Dad calls cops on son, cops kill son

[Nicksfix]

Nope

 

[Encyclopedia]

Nope

How strange that you're not allowed to save a stranger.

 

[Nicksfix]

Agreed to a small degree, but it is what it is.

It's only for "your, your wife / family / friend - in accompanied by".

Think of it this way. Me being a CCW, I have a hard on against you (using you as a demo only, nothing personal to you). I could say that you threatened me, so I pulled and shot you. Who's to say who was right / wrong ? Dead men tell no tales. Can you see where this could get out of hand ?

Even in a situation where I defended myself legally, I had better cover my ass 100% and have not so much as a shred of evidence as to why I should not have shot the perp. I'll end up going to court, it's a given, I just have to be prepared to face any repercussions.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Agreed to a small degree, but it is what it is.

It's only for "your, your wife / family / friend - in accompanied by".

Think of it this way. Me being a CCW, I have a hard on against you (using you as a demo only, nothing personal to you). I could say that you threatened me, so I pulled and shot you. Who's to say who was right / wrong ? Dead men tell no tales. Can you see where this could get out of hand ?

Even in a situation where I defended myself legally, I had better cover my ass 100% and have not so much as a shred of evidence as to why I should not have shot the perp. I'll end up going to court, it's a given, I just have to be prepared to face any repercussions.

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with this example in regards to not being allowed to shoot to defend a stranger.

I also hope I'm reading "I have a hard on against you" wrong.

 

[Nicksfix]

, Americanisms, "I have a problem with you"

Sorry if I confused you, and I may have complicated it a little more by my answer.

CCW - It's only for you, your wife / family / friend - in accompanied by in a time of need, where lives are being threatened. You are not officially Law Enforcement. It is not up to you to defend a stranger. That's just the way it is ... per law. What I previously said can be somewhat tied in though. If I were permitted to shoot anyone who may be a threat, then the aforementioned scenario would apply. I could simply say that you were a threat and I shot you.

As a CCW, I asked my neighbor (a State Trooper) a question once. I asked him if he were in a time of need, (being robbed). Could I come to his aid (armed) to help him. No, with some affirmity. Because I personally was not involved, I "legally" have no place in this matter. So, I have to stand by and watch my neighbor get robbed, maybe even shot. I "legally" cannot shoot the perp. to stop any crime in which I am not involved.

It's kind of a suck situation, because I can see where at times your point could be justified. But we CCW's, are not the law, we simply cannot take a situation into our own hands.

 

[niky]

So the only way to stop a moving vehicle is to shoot the driver dead? If the vehicle is moving that means it's potentially 2 tonnes of steel travelling at speed, with nobody in control.. also a pretty dangerous situation.. if they shoot when the vehicle is stopped, to avoid this, then why would it be so difficult to shoot the tyres?

We should note that the officer chased the boy around for a long while and only opened fire as a last resort, and at a time when the vehicle was not moving at speed.

And shooting at tires? Flat tires slow you down. They don't stop you. Or so decades of video-taped police chases have shown.

They do have the right to shoot to kill, I never said they haven't, just that routines are different.

Deadly force is always a last resort for any police force.

The item where shots at legs are encouraged is already weakened by the next item, where risk to third parties is mentioned. As shooting for a more difficult-to-hit part of the body increases risk to third parties.

 

[MatskiMonk]

We should note that the officer chased the boy around for a long while and only opened fire as a last resort, and at a time when the vehicle was not moving at speed.

And shooting at tires? Flat tires slow you down. They don't stop you. Or so decades of video-taped police chases have shown.

Deadly force is always a last resort for any police force.

What I'm getting at though, is how other countries where cops don't carry guns (such as here in the UK) seem to manage, or am I missing something?

 

[Famine]

We let them get away.

In any pursuit where the target car is driving in a manner that is excessively dangerous to the public, the pursuit is discontinued.

 

[Grayfox]

We let them get away.

In any pursuit where the target car is driving in a manner that is excessively dangerous to the public, the pursuit is discontinued.

Same here.

Normally POLAIR keeps track of them

 

[Encyclopedia]

, Americanisms, "I have a problem with you"

Sorry if I confused you, and I may have complicated it a little more by my answer.

CCW - It's only for you, your wife / family / friend - in accompanied by in a time of need, where lives are being threatened. You are not officially Law Enforcement. It is not up to you to defend a stranger. That's just the way it is ... per law. What I previously said can be somewhat tied in though. If I were permitted to shoot anyone who may be a threat, then the aforementioned scenario would apply. I could simply say that you were a threat and I shot you.

As a CCW, I asked my neighbor (a State Trooper) a question once. I asked him if he were in a time of need, (being robbed). Could I come to his aid (armed) to help him. No, with some affirmity. Because I personally was not involved, I "legally" have no place in this matter. So, I have to stand by and watch my neighbor get robbed, maybe even shot. I "legally" cannot shoot the perp. to stop any crime in which I am not involved.

It's kind of a suck situation, because I can see where at times your point could be justified. But we CCW's, are not the law, we simply cannot take a situation into our own hands.

I see. Basically having a relationship of some sort to the person attacked counts as being involved, or does accompanied by mean with you at the time? Like if your friend lived next door to you and you heard him being attacked, you wouldn't be allowed to run over and shoot the attacker. But if you were with your friend at the time of the attack, you could.

The item where shots at legs are encouraged is already weakened by the next item, where risk to third parties is mentioned. As shooting for a more difficult-to-hit part of the body increases risk to third parties.

Fair enough.

We let them get away.

In any pursuit where the target car is driving in a manner that is excessively dangerous to the public, the pursuit is discontinued.

I think that's what usualy happens here as well, despite our officers being armed. At least that's the conclusion I make from car chases being seemingly very rare here.

 

[Ibonibo]

I just let this here

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...gps-tags-to-reduce-high-speed-chases-16127245

It's what I said before and others have said, which surely can be backed up with statistics :

If a chase becomes too dangerous, either for the police or third parties, wether it steems from the criminal or the pursing agent, backing off reduced the risk of an accident.

They knew who the driver was.

Let off, pick him up later at home, and then punish him.

That's also what I meant with "it's a rather typical american phenomene", these car chases seems to escalate rather quickly into full blown high speed chases with a every cop car available in pursuit. Maybe escalation comes with the perseverance of pursuit that cops may need to do, due to orders (?)

I think one of the most known Police chase that happened over here, was in the late 90's when a 12 year old stole a truck and drove from Germany to the Netherlands, followed by a mirade of police cars, eventually killing an officer.

On the other side, I am not against the deadly force as the last resort in very hard cases. This beeing one, after the police didn't let go.

(And on shooting the driver in the car and GTA ref. : in the game most "awesome" fatalaties happen when you do that, they floor the gas, ram other cars, drive over pedestrians,...)

 

[Villain]

I also hope I'm reading "I have a hard on against you" wrong.

Maybe we'd all get along better if he said "I have a hard on with you"

 

[Jay.]

It's different when it's kids. Kids are often stupid and have a bad/incomplete understanding of consequenses because they're not "done" yet. This has got to be taken into account and stuff like this handled with care.

Stupidity and understanding the consequences are both irrelevant in this case.
This kid was of an age where he CLEARLY KNEW what he was doing was wrong, he was not a toddler.

What I'm getting at though, is how other countries where cops don't carry guns (such as here in the UK) seem to manage, or am I missing something?

Yes we manage, but at what cost? Police officers AND innocent citizens are often injured, some fatally when police are pursuing criminals without the ability to stop them soon enough.

 

[Nicksfix]

Like if your friend lived next door to you and you heard him being attacked, you wouldn't be allowed to run over and shoot the attacker. But if you were with your friend at the time of the attack, you could.

That is correct. If I am in his house, then by all rights, my life is considered in danger then I have the right to pull and shoot.

I cannot be outside on my own property and intervene with what is going on next door. Unfortunately, I have to be a by-stander and just let it be. It's just the way the law states it. Would I let it be ? .......... There have been cases where people have intervened, but your tail had better be covered, and I mean covered. Having good connections is a plus.

 

[disinfected]

This was the best exchange I have read in a long time. Bravo.

 

[Encyclopedia]

That is correct. If I am in his house, then by all rights, my life is considered in danger then I have the right to pull and shoot.

I cannot be outside on my own property and intervene with what is going on next door. Unfortunately, I have to be a by-stander and just let it be. It's just the way the law states it. Would I let it be ? .......... There have been cases where people have intervened, but your tail had better be covered, and I mean covered. Having good connections is a plus.

Just one last question, for a bit of clarification. Is it the fact that your life is also considered in danger if your friend/family member gets attacked while you're with them that is the key point? If so, it seems strange that you could shoot to save stranger under certain circumstances (like if they're in close proximity to you for example). And if not, it seems strange that you couldn't run over to your friend and shoot his attacker.

Just trying to make sense of it. I hope my question is clear enough.

 

[Nicksfix]

Just one last question, for a bit of clarification. Is it the fact that your life is also considered in danger if your friend/family member gets attacked while you're with them that is the key point?

If I am out with my wife and she gets attacked, I am allowed by law to protect her. By me protecting her, what do you think the criminal would do ? He'd then turn on me. Hence, why I would be permitted to pull only if there is imminent danger of a loss of life. I cannot pull if she or myself is simply getting harassed by someone when there is no imminent threat of a loss of life. Clear ?

If so, it seems strange that you could shoot to save stranger under certain circumstances

You are a CCW, you've not been Deputized. Please understand the difference. You cannot take the law into your own hands to save a stranger. You personally were not being threatened, therefore you (under law) may not intervene.

It may seem odd to you, but it's just the way the law states how to handle yourself as a CCW.

 

[Encyclopedia]

If I am out with my wife and she gets attacked, I am allowed by law to protect her. By me protecting her, what do you think the criminal would do ? He'd then turn on me. Hence, why I would be permitted to pull only if there is imminent danger of a loss of life. I cannot pull if she or myself is simply getting harassed by someone when there is no imminent threat of a loss of life. Clear ?

That makes sense. I get what you mean now.

And by attack I didn't mean harassment btw.

You are a CCW, you've not been Deputized. Please understand the difference. You cannot take the law into your own hands to save a stranger. You personally were not being threatened, therefore you (under law) may not intervene.

It may seem odd to you, but it's just the way the law states how to handle yourself as a CCW.

I understand now. This for CCW specificaly. Thanks for explaining.

I'm guessing this does not apply to non-armed intervention.

 

[Grayfox]

If I am out with my wife and she gets attacked, I am allowed by law to protect her. By me protecting her, what do you think the criminal would do ? He'd then turn on me. Hence, why I would be permitted to pull only if there is imminent danger of a loss of life. I cannot pull if she or myself is simply getting harassed by someone when there is no imminent threat of a loss of life. Clear ?



You are a CCW, you've not been Deputized. Please understand the difference. You cannot take the law into your own hands to save a stranger. You personally were not being threatened, therefore you (under law) may not intervene.

It may seem odd to you, but it's just the way the law states how to handle yourself as a CCW.

So if women is being raped, a child pedophile is kidnapping a child you cant do anything.

 

[Nicksfix]

Is it your wife or a stranger ? If it's a stranger, read 3 posts up.

 

[niky]

What I'm getting at though, is how other countries where cops don't carry guns (such as here in the UK) seem to manage, or am I missing something?

If the cops aren't waiting in ambush to riddle any vehicle that looks remotely similar to the one they're chasing with 7.26mm rounds... or even vehicles that don't... the criminals here typically just get away.

 

[BobK]

So if women is being raped, a child pedophile is kidnapping a child you cant do anything.

Of course you can. There's lots of things you can do to try to stop what appears to you to be a crime. What you are specifically not allowed to do is shoot the alleged perp.

 

[GTsail]

Just one last question, for a bit of clarification. Is it the fact that your life is also considered in danger if your friend/family member gets attacked while you're with them that is the key point? If so, it seems strange that you could shoot to save stranger under certain circumstances (like if they're in close proximity to you for example). And if not, it seems strange that you couldn't run over to your friend and shoot his attacker.

If I am out with my wife and she gets attacked, I am allowed by law to protect her. By me protecting her, what do you think the criminal would do ? He'd then turn on me. Hence, why I would be permitted to pull only if there is imminent danger of a loss of life. I cannot pull if she or myself is simply getting harassed by someone when there is no imminent threat of a loss of life. Clear ?

You are a CCW, you've not been Deputized. Please understand the difference. You cannot take the law into your own hands to save a stranger. You personally were not being threatened, therefore you (under law) may not intervene.

It may seem odd to you, but it's just the way the law states how to handle yourself as a CCW.

Encyclopedia/Nicksfix/Grayfox -

I agree that CCW's haven't been Deputized and like Nicksfix says:tup:, they generally shouldn't take the law into their own hands (especially since they might not have full information about a situation, and might make an incorrect decision).

So if a women is being raped, a child pedophile is kidnapping a child, you can't do anything?

I think that in the US, it would depend upon the jurisdiction where the incident was occuring.

For example, looking at Florida Law, my reading is that a person could be justified in using deadly force in certain situations and it would be legal.

Florida Statue # 776.031 says: "Use of force in defense of others - A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property,***, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household, or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect."

The above would imply that deadly force can not be used in defense of others, but that non-deadly force could be legally used in defense of others.

However, the Florida Statue # 776.031 goes on to say: "However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

I interpret this second section to mean that you could use deadly force in defense of another (like the strangers mentioned by Encyclopedia and Grayfox), if the perp was in the process of commiting a forcible felony (like driving a car into a police officer) if you reasonably believed that this was your only course of action to prevent the forcible felony (I guess that if there were other, less lethal courses of action, then it would not be legal to use deadly force in defense of others). I would assume that it would be important that you are in a place where you already have the legal right to be (don't be trespassing on someone's else's property!).

I'm not an expert in this issue, so I'm interested in how others would interpret this portion of the Florida Statues.

Florida Statue 776.08 defines "Forcible felony - means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual."

I feel that "driving a car into a police officer" would fall into this definition of a forcible felony.

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Famine]

So if women is being raped, a child pedophile is kidnapping a child you cant do anything.

Of course you can. There's lots of things you can do to try to stop what appears to you to be a crime. What you are specifically not allowed to do is shoot the alleged perp.

There's a couple of things to remember at this point. The first is what you're legally allowed to do - Nicksfix has summarised that for you in the instance of concealed carry. The second is what constitutes a reasonable defence in law for committing an offence.

In the UK it's illegal to drive past the marked stop line at a red light. It's an absolute offence - there's a literal line where crossing it completes the offence, regardless of intent - and if those traffic lights happen to have a red light camera you'll be snapped and prosecuted for the offence. However it's also a technical offence - one requiring judgement - to obstruct an emergency vehicle. Not to mention it's rude and if it were you requiring that emergency vehicle you'd want it to get to you ASAP. So if you find yourself in a situation where you feel you have no choice but to drive through a red light in order to not hold up the emergency vehicle, you can use that as a reasonable defence if you happen to be prosecuted for the offence. I've found myself in that situation and I didn't even think about it - I drove right past that line and pulled in after the island to create a path for the emergency vehicle and not obstruct the junction. No prosecution was forthcoming (it was actually a police car I was helping and either occupant could have reported me - neither apparently did), but I could have used that as a defence had there been one.

You're not allowed to shoot someone raping a stranger, but if you felt there was absolutely nothing else that you could do to stop the crime, you'd do it anyway and use that as a reasonable defence. Depending on the circumstances, it may not go any further than the police on the scene - but you WILL have committed an offence and you COULD find yourself in court for it.