Originally Posted by
RevolverRob
Did you read carefully the statement I wrote?
Did you read carefully the remainder of what I wrote in my post?
I made it abundantly clear that I feel that such situations are almost entirely contextually dependent and one must assess the situation at hand in that moment. I proffered a very specific set of circumstances under which I might consider undertaking the use of lethal force in a situation where I feel it is appropriate. I'll have a very good attorney when and if such an event comes to pass. I don't take shooting anyone lightly, let alone a police officer.
And yes I read what TGS wrote. And I contemplated it, I've seen many instances where suspects continue to fight officers. In my (admittedly limited) experience, it's actually pretty easy to see when someone is continuing to resist, even underneath an officer. Which is why I said, "Prostrate, limp, and clearly not fighting back". While I'm no use-of-force or compliance expert, I would seek to do my best of my ability to avoid endangering an officer or a detainee if I felt I had no choice but to intervene.
But to be clear, I have no desire to shoot anyone. Nor do I take such a stance lightly. But I also do not believe that agents of the state have special powers that make them immune. If an individual intervenes in good faith using what they feel is reasonable force under the law, they shouldn't have to simultaneously worry about whether or not the aggressor they use force on is a police officer or not. And in fact, find me a state use-of-force law that requires an individual to determine if someone is or is not a police officer prior to using force...I'll bet you cannot. That may be an unpopular opinion, I don't know. But given that the circumstances are heightened around shooting police officers, I wouldn't want to be in a bad shoot. And I think the risk of shooting an officer deliberately and claiming "self-defense" is pretty damn low, honestly.
If you do things in a pragmatic way and can articulate why you did X, Y, and Z - then you've done your level best to be in a good shoot. I always find it funny we talk about, "If it's a good shoot, it'll be okay. If it's bad it'll be bad." - What we don't talk about, is the decision making that goes into understanding the situation. We have an innate sense of "good" and "bad". We can point to certain circumstances leading up to an event after the fact. But so frequently, it is state of mind and would a reasonable, rational, person do this? If the answer is "No" or even "maybe, I dunno" - you probably shouldn't do that.
And yes, you may arrive on a scene and not understand what the fuck is going on. Guess what? Nobody ever said self-defense shootings were mistake free, that's why there is a reasonable-person standard.
I was privvy to a rather unfortunate accidental/self-defense shooting that involved a police officer and a civilian a dozen or so years ago. A man living in a condo attached to his business had been burgled for copper several times. He'd installed an alarm system and acquired a shotgun. One evening the alarm went off and two officers responded. Both climbed onto the roof (where the previous thefts had occurred). The man, coming out of his house shouted and an officer put his head over the side to look down. In the dark, the man thought he was a burglar and shot him. A single round of buckshot to the head. The officer died on the spot and the man was arrested and charged with manslaughter. A charge that was no-billed by the grand jury, because after summarizing the totality of the circumstances, the man was within his legal rights to use force to defend his property and because the officers had not verbally identified themselves when called to. In other words, a case of mistaken identity is still protected under the law, because all of the other factors surrounding the circumstances support a claim of self-defense.
Such is the unfortunate nature of life. Sometimes accidents happen. The man was understandably distraught and remorseful, but also not in the wrong, in fact he was legally in the right. That doesn't make it better for anyone, but it does demonstrate that clear articulation of your decisions and a reasonable-person standard allow for even ugly and unfortunate things to be legal. In other words, while I'm not into climbing uphill battles in court, I have more faith in the justice system than some, when it comes to these scenarios, for better or for worse.
Also, just to reinforce my point above. I do not advocate violence against law enforcement officers or any state agents or against anyone, except in legitimate self-defense scenarios. I also feel this is mostly an academic discussion and moot point for me, in particular, because I try to avoid stupid people, stupid places, and I can honestly say in all my years, I've only been but in handcuffs once and seen someone else handcuffed less than half-a-dozen times. So, I'm highly unlikely to be in any of situations described here. If cops are out somewhere arrested people? My plan is to be somewhere else, not getting arrested or being involved with people who are getting arrested.
PS: Also to note, I do not feel we need special immunity for citizens. I'm not currently of the opinion that we are wrongly imprisoning a number of people who rightfully use self-defense. While I think we do, occasionally, do that I don't feel that there is a frequent miscarriage of justice in this regard.