thoughts on the equity between normal people and law enforcement in practice

Imagine two police officers knocking at your door. You open the door and then they immediately force their way into the house and arrest your husband.

Your husband is never seen or heard from ever again.

This is already the situation people are finding themselves in in parts of Mexico.

People have been abducted in broad daylight, in a public crowd of people, hauled off by 2 or 3 men dressed in police uniform. Days later the family gets a ransom letter. Sometimes families are unable to pay the ransom.

Law abiding citizens in Mexico don't have guns. There's nothing they could do even if the men were obvious criminals in black masks. But this raises an issue. If law abiding people did have guns in public places, is there anything they should, or should be allowed to do in such a situation? Once the kidnappers drag away their victim you may never see them again. Most disappearances and murders go unsolved in Mexico. Even if you see their face that doesn't necessarily help. They could be from a different part of Mexico and live in a far off town where nobody is likely to recognize them. To complicate matters, many times when the real police are making mass gang arrests most of their group wears masks, because they fear potential reprisals from the gang network.

And if a non-law enforcement officer does have legal sanction, what type of procedural etiquette should they follow? After all, you don't want to get in an accidental misunderstanding where you gun down officers making a legitimate arrest.

I don't want to complicate this too much, but let me pose another variation of this hypothetical (a more extreme one) just to stress the point.

You are inside your home, looking out the window. You see a guy walking along, and suddenly, what appears to you to be out of nowhere, two men in police uniform ambush him. One of them is carrying a gun and shoots him. It appears to be a murder. They stand around for 10 seconds and then walk away.

Do you believe there should be any legal sanction for the witness to try to stop them?

There are all sorts of variations to this hypothetical. Maybe they stand around for longer than 10 seconds, but then decide to leave before other police can respond. Perhaps they do not notice the witness peaking out through the window, or perhaps right after the murder one of them looks around and notices the witness. Maybe there could be signs that something could be amiss, like no marked police car is nearby, or there is a police car but something makes the onlooker suspect it could just be a regular car casually outfitted to resemble a police car from the outside, but they're not really sure.

Getting to the point, what these hypotheticals are trying to get at is the legal sanction of force and equity between law enforcement officers and private citizens. Some people have the perspective that whatever law enforcement officers are empowered to do, so should private citizens, in emergency situations (though they should exercise more restraint than law enforcement because of the particular circumstances). There are many other people who are of the perspective that only specially sanctioned individuals in law enforcement should be given the lawful authority to go after suspected criminals, even in the case of an immediate murder, or what looks like it could be a kidnapping. Under this latter perspective, the people's job it is to handle such things should be left to clean up the pieces after an emergency occurs. That is better than the disorder and risk of accidental death that can occur if one armed party confronts another armed party.

There was some Hollywood movie a while back where an insane criminal was disguised as a police officer and chasing an undercover police officer dressed in ordinary street attire. It was set in Texas. Another onlooker pulled out a gun and stopped the presumed criminal (really the undercover officer). "No, you don't understand!" pleaded the undercover officer as the deranged man in a police uniform was gaining ground fast approaching. "Don't you move!"

Not a very likely situation, but what this does illustrate is that a police uniform doesn't necessarily tell onlookers what's actually going on. All the more reason for any onlookers to think twice before becoming involved. And then there's the horrendous legal liability. What if the situation wasn't what it looked like? Maybe there was a good reason the men shot the other man dead and you just didn't see it. Well now, any confrontation with them could escalate in the blink of an eye. These things happen so fast people may not have time to fully think about what they are doing.

Of course police face this exact same situation. Only a lot of times they are given a free pass because they were just doing their jobs. And if an officer, by unlikely coincidence, encounters what appears to be another group of law enforcement shooting or arresting somebody, do you think he's actually going to confront them? He's most likely not going to take the personal risk. Even if he phoned in and is unable to get identification that the other party are legitimate law enforcement personnel. Better to take the tiny risk that they might be criminals carrying out an execution or kidnapping than risk getting into a gun fight with what turns out to be other law enforcement.

There is a lot to think about here. At its core is the legal rights of normal people to use force.
A little disclaimer at the end here: Of course, you should all be extremely reluctant to ever attempt to take these things into your own hands in this type of situation, the consequences could turn out to be very severe and you should probably only ever act in the most extreme situations where you have ample reason to believe assailants are not genuine law enforcement and your personal life is in immediate danger. (All this I would hope goes without saying) But this discussion is important from a theoretical perspective and a political framework about individual rights, when actually getting down to the nitty-gritty of how they translate into practice. There is much more that can be written on this but this is already a long post.

One of the things I do see that's concerning is the move to take away the right to self defense. Many of you may not realize but it goes beyond merely the taking away of weapons, there is an even more fundamental mentality at play behind it. (and that could be a topic for a different thread, but I just mentioned this so you can better see how it all goes together)

 

You are comparing one of the most corrupt nations on earth to the US. It is just silly

 

Some more thoughts on the "etiquette of a confrontation"...
feel free to provide thoughts and feedback

1. The side that has a gun pulled out first is the one that should be respected to have authority. If someone from the other side attempts to pull a gun while a gun is already pointed in their direction, the blame is all on them if they get shot.
(Obviously this is not true if one of the parties trespassed onto private property or if the confrontation takes place in a secure area)

2. If a suspected possible kidnapping is taking place and the ones making the "arrest" are being held at gun point, if the one they were trying to detain starts running off then he should be presumed to be a criminal trying to evade arrest, and by extension the ones who were trying to capture him should be immediately released to be able to chase the one trying to get away.

3. In general, if the group of one side is much larger than the other, they should be presumed to be the legitimate law enforcement.

4. In the event a killing takes place, if the group involved in the killing stays near the scene of the crime, in general they are likely to be genuine law enforcement (though that doesn't necessarily rule out that it wasn't a murder).

 

This scene from Skyfall sort of epitomizes the subject of the whole thread. A terrorist bent on revenge disguises himself as police to gain entrance into a secure area. As shots ring out security are initially unsure which direction to shoot, since everyone dressed as law enforcement has their gun pulled out.



(apologies, this video is the Spanish language version, but doesn't really matter)

 

you constantly try to argue in favor of european gun laws and bans being imposed in the USA. He makes a great point. Mexico has massive gun control.

 

If the United States ever becomes a poor country and the police get paid crap then you can expect a lot of police to engage in criminal activities too.
That's not a reality that is really all that far away because there's a lot corruption in certain slum neighborhoods (Michigan, Rhode Island, the ones I'm aware of).

 

I suspect you may have started with a point you wanted to make, but your meandering post fails to convey one. The post seems to be a number of disconnected thoughts. Why not simply summarize and state your point or question so some of the more mentally challenged, like myself, might understand your OP enough to formulate a response to the point or question rather than addressing each thought in your post?

 

Localities and governments that have passed strict gun control laws also tend to believe that people have no right whatsoever to obstruct any law enforcement officer in any way.
This is the type of mentality that is appearing in schools, where a bully attacks a kid, the kid tries to get away, the bully follows and keeps on attacking and the kid tries to defend himself. Then they are both suspended, because the school did not believe the kid had the right to fight back.
But if this concept is taken to its absolute extreme it essentially turns the common people into surfs, at the complete mercy of any who would oppress or attack them, without any legal recourse written into the law.
Not only is there (often) no way to be sure if someone posing as a law enforcement officer is truly a law enforcement officer but there's also no way of verifying what they are doing is not a crime.

It turns self-reliance and people in the community attempting to protect each other into a crime.

This is the mind frame of city folk, with police around every corner and emergency response times of 4 minutes. Basically running their lives under a military authority, one could draw an analogy to a prison, in some respects. (I'm not trying to deride gun control on the streets of New York City, it may be entirely appropriate to its circumstances there)

We say one man is equal to another man, but here we have some men getting clearly absolute rights over other men in any confrontation.

Although I acknowledge that any solution out of this predicament is not likely to be a simple one, so we should be having this discussion about what the law should be.

I believe the gun control debate is multifaceted: you have protection of home, protection in public, hunting & recreational sport, guarantee against tyranny, etc. and this is one of them. An area where many people (on both sides of the debate) might not feel entirely comfortable going.

 

No worse than you comparing U.S. gun laws ti gun laws in Japn etc...

 

This is as simple as I can boil it down. There are really two elements. What are you allowed to have, and under what circumstances do you have the legal right to use it.
These two things are very much interrelated.

Look, if some good for nothing thugs murdered or tried to kidnap somebody, I'd sure like my neighbor to stop them dead in their tracks before they come around for me. If there's any possibility of catching them in the act instead of waiting around for police to try to solve the crime, which they're very often not able to do.
But in many places it would be against the law for my neighbor to be able to do that.

 

True story;

New York City;
Circa1997:
Brooklyn N.Y.
Broadway:
New Paradise restaurant:
I enjoyed eating there, Spanish food.


High crime area, someone anonymously phoned the owner and informed him thugs would arrive that night to extort protection money.

8:30 pm and a bunch of seedy looking men burst in, Juan took an old double barreled shotgun out and demanded to know what they wanted, the men opened fire and killed Juan, 3 shots of 9mm to his head and numerous shots to his torso.

It was the Tactical Narcotics Team, TNT and witnesses say no badges or Police windbreakers were worn.

The case was closed and no disciplinary action taken against the team.
Juan was still dead.

 

Thank you for that story. Which illustrates why anyone should exercise a high degree of reluctance. It is extremely hazardous (both physically and legally) for anyone (police or not) to try to take things into their own hands.

Still, there must be some situations that would warrant it.

I'm sure law enforcement officers have been mistakenly shot at or killed by other law enforcement officers before.

One aspect of this, I think there are too many laws. Any time law enforcement goes to enforce a law there is the potential for an armed confrontation and something to go wrong. So if law enforcement stuck to only enforcing the laws that absolutely needed to be enforced there would be less of these accidental killings.

reminds me of an old Ron Paul rant from 1988 against the war on drugs:
"Just the other day they walked into somebody's house—they suspected he was a drug dealer. He was using his automatic selector [TV remote control] and the police marched in, and they said "it looked like a gun", after they killed the man—in America!"

 

Well in this case, errors were made, after he was called, Juan should have called the Police, and other measures.

The T.N.T. Team should have been clearly identified, badges visible and POLICE windbreakers etc.....

Juan was set up to be assasinated.

 

Though police in his area at that time most likely wouldn't have done anything and he knew it.

Interesting thought, but no, more likely a terrible coincidence. There was a lot of crime going on in that neighborhood. Protection rackets and drugs.
Are you sure this wasn't in the late 80s ?

 

.I was an active U.C. Detective at the time, and it was indeed 1997
If he had called me at least, the outcome would have been different.

 

if I had been an AUSA in that area, those cops would be toe tag parolees if I had my way

 

Here is one for you;
A freind had an Army Navy Military surplus store in Staten Island, two men identifying themselves as Police were stopping by after hours and taking merchandise, ballistic trauma vests and other equipment.

I offered to keep watch, one night, there is a bang at the door, I am prepared, holstered sidearm, a backup, a Remington 870 in easy reach covered up , chamber hot.

Two familiar faces, one a taller young Pesci, and a cheap Deniro wannabe, I have a P.D. radio blaring Citywide D's the usual check etc....
They look me over and ask, you Midtown D's ?
I shrug,
So you here now ?
I shrug again,
O.K. we get it, this is your spot, we are otta here,
Thanks !
Bye !
They backed out the door and got into a large unmarked Chevy Caprice.....

It was hairy.

 

Fyi sheriff's in my part of south Carolina only get paid around $12 bucks an hour.

 

Mighty low pay.
Home attendants here in Oregon get $14.55 an hour to Yabble Dabble.....

Gruesome isn't it ?

 

Yet they get paid 400 grand a year (Or what ever it is) in blue states to do the same thing

 

I never heard of any Law Enforcement Agency paying that much.

 

If you are saying that Rhode Island is the same as Juarez then that is hilarious

 

So laugh

 

I will. Rhode Island? LOL

 

Why would you care ?
Big deal