Q for attorneys, pertaining to gun laws....

[Huzband]

This thread has brought the following question to mind. It's good for the stopping officer that another was happening by, but what if....

 

Let's say you're a passerby to a scene where a cop is physically engaged (fighting) with a perp. The cop is obviously in trouble, you have a carry permit, & you're armed. Are you allowed by law to use deadly force to protect the cop, or should you just move on, & read about the outcome in the paper?

 

I know laws vary by state, but I'd still like an idea of where the law comes down on this.

 

BTW, I already know what I'd do, but I hope I never have to.

[Lawman]

In Texas you have the same authority to protect lives and property as the officer.

 

Sec. 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.

 

 

[smiller]

Yes, but does he have the same legal protections a peace officer would have? Not saying what anyone should or should not do because that would depend on the circumstances, but a civilian takes on a lot of legal exposure (even if only civil) when using deadly force.

[Lawman]

Yes, but does he have the same legal protections a peace officer would have? Not saying what anyone should or should not do because that would depend on the circumstances, but a civilian takes on a lot of legal exposure (even if only civil) when using deadly force.

 

IMHO, No he does not have the same legal protection..He has more..He is not expected to be able to perform up to the level of the officer..

[upflying]

While this sounds like a good idea, a citizen using a firearm to protect the life of a police officer has a lot of ways to go wrong.

The first to come to mind is misidentifcation by the officer or the backup officer(s) that you are an armed suspect rather than an armed good Samaritan.

Your proficiency and training in the use of the firearm is another. What if you miss the turd and hit the cop or an innocent citizen?

Perhaps the officer is not engaged in a situation where deadly force is justified. You fire after you misinterpret the situation.

Armed, off-duty officers are trained (at least I was) to be good witnesses rather than getting directly involved in the activity of on-duty LEO's. That's not an absolute however and a rare situation may occur when anyone, including off-duty LEO's will have to do whatever it takes to help.

LEO's carry off-duty for self-protection, that's it.

If you have a CCW, great. Just be aware of the tremendous responsibility and consequences that go along with the privilege.

 

 

[Lawman]

Another thing you might find interesting and I've seen used is when it becomes necessary to violate the law in order to avoid a greater harm..

 

Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:

 

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

 

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and

 

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear.

 

 

[Lawman]

While this sounds like a good idea, a citizen using a firearm to protect the life of a police officer has a lot of ways to go wrong.

The first to come to mind is misidentifcation by the officer or the backup officer(s) that you are an armed suspect rather than an armed good Samaritan.

Your proficiency and training in the use of the firearm is another. What if you miss the turd and hit the cop or an innocent citizen?

Perhaps the officer is not engaged in a situation where deadly force is justified. You fire after you misinterpret the situation.

Armed, off-duty officers are trained (at least I was) to be good witnesses rather than getting directly involved in the activity of on-duty LEO's. That's not an absolute however and a rare situation may occur when anyone, including off-duty LEO's will have to do whatever it takes to help.

LEO's carry off-duty for self-protection, that's it.

If you have a CCW, great. Just be aware of the tremendous responsibility and consequences that go along with the privilege.

 

 

And Huzband, if you happen upon someone who has me on the ground and is trying to kill me please feel free to put one through his skull..

[upflying]

And Lawman's offer to help applies to me too. Just be prepared to see, interpret, react and fire in 1.5 seconds.

[Huzband]

Billy, & Bob, ( Billy-Bob? ) you both bring up great points of which we were taught when taking our CCP class.

 

Most important is that the officer knows that you are freindly to him or her. Probably really tough to do. Which brings up the fact that it's a BAD idea to pull a gun in front of a cop, no matter his situation, if he doesn't know your intent.

 

I suppose I've raised a question that really has no right answer.

 

But, I still know what I'd do. I'd protect you both.

 

I figure that if you could shoot me for pulling a gun on the perp, you'd have shot him already.

[upflying]

Interesting chatter between the philosophies of Texas and California LEO's. Kind of an eye opener that LEO's in Texas are genuine cops whereas California LEO's have been reduced to mere social workers, available on-call 24 hrs a day of course. We have been brainwashed in California that criminal suspects are also victims.

[ghaverkamp]

I suppose I've raised a question that really has no right answer.

 

The problem is the "reasonable" standard. They might as well call it "community standards."

 

What's reasonable in defense of Billy might not be reasonable in defense of Bob.

[Huzband]

We have been brainwashed in California that criminal suspects are also victims.

 

You can thank the ACLU for that.

[upflying]

Not to hijack the OT, but I will bet that high profile kidnap case going on in Antioch will come down to a defense that the kidnap suspect is also a "victim".

[EffBee]

Not to hijack the OT, but I will bet that high profile kidnap case going on in Antioch will come down to a defense that the kidnap suspect is also a "victim".

He should be. Of about 600 rounds.

[ShovelStrokeEd]

600 rounds? Sounds like a clear case of suicide to me.

[Lawman]

What's reasonable in defense of Billy might not be reasonable in defense of Bob.

 

Absolutely! I"ll take all the help I can get...For the most part I'm an old defenseless worn out has been while Bob is probably a young strapping muscle man still full of piss and vinegar...

 

<------- Look to the left.....that's me..

[David]

And Lawman's offer to help applies to me too. Just be prepared to see, interpret, react and fire in 1.5 seconds.

 

In a recent advanced class, that's exactly what we had to do before we could pass, with a timer. It was a lot harder than I thought it would be.

[Skywagon]

When I took my CCW class here in the Republic of Texas...this very situation was talked about. It was a LEO who did this discussion. His answer was if you draw your weapon say "freeze please, show me your hands" as fast as you can. Try it. Chances are the Texas Leo will understand what you said and see you as friendly, and chances are the perp will think you said police... Then the lawyer got up and said, good advice. Make sure you never ever impersonate an officer, but memorize the phrase....

 

Billy...Trust me, If I ever come across somebody whaling on you and your not on the winning end....I will help the best I can. If you ever hear someone say Freeze Please show me your hands.......Don't shoot me.

 

As far as Texas and CA...Lived in both. 20 years in San Francisco, many more in Texas. We don't have any Gavin Newsomes running around in Texas. It is perfectly ok and respectful to defend life and property....even if it isn't yours.

[smiller]

His answer was if you draw your weapon say "freeze please, show me your hands" as fast as you can.

Well you might want to leave out the 'please' part...

[ghaverkamp]

It is perfectly ok and respectful to defend life and property....even if it isn't yours.

 

I'd suggest consulting the Texas Penal Code and a Texas attorney before acting too much on that belief. Texas may be... uh... liberal, but it ain't the Wild West.

[Skywagon]

Greg...

Read this and call me back. If you don't think it is the wild west, come live here a while. The castle doctrine was created here. There is case after case of no-bills for just theft. One that made the national scene was a man who was robbed, the perps were clear of his property, running down the street to get away. He called 911 and told them he was going to kill them. He chased them down and killed them..clearly outside any code I would live by. I can't imagine shooting someone over a material possession...He was no-billed. Last week a cable repairman knocked on a single females door at 10 pm. She was alone, but armed. He announced who he was. When she didn't answer he opened her screen door and jiggled the door knob. She fired through the door and he was killed..no billed. So right or wrong, defending your life, your property, and even your neighbor's property is most likeley going to end in a no-bill....read below to give you some thoughts on Texas PC

 

Definetly read 1B...

 

 

PC 59.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is

justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible,

movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under

Section 9.41 ; and

60 PC s9.43. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly

force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the imminent commission of arson, burglary,

robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal

mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing

burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime

from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by

any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover

the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial

risk of death or serious bodily injury.

PC 59.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person

is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect

land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances

as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be

justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to

protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes

attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the

tangible

movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or

property;

(6) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or prop

erty; or

© the third person whose land or property he uses force or

deadly force to protect is the actoh spouse, parent, or child, resides

with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

[ghaverkamp]

Read this and call me back. If you don't think it is the wild west, come live here a while.

...

Definetly read 1B...

 

I'd already read it.

 

Being able to use force at nighttime under a finite set of conditions is a bit different from a blanket statement that deadly force is legal to protect property.

 

One that made the national scene was a man who was robbed, the perps were clear of his property, running down the street to get away. He called 911 and told them he was going to kill them. He chased them down and killed them..clearly outside any code I would live by. I can't imagine shooting someone over a material possession...He was no-billed.

 

Actually, he shot two people in the middle of the day who never entered his house or yard, and who were in the neighbors' yard, which seems a pretty clear violation of the Texas law, which is no doubt why it went to a grand jury. If the burglars hadn't been illegal immigrants, and they'd had a grand jury of Austin residents instead of Houston residents, it might have been different.

[vizhip]

What's reasonable in defense of Billy might not be reasonable in defense of Bob.

 

Also be aware that different states have different laws...

 

For example... in GA, if the felon sees two folks with guns and turns to flee, he no longer presents a death threat to either person and thus neither have the right to shoot at the felon any more, even if one or both of the pursuers are officers of the law...

 

However... if the felon makes the mistake of pointing his gun back your way while fleeing... then you may dispatch him with due prejudice as you or the other pursuer are in a life threatening situation...

 

Another thing they take into account is the distance... ie... if someone is plunking away at you with a low powered .22 caliber... and you are standing out of the range of their pistol, but happen to have a 30-06 hunting rifle in your hands, you cannot shoot at them until they get within range to where they could hit you...

 

Also note that your carry concealed permit may only apply to the state where you obtained it... Typically the laws of other states do not allow you to carry across the state lines...

 

That does not prevent you from obtaining multiple state permits for people that travel often...

 

What that does mean is that you need to review the laws of the states you travel to learn where you may carry (most states have restrictions on where you may carry concealed) and how you may use deadly force... or even harmful force...

 

It is better to do your homework ahead of time rather than stand before a judge and hope the statement of "that is not how it works in my state, thus I didn't know it was different in this state." carries a little leniency in your case... but don't count on it...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[Lawman]

 

It is better to do your homework ahead of time

 

For the last ten years my use of force guide has been the Texas Penal Code..Twenty four years prior to that my guide was the policy of the Houston Police Dept. During my tenure there the use of deadly force policy must have changed at least 10 times..I never bothered to even read it much less commit it to memory. When put in the position of needing to use deadly force the last thing I want to be thinking about is some policy or law.

[steve.foote]

Another thing they take into account is the distance... ie... if someone is plunking away at you with a low powered .22 caliber... and you are standing out of the range of their pistol, but happen to have a 30-06 hunting rifle in your hands, you cannot shoot at them until they get within range to where they could hit you...

 

I'd like to see a reference for this. It's been a decade, but I've been all over the parts of GA code which apply to CCW. I've never seen anything related to this. Can you find the code?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

[Twisties]

Another thing they take into account is the distance... ie... if someone is plunking away at you with a low powered .22 caliber... and you are standing out of the range of their pistol, but happen to have a 30-06 hunting rifle in your hands, you cannot shoot at them until they get within range to where they could hit you...

 

I'd like to see a reference for this. It's been a decade, but I've been all over the parts of GA code which apply to CCW. I've never seen anything related to this. Can you find the code?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

Your code doesn't contain a "necessity" clause, or similar wording? Generally even in self defense/castle defense laws there needs to be necessity.

[Boone60]

 

It is better to do your homework ahead of time

 

For the last ten years my use of force guide has been the Texas Penal Code..Twenty four years prior to that my guide was the policy of the Houston Police Dept. During my tenure there the use of deadly force policy must have changed at least 10 times..I never bothered to even read it much less commit it to memory. When put in the position of needing to use deadly force the last thing I want to be thinking about is some policy or law.

 

If I'm riding through Texas, and I see one of your officers down in a lonesome fight. I'll be stopping to help, even though I will not be CCW.

 

Every year where I work, the use of force policy is read to us, then we have to take a test and sign a statement stating that we fully understand the policy.

 

 

[vizhip]

I'd like to see a reference for this. It's been a decade, but I've been all over the parts of GA code which apply to CCW. I've never seen anything related to this. Can you find the code?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

Steve -

 

A co-worker just finished taking the course and enlightened me to this... seems to be a change within the past few years...

 

When he returns from vacation, I will see if I can obtain the exact code information and pass it on...

 

Regards -

-Bob

[vizhip]

Steve -

 

It appears it all depends on the interpretation of the law... I decided not to wait on my co-worker, but to research it myself...

 

If this is indeed the code he was given in the course, then it would be how they interpret paragraph b, subsection 3...

 

Of course, knowing my luck, I probably missed it again... and will have to wait on his return...

 

Regards -

-Bob

 

 

 

O.C.G.A. � 16-3-21

Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution

 

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

 

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

 

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

 

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

 

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

 

© Any rule, regulation, or policy of any agency of the state or any ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, or policy of any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state which is in conflict with this Code section shall be null, void, and of no force and effect.

 

(d) In a prosecution for murder or manslaughter, if a defendant raises as a defense a justification provided by subsection (a) of this Code section, the defendant, in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that the use of force or deadly force was immediately necessary, may be permitted to offer:

 

(1) Relevant evidence that the defendant had been the victim of acts of family violence or child abuse committed by the deceased, as such acts are described in Code Sections 19-13-1 and 19-15-1, respectively; and

 

(2) Relevant expert testimony regarding the condition of the mind of the defendant at the time of the offense, including those relevant facts and circumstances relating to the family violence or child abuse that are the bases of the expert's opinion.

 

 

 

 

[Svensk]

This sad story occurred not far from this year's UnRally a couple of years ago.

 

A passerby shot and killed a motorist who had just shot and run over a local police officer. The passerby was subsequently exonerated.

 

http://www.wmur.com/news/13309049/detail.html

[tallman]

Another thing they take into account is the distance... ie... if someone is plunking away at you with a low powered .22 caliber... and you are standing out of the range of their pistol, but happen to have a 30-06 hunting rifle in your hands, you cannot shoot at them until they get within range to where they could hit you...

 

I'd like to see a reference for this. It's been a decade, but I've been all over the parts of GA code which apply to CCW. I've never seen anything related to this. Can you find the code?

 

Thanks,

 

Steve

 

I don't think you have to be an expert in ballistics before protecting yourself.

 

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

 

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

 

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

 

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

 

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

[Huzband]

I asked the question only out of curiosity of the laws in any state from which I'd get a response.

 

For me it strictly comes down to the situation. Given a stressful situation, one is not going to spend an inordinate amout of time considering laws, details, possible consequences, etc.

 

I'll protect the cop or citizen, then take my chances with the court. If I've saved a life, I'm justified in my own mind.