That is a long stretch and far fetched.
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty cut and dry.

If he couldn't see a police uniform, why do you think he would have seen a police car?

Ima sum up all of these arguments, in this and the last three similar threads, in one sentence.  

"When two men with no ill intent offer each other a threat or potential threat of lethal force in what is perceived as a defense of themselves, the life of the LEO is worth more to the legal system and treats the men accordingly, allowing the LEO to shoot and kill before the citizen."

If we wish to continue to discuss this rationally, we need to decide the parameters of the discussion.  Do we want to argue if it is "LEGAL"?  Or do we want to argue about what is morally "RIGHT"?  The root of the issue is this: "is the individual rights and liberty of the citizen more important than the safety of the government agent?"

Yes, or no?

It sounds like the citizen approached the car from the rear.  Can you see someone's uniform when approaching someone seated in their car in the dark on a traffic stop?

It's wrong to point guns at LEO's.

That's both morally and legally correct.

There are consequences for declaring your desire to kill a LEO.

When whatever argument you come up with takes those points into consideration, you let us know.

What are the 4 rules of handling firearms?

Tell me if this sounds familiar "KNOW YOUR TARGET................................."

Next, if the officer was in a CVPI, Tahoe, Charger, or Impala, with an "antenna farm" on the back, MDC, and other visible police equipment, that would be obvious to a person wtih normal eyesight under those conditions, then guess who failed?

If he was in some weird non-common police use vehicle, with no visible equipment, you might have a point about the vehicle.

What kind of vehicle was the uniformed LEO in?

Actually, there is ONE scenario that it is NOT wrong to point guns at LEOs, and that is in the case of an attempted unlawful arrest.

BESIDE that, I agree with you.

In this particular case, I can't imagine that this guy knew he was confronting a LEO in an unmarked car with his light and pistol.  I could be wrong.  Now, if the way this encounter went down gave the dead guy obvious means to figure out he was confronting a LEO, the LEO was obviously in the right.

Then again, was the LEO trespassing?  

yup

Hey, I know I can spot an unmarked car a mile away.  But not everyone can.  Some people just don't pick up on details.

Oh - the Sheriff is a dumbass.  He singlehandedly did more to create a perception of malfeasance in the investigation than anyone else with his very first move.

If you want to go around at night ready to confront ne'er-do-wells you should be able to tell the police from the criminals.

If he pointed a gun at a uniformed officer, then he is responsible for what happened.

The officer went to the business parking lot, to do a security check, on an adjacent business, at the request of that business owner...............................

Agree with your points, they are good ones.  I was more addressing those instances that fall into the grey area.  We don't know enough about how this went down.  But it sucks that a property owner who wasn't up to no good got deaded, that is my point.  Why doesn't anyone want to acknowedge how that is wrong?

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but that is not correct.  You can not resist arrest, unlawfully or otherwise.  





 

Because, if it went down that he confronted a uniformed LEO, who was in the parking lot at the request of another business owner, who's property is near the parking lot, and was confronted by an armed man who pointed a gun at the unifomred LEO. it sucks that the uniformed LEO had to use force to defend himself, when he was trying to to what another business owner had requested he do.


ETA

Some of the comments in this thread are simply silly. Unfortunately the steps that some people wnat LEO's to go to identify themselves, apparently on a continuous random basis, would only serve to make it impossible to sneak up on criminals, and make it less safe.

You are Wrong, someone with better searching skills should be able to find the court case as a cite. IIRC an Indian who shot and killed a cop who was trying to arrest him unlawfully. Court ruled you can use lethal forse against an unlawful arrest.




Roy

I didn't say "legal", I said "not wrong".  Note the difference?  The colonists resisted the British and fired upon them when they attempted to confiscate their armory - a perfectly "legal" action at the time.  I won't bust your chops too bad - I understand history is loaded with men in uniform with arms and the power of the State, who's absolute point of reference and moral refuge is ONLY "the law".  Nuremberg made that pretty apparent.

Eh, I think a lot of it is misunderstanding.  You guys don't want to go around murdering the good guys, at least I don't think.  At least most of you!

There 1-3 states that have defenses against unlawful arrest as resisting arrest.

IIRC one state's laws say that if a person doesn't resist an unlawful arrest at the time of arrest, they give up their Right to claim the arrest was unlawful.

However, in most states, the remedy for unlawful arrest, is in the Court system.

The only problem with that is that you are relying on the State to unfuck the actions of the State..........which can work IF the State is functioning in its proper place.  We are rapidly moving beyond that happy place.

Well, DA's often don't want to join idiot cops in pressing charges that are related to dubious charges.

People also have the right to an attorney to represent them, and have citizens on a Jury that decides their case.

Not to mention Civil Court, filing a lawsuit often addresses the issues you seem concerned about.

Not to mention fighting with the cops is generally a losing proposition with serious consequences.

What?

The only problem with your "Morally right" standard is that it uses 20/20 hindsight.

After the person gets shot and some background history can be done we find out that it was an old guy investigating the officer on his property etc etc etc.

At the point in time when the trigger is pulled what does the officers know?  That he is being confronted by an armed individual with unknown motives.
That officer then has mere seconds, sometimes less, to decide his course of action.

See how with 20/20 hindsight things look differently?

Where does it say the officer was seated in the vehicle?

Nobody knows where the encounter happened.

Really?

Seems like while the officer has the same rights to remain silent, he should be terminated immediately if he fails to cooperate with an after-shooting investigation, and then criminal proceedings should occur.

If the armed business owner had shot a real prowler, the armed business owner would NOT be allowed to go on vacation.


Oh wait, I forgot, Cops are always right and average folk are dirt

Yea and?

Would that excuse work if a citizen shot a prowler?

Heck, would that excuse even work if a citizen witnessed a murder?  My understanding is they'd be held as a material witness, and a judge MAY on occasion allow something like that, but in most cases no.

Actually, the article says the opposite, and it is true.  A cop is a civilian, not a military person, so he has the right to refuse to answer questions.  This may lead to him loosing his job, but then if you work at McDonalds you can loose your job for refusing to answer questions as well.

Only in the military do you lack the option of quitting, and only in the military can you be compelled to answer questions.

This is a good point, the devil is in the detains REGARDING DETECTIVES WORKING AROUND A WITNESSES SCHEDULE.  It is quite reasonable for an investigation that will take WEEKS to allow a vacation in the middle of the investigation, but not allow a person to leave 8 hours after a shooting? No.

If I shot a Cop, would you let me go take a weeks vacation because I had already paid for it?

wait, you saying this pastor was that same perp? Oh what, no?

okay then, relevance?

Point taken.  Thanks.

Translation: Shut up peasant, the Lords and Ladies can do what they want, and you don't understand because you are not a Lord or Lady.

You realize that you are contradicting the statement of the police chief who states he encourages officers to park in private parking lots because it increases visibility...that contradicts the whole 'stake-out' theory of yours.  So, when not parking in a private lot to give visibility of police presence (with an unmarked car at least) anyone with common sense would know it looks suspicious.  Similarly an officer in uniform can do things that do NOT look suspicions thanks to the uniform, but a plain cloths person doing the same thing looks suspicious.

Well its a good thing the officer in question was wearing a uniform...

As i have siad in two threads now, this one and the kid with the rifle.....



All a Cops needs to say is he FELT threathened, and it's,,,



Oh that's OK then.....



Go home safe, we'll clean up the mess..........

I wonder if the COPS understand how threatened WE FEEL when COPS waving guns around in OUR DIRECTION? If that is the formula for a cop walking I don't think they are going to like the end result of that slippery slope.

My solemn promise I will never miss jury duty or request to be relieved from it, I will set on any grand jury, criminal trial, or civil trial and I will hold the State and Law Enforcement to a higher standard than what has been established in these shooting and in the North Carolina cases.

Just for shits and grins what exactly does "unreasonable" mean?

Brian

Considering shooting someone for trespassing would make the case fairly criminal, NO you wouldn't be going on vacation.

If you are  a witness or a victim, you are free to travel.

Part in red is irrelevant.

Brian

I'm assuming those requirement are clearly spelled out in an employee handbook or policy manual, correct?

Brian

Actually, there is ONE scenario that it is NOT wrong to point guns at LEOs, and that is in the case of an attempted unlawful arrest.



I hate to be the one to burst your bubble, but that is not correct.  You can not resist arrest, unlawfully or otherwise.



 



There are SC decisions that say otherwise and they"re easy to find.

Then share........ what one state permits is not lawful in all states. I know that a few states permit an unarmed resistance.

Roy,



Post it and we can see.  I don't think the person getting arrested gets to decide if he is being unlawfully arrested.  If it is, in fact, an unlawful arrest, there are civil and criminal remedies.



I would be interested to see what this case is all about.  I doubt the Court would say someone could use lethal force to stop an arrest.  To prevent death or serious bodily harm I could see.





 

The Nazi argument...





 

Why does everyone jump to conclusions based upon initial media reports?  Threads after threads are on here bashing the media but yet when it comes to police shootings everyone believes every single word the media says.  Why not wait to find out more facts before making firm opinions?  Oh wait, that's because the police fabricate everything

Here you go.........



Your Right of Defense Against Unlawful Arrest

Source: http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm (not sure on the affiliation of these folks nor the accuracy of their citations below, hence why I'm asking / debating their merits).

Legit source?



"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting officer's life if necessary.” Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.”



"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction, and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will be no more than an involuntary manslaughter.” Housh v. People, 75 111. 491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v. Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau, 241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.



"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.



"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.



"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and battery.” (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).



"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case, the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense.” (State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).



"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without resistance.” (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).



"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In his own writings, he had admitted that ‘a situation could arise in which the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.’ There would be no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded, ‘If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by human institutions.’ That was the ‘ultimate right of all human beings in extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous injustice.’” (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.



As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable, and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the peace.” (Wharton’s Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)





Wikipedia has the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_arrest





Resisting unlawful arrest



In some instances, an individual may realize they are the target of false arrest and attempt to resist or flee. This is known as resisting unlawful arrest, and is a possible justification for such resistance where it would otherwise be a crime (i.e. resisting arrest, flight to avoid prosecution, assault, or even murder). Justification for such action is often hard to prove in court, and only justified in certain circumstances. Simple mistake of fact situations would generally not warrant attempting to elude law enforcement. However, there are some that would, such as:



* the person making the arrest never identifying themselves, causing the defendant to believe they are the target of kidnapping or robbery.

* the reasonable belief that the person making the arrest is an impersonator with the intent of victimizing the defendant.

* the reasonable belief that the defendant would be the victim of police brutality if taken into custody by that individual.



Many courts generally will not tolerate violence used in resisting an unlawful arrest, and even more rarely "deadly force," unless the police began to use violence before the defendant began to do so.



In the United States, several cases in the US Supreme Court have found that an illegal arrest is tantamount to a violent crime itself as though it were being committed by any other civilian, thereby making the right to self-defense applicable in such situations.[3]

That sums it up right there. The LEO will alwasy win in the eyes of the law...

I don't think LEOs should have another standard over a  citizen. This is just me though

Not if the LEO is above the law

Thanks for posting that Roy.  There is a lot there, so pardon me if I don't respond quickly.  





 

Try Google "unlawful arrest" There is a lot of info there and my posting skills are seriously inadequate.

flight = guilt.

Cop wouldn't avoid questioning if he didn't have anything to hide.