations/crimes while saving a fallen police officer?

Was watching some video clips on youtube of some police shootouts that made me wonder about something. If I cause harm or even kill a suspect that I witnessed wound or take down an officer, would I be charged with any crime?

I’m imagining something like: I witness a shootout where the suspect strikes an officer who goes down. If I feel compelled to assist the fallen officer and drive my car into the suspect either harming or killing the suspect, would I be charged with assualt/manslaughter/etc? How about traffic laws? would I be charged a point and a traffic violation for the collision (and/or related offenses like driving on wrong side of street, onto sidewalk, etc)?

What is the decision making process (and who is involved) for determining if a bystander is chargeable or not for any violations/crimes committed these types of scenarios?

I have no real idea, but I believe that sometimes there is a considerable gulf between being chargeable, and being charged. This might be such a case.

I asked a friend who is a police officer. His take on it is that the “mitigating circumstances” would probably prevent your being charged. At most, any fines and/or jail time would be dismissed.

You are not the judge or jury. The perp should be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

So if someone shoots me in the shoulder I have to wait for him to be proven guilty before I can fight back in self defense? That seems to be what you’re implying?
While the OP isn’t self defense, I would think it would be looked at under a similar light. If the guy shot one cop, there’s a good chance he’s going to shoot again, or pick off another person, if you have the opertunity to safely take him out…

It’s not that I want to see police officers assaulted/shot or anything like that, but perhaps the question could be considered more broadly: suppose I were to injure or kill a person, any person, in order to protect another. What then?

Example: I am walking home from baseball practice when I see a man assaulting a woman. There are no police officers in the vicinity, thus no way to call for help in this urgent situation. I realise I have my baseball bat, so I run up and smack the guy on the head. The woman is (relatively) OK, but the guy suffers some sort of head trauma as a result of my attack, and dies. Do I go to jail?

What?

We’re talking about an actual shootout here between the cops and the guy on the street. What exactly should the OP do in such a situation? Convene an ad hoc jury of 12 citizens behind the cover of a parked car, and hope that a judge and a court reporter happen to walk by?

My guess is that you probably would not, but I don’t think there’s a bright line for when it’s OK and when it’s not. If a separate witness thought he saw the bad guy give the woman a shove and then you run up and bash him over the head, that would probably be seen as excessive force and you could be in big trouble. On the other hand, if the guy shoves her and pulls out a knife or a gun and is putting her in real danger of losing her life, you’re probably OK.

The rules are the same as for self-defence. The force you use must be proportionate to the threat the third party(in this case, the police officer) faces.

Hm, what if the third party is already dead and you know that?

The OP doesn’t give a location, so I’ll just use my home state of Georgia.

So, there is a provision for lawfully using force in self defense, and even deadly force if defending against a criminal use of force that will cause “great bodily injury”–something like murder or rape–and those provisions also apply to using force, or deadly force, to protect a third party.

Separately, the Georgia legislature has also enacted:

The laws of your state (or country) may vary. I am not a lawyer, etc.

Note that the focus of these laws is on prevention; questions of convening an ad hoc jury and putting someone on trial don’t apply: it’s about citizens lawfully using force or deadly force to stop a crime that’s happening right now. Hunting someone down after the fact will get you charged with murder, manslaughter, assault, kidnapping, etc., etc., etc.
(16-3-23, by the way, states the following:

Again, different jurisdictions have different laws relating to self-defense, defense of one’s place of habitation, or forcibly rendering assistance to a police officer. Where you live things may be different.)

As** No. 9** said earlier, probably not, but it depends. Here I’m most concerned about whether you’ve escalated the level of force–you didn’t make it clear just how the guy was “assaulting” the woman. If he was using fists, I’d say you kicked it up a notch with deadly force, and you wouldn’t be able to make out the elements of self-defense, or defense of others, rather.

Also worth mentioning is that in some jurisdictions, you don’t get the benefit of a reasonable mistake. What that means is that if you read the situation incorrectly–if, before you came along, this lady stuck a gun to this guy’s ribs, and he’s actually the one defending himself–you lose. In what always strikes me as an odd phrase, they say you “step into the shoes of” whomever it is you’re defending; if those happen to be the wrong shoes, you’re out of luck.

As far as the officer goes–I forget what the rules are for citizens arrest. I’m pretty sure you’d have to have seen it; but I don’t think they usually allow for deadly force. Defense of others would be out because he’s already dead–although hopefully your attorney would do his best to fudge that.

Standard disclaimers apply: I’m not a lawyer just yet, even if I were I’m not your lawyer, the above isn’t legal advice, laws may vary in your jurisdiction, etc.

How would you know that the cop is already dead from a distance? And some states allow a person to use lethal force to prevent the flight from a violent felony committed in his prescence.

How about civil liability? What if the guy who pulled the gun on the girl sues you after you brained him with the baseball bat?

If the hypothetical with the man beating the woman happened - no weapons used by him - it’d probably be smart to maybe crack him on the knee rather than over the head. Below the belt, no intention can reasonably be taken for attempted murder there. But if the attacker has a knife or gun, I think a jury would see that there was a definite possibility the attacker wanted to severely hurt or kill the victim, so a crack on his head wasn’t excessive. He could still sue you in civil court, but if he was charged for the assault and you were not, it would look very bad to the jury in the civil case and it seems unlikely he’d win. But it could happen.

This is a hot situation…you are witnessing an assault in progress. Who is doing what to who is clear to you. I ould have to leave a formal definition to Bricker or the like but the “innocent until proven guilty” applies to the government suspending your freedom, not your immediate response to an act in progress.

Lets say you see a bad guy shooting at a police officer while driving along and you hit bad guy with your car and kill him. Are you being judge, jury, and executioner? No more morally so than a police officer shooting at someone assaulting another individual.

§ 16-3-22. Immunity from criminal liability of persons rendering assistance to law enforcement officers
(a) Any person who renders assistance reasonably and in good faith to any law enforcement officer who is being hindered in the performance of his official duties or whose life is being endangered by the conduct of any other person or persons while performing his official duties shall be immune to the same extent as the law enforcement officer from any criminal liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed as a result of rendering assistance to the law enforcement officer.

(b) The official report of the law enforcement agency shall create a rebuttable presumption of good faith and reasonableness on the part of the person who assists the law enforcement officer.

© The purpose of this Code section is to provide for those persons who act in good faith to assist law enforcement officers whose health and safety is being adversely affected and threatened by the conduct of any other person or persons. This Code section shall be liberally construed so as to carry out the purposes thereof.

This is what I was getting at, espcially sections B and C. If I read that correctly, you take out a cop killer, and his/her partners are going to be writing the report that establishes your “good faith” I’m thinking you really need to have misjudged the situation, or the perp has major connections before you’d find a DA that would prosecute

This is a subject that gets a lot of attention in the Texas Concealed Handgun License class, but the usual disclaimers apply: IANAL, this only applies for Texas, etc.

Essentially, defense of a third party is treated the same as self defense, and must meet the same requirements in the eyes of the law.

I’ve noted before that there are several “levels” when it comes to Texas law. First is the threat of force:

“The threat of force is justified when the use of force is justified by this
chapter. For purposes of this section, a threat to cause death or
serious bodily injury by the production of a weapon or otherwise, as
long as the actor’s purpose is limited to creating an apprehension
that he will use deadly force if necessary, does not constitute the
use of deadly force.” -Texas Penal Code 9.04

Then we come into the use of force for self defense:

“a) Except as provided in
Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force is
immediately necessary to protect himself against the other’s use or
attempted use of unlawful force.” -Texas Penal Code 9.31

Subsection (b) outlines exemptions, such as “verbal provocation alone,” “to resist a lawful search by a peace officer,” “if the actor (you) consented to the use of force,” “if the actor (you) provoked the other’s use or attempted use of force, unless the actor discontinues the encounter and the other nonetheless continues,” etc.

Now we come to deadly force:

“(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor’s situation
would not have retreated; (STRICKEN SEPTEMBER 2007) and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other’s use or
attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.” -Texas Penal Code 9.32
And, of course, defense of a third party:

§ 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.  A person is justified in 

using force or deadly force against another to protect a third
person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably
believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31
or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against
the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes
to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his
intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

Now, although the law is pretty clear (as laws go, anyway) there is some judgment needed by the actor, of course. In such situations, the decisions are often split-second ones, but it is important to note that Texas law does not require the other to have a weapon at all…force and/or deadly force are justified against the unlawful use of force that threatens death or serious bodily injury. Fists are very capable of serious bodily injury. Does that mean that I can shoot someone who I see fighting in an alleyway outside a bar? No. It does mean that if I witnessed someone get knocked out, and the other party still kicks, punches, or attempts to use a weapon or an improvised weapon (say, a brick) I can intervene, using the threat of force, force, or, if a reasonable person (read, jury members) would see his actions as capable of causing death or serious bodily injury.

I also noted that a couple of things were stricken from the law as of September of this year. Texas finally became a “castle doctrine” state, which means that an actor no longer has the duty to retreat from a situation (if a reasonable person would have retreated.) Essentially, anywhere the actor has a legal right to be, from his home to his car to just walking into a store, is treated as an extension of
his home, or “castle” and he may defend himself thusly. The law change in September also removed the “Civil remedies unaffected” clause, giving actors justified by law immunity from civil action. Basically, if charges are not brought, or a jury no-bills, the actor cannot be sued by the other or the other’s family.

ETA: The law is not specific about who, or in what capacity, a third party is or is working as. Therefor, the defense of a peace officer is just as justifiable as the defense of a 7-11 clerk.

I meant to type “if a grand jury no-bills…”

mhendo, JoeyP and drachillix, the OP doesn’t read to me like a crime still in progress. It reads to me like: see officer assaulted/injured–>chase guy down and run him over with a car. In that instance, you would not be preventing further injury to the officer, you’d be a vigilante.

A recent case in New Hampshire

No charges were filed.