Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/1/2009 1:56:45 PM EST
Police involved shooting.
A K-9 cop tries to arrest someone.
He resists and the cop calls his dog.
the dog tears the guys shirt while the cop and he roll around on the ground.
The guy is able to get the cops gun and stand up.
The cop gets to his feet and backs 20 feet away as the dog goes after the guy again.
The guy strikes the dog brings the gun up and it jams.
The guy turns to run with the gun. He takes two or three steps when...
The cop draws his backup and fires 5 rounds.

Is the shooting justified?
Would it be justified if it were a civilian?
What if the guy had dropped the cops gun?
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 2:32:12 PM EST
is this a test question?
please say yes!
this is why i'm glad i'd fail the test questions to carry a badge.
for civies(sp?) it's a wrongo to fire as threat is retreating; don't know about LE.
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 2:33:44 PM EST
if he(bad guy)hurts the dog, is the dog considered LE also?
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 3:12:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:

Is the shooting justified? YES
Would it be justified if it were a civilian? NO
What if the guy had dropped the cops gun? NO

Not what I would do, but what I think a typical Texas GJ would do.
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 3:21:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2009 3:23:03 PM EST by txinvestigator]
Texas Penal Code

SUBCHAPTER E. LAW ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH.

a) A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and

(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.

(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.

(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by Subsection (c) or (d).

(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.

(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).


Be careful of all the "if" and other qualifiers.

So to answer the questions

was it a justified shooting. yes

Would it be justified if a non-LEO did it? Depends.

What if he dropped the cops gun? maybe
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 4:36:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Texas Penal Code

SUBCHAPTER E. LAW ENFORCEMENT

Sec. 9.51. ARREST AND SEARCH.

a) A peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to make or assist in making an arrest or search, or to prevent or assist in preventing escape after arrest, if:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the arrest or search is lawful or, if the arrest or search is made under a warrant, he reasonably believes the warrant is valid; and

(2) before using force, the actor manifests his purpose to arrest or search and identifies himself as a peace officer or as one acting at a peace officer's direction, unless he reasonably believes his purpose and identity are already known by or cannot reasonably be made known to the person to be arrested.

(c) A peace officer is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the peace officer reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make an arrest, or to prevent escape after arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (a) and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to the actor or another if the arrest is delayed.

(d) A person other than a peace officer acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction is justified in using deadly force against another when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to make a lawful arrest, or to prevent escape after a lawful arrest, if the use of force would have been justified under Subsection (b) and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the felony or offense against the public peace for which arrest is authorized included the use or attempted use of deadly force; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes there is a substantial risk that the person to be arrested will cause death or serious bodily injury to another if the arrest is delayed.

(e) There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force justified by Subsection (c) or (d).

(f) Nothing in this section relating to the actor's manifestation of purpose or identity shall be construed as conflicting with any other law relating to the issuance, service, and execution of an arrest or search warrant either under the laws of this state or the United States.

(g) Deadly force may only be used under the circumstances enumerated in Subsections (c) and (d).


Be careful of all the "if" and other qualifiers.

So to answer the questions

was it a justified shooting. yes

Would it be justified if a non-LEO did it? Depends. (If it was at night and the guy retained the civilian's gun as he fled, assuming this scenario was converted to a CHL'er who'd had his primary gun snatched while being attacked even without the guy attempting to shoot at him. Or he was acting in assistance of the officer, at the officer's request, in the orginal scenario.)

What if he dropped the cops gun? maybe (Wouldn't it still be justified under c.1. ?)

Wouldn't it be ^
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:30:35 PM EST
[Last Edit: 11/1/2009 5:31:51 PM EST by M4Dogg]
I think in Texas, if you "perceived" he was still an imminent threat, it is justified regardless if you are LE or not. Example, he could have turned to run and then turned and shot again. He already pointed a gun at you and even shot your dog/partner, but even if there was no dog/partner, if he pointed the gun and then took off, he is still a threat.

Do you have to shoot him (in the back)? No. It will be a LOT of hassle in court if you do though, but likely as long as you can describe with vivid detail about how you perceived those events as self-defense to stop the imminent threat, you'd likely get no-billed.

But like TXinvestigator says, it all depend, and these simple stories/scenarios lack most of the real detail which will make up that "depends" argument. Say if he had dropped the gun and turned and ran, you likely would be getting in some trouble as there is no longer an imminent threat of bodily harm.

Just another reason why it is often times better to do your own retreating until LE or other help arrives. Nobody is superman except for Clark Kent of course.

Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:32:41 PM EST
You mean CITIZEN right? LE are civilians unless they are active duty military.

I think it would be a good shoot. He took the LEOS gun and tried to shoot a LE (the dog).
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 5:42:00 PM EST
Originally Posted By Seastate:
You mean CITIZEN right? LE are civilians unless they are active duty military.

I think it would be a good shoot. He took the LEOS gun and tried to shoot a LE (the dog).


Don't think the dog is an officer.

Link Posted: 11/1/2009 6:04:15 PM EST
Originally Posted By junker46:
Originally Posted By Seastate:
You mean CITIZEN right? LE are civilians unless they are active duty military.

I think it would be a good shoot. He took the LEOS gun and tried to shoot a LE (the dog).


Don't think the dog is an officer.



They may not be an officer but there are penalties for assaulting one..

(4) a state jail felony if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by injuring a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to injure the animal; or

(5) a felony of the third degree if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by killing a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to kill the animal.


Link
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 6:06:44 PM EST
Yes
Yes - You're still in a deadly force confrontation, fear that the guy would turn and fire again can be strongly articulated. It doesn't mean you won't get a chance to explain before a jury though.
Yes - LEO dog is still a LEO and others have been charged with appropriate crimes for injury to a LEO K-9.
Link Posted: 11/1/2009 7:23:53 PM EST
It's a good shoot but the dog is not part of the equation.

The K-9 is considered a police service animal, not an LEO and is agency / city / state property and is treated as such.

There are laws regarding harm to the K-9 (see below) but K-9 handlers can not shoot someone for harming their partner.

Texas Penal Code
Sec. 38.151. INTERFERENCE WITH POLICE SERVICE ANIMALS. (a) In this section:

(1) "Area of control" includes a vehicle, trailer, kennel, pen, or yard.

(2) "Handler or rider" means a peace officer, corrections officer, or jailer who is specially trained to use a police service animal for law enforcement, corrections, prison or jail security, or investigative purposes.

(3) "Police service animal" means a dog, horse, or other domesticated animal that is specially trained for use by a handler or rider.

(b) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly:

(1) taunts, torments, or strikes a police service animal;

(2) throws an object or substance at a police service animal;

(3) interferes with or obstructs a police service animal or interferes with or obstructs the handler or rider of a police service animal in a manner that:

(A) inhibits or restricts the handler's or rider's control of the animal; or

(B) deprives the handler or rider of control of the animal;

(4) releases a police service animal from its area of control;

(5) enters the area of control of a police service animal without the effective consent of the handler or rider, including placing food or any other object or substance into that area;

(6) injures or kills a police service animal; or

(7) engages in conduct likely to injure or kill a police service animal, including administering or setting a poison, trap, or any other object or substance.

(c) An offense under this section is:

(1) a Class C misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(1);

(2) a Class B misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(2);

(3) a Class A misdemeanor if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(3), (4), or (5);

(4) except as provided by Subdivision (5), a state jail felony if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by injuring a police service animal or by engaging in conduct likely to injure the animal; or

(5) a felony of the second degree if the person commits an offense under Subsection (b)(6) or (7) by:

(A) killing a police service animal or engaging in conduct likely to kill the animal;

(B) injuring a police service animal in a manner that materially and permanently affects the ability of the animal to perform as a police service animal; or

(C) engaging in conduct likely to injure a police service animal in a manner that would materially and permanently affect the ability of the animal to perform as a police service animal.


Added by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 979, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.

Amended by:

Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1331, Sec. 5, eff. September 1, 2007
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:01:27 AM EST
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:52:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/2/2009 3:54:23 AM EST by 1IV]
You shoot him.

It is justified.

He has a gun, and given a second he can make it fire.

Do'nt give him that second. While he is in range of the small BUG you stop the threat to yourself and others.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 3:56:44 AM EST
I would smoke him without thinking twice about it.

If a criminal disarmed me and took my gun they are a threat and it would be the prosecutions job to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Going to be hard to convince a jury in Texas that an armed criminal isn't a threat.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 4:20:45 PM EST
Originally Posted By M4Dogg:
I think in Texas, if you "perceived" he was still an imminent threat, it is justified regardless if you are LE or not. Example, he could have turned to run and then turned and shot again. He already pointed a gun at you and even shot your dog/partner, but even if there was no dog/partner, if he pointed the gun and then took off, he is still a threat


Only if the non leo was operating under the direction of a LEO. For non LEOs DF is only justified when it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. There is no provision for what he may do later.

Do you have to shoot him (in the back)? No. It will be a LOT of hassle in court if you do though, but likely as long as you can describe with vivid detail about how you perceived those events as self-defense to stop the imminent threat, you'd likely get no-billed.
depends on the circumstances and if you are operating under the direction of a LEO.

But like TXinvestigator says, it all depend, and these simple stories/scenarios lack most of the real detail which will make up that "depends" argument. Say if he had dropped the gun and turned and ran, you likely would be getting in some trouble as there is no longer an imminent threat of bodily harm.
Texas law has no provision for the use of force or deadly force to prevent "imminent threat of bodilly harm"..


Link Posted: 11/2/2009 4:22:29 PM EST
Originally Posted By Seastate:
You mean CITIZEN right? LE are civilians unless they are active duty military.

I think it would be a good shoot. He took the LEOS gun and tried to shoot a LE (the dog).


Not according to the dictionary;

from merriam webster;

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b : outsider 1

— civilian adjective

Link Posted: 11/2/2009 4:24:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
I would smoke him without thinking twice about it.

If a criminal disarmed me and took my gun they are a threat and it would be the prosecutions job to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Going to be hard to convince a jury in Texas that an armed criminal isn't a threat.


You need to re-read chapter 9. None of what you wrote is correct.
Link Posted: 11/2/2009 5:11:37 PM EST
I believe I have seen the video of this... He hit the dog so hard the dog had to be put down afterwords.. the guy running was off camera.. for all we know he was still pointing the gun.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 1:52:49 AM EST
[Last Edit: 11/3/2009 2:06:31 AM EST by Ponyboy]
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By M4Dogg:
I think in Texas, if you "perceived" he was still an imminent threat, it is justified regardless if you are LE or not. Example, he could have turned to run and then turned and shot again. He already pointed a gun at you and even shot your dog/partner, but even if there was no dog/partner, if he pointed the gun and then took off, he is still a threat


Only if the non leo was operating under the direction of a LEO. For non LEOs DF is only justified when it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. There is no provision for what he may do later.



9.32.2b


Google the word "imminent" and get back to me.





Link Posted: 11/3/2009 2:08:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
I would smoke him without thinking twice about it.

If a criminal disarmed me and took my gun they are a threat and it would be the prosecutions job to prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt. Going to be hard to convince a jury in Texas that an armed criminal isn't a threat.


You need to re-read chapter 9. None of what you wrote is correct.



See above
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 4:20:01 AM EST
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By Seastate:
You mean CITIZEN right? LE are civilians unless they are active duty military.

I think it would be a good shoot. He took the LEOS gun and tried to shoot a LE (the dog).


Not according to the dictionary;

from merriam webster;

Main Entry: ci·vil·ian
Pronunciation: \sə-ˈvil-yən also -ˈvi-yən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century

1 : a specialist in Roman or modern civil law
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force b : outsider 1

— civilian adjective



Now why did you have to go and do that?
Take cover....Shitstorm approaching...

Link Posted: 11/3/2009 5:48:54 AM EST
Originally Posted By Ponyboy:
Originally Posted By txinvestigator:
Originally Posted By M4Dogg:
I think in Texas, if you "perceived" he was still an imminent threat, it is justified regardless if you are LE or not. Example, he could have turned to run and then turned and shot again. He already pointed a gun at you and even shot your dog/partner, but even if there was no dog/partner, if he pointed the gun and then took off, he is still a threat


Only if the non leo was operating under the direction of a LEO. For non LEOs DF is only justified when it is immediately necessary to prevent the others use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force. There is no provision for what he may do later.



9.32.2b


Google the word "imminent" and get back to me.







Read the rest of it. Then get back to me.
Link Posted: 11/3/2009 8:39:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By BiteDog:
It's a good shoot but the dog is not part of the equation.

The K-9 is considered a police service animal, not an LEO and is agency / city / state property and is treated as such.



Which is the way it should be, and from what i can tell, is the way the law is written.


A dog or horse are animals, not human. It is a little insulting for people to want to place Police Officer's on the same level as animals.


Link Posted: 11/3/2009 9:38:19 AM EST
Originally Posted By TinLeg:

Originally Posted By BiteDog:
It's a good shoot but the dog is not part of the equation.

The K-9 is considered a police service animal, not an LEO and is agency / city / state property and is treated as such.



Which is the way it should be, and from what i can tell, is the way the law is written.


A dog or horse are animals, not human. It is a little insulting for people to want to place Police Officer's on the same level as animals.




Agreed. But I'm a little partial to our furry partners.

I'm just glad they have their own set of laws to protect them. Not all states do.
Top Top