unmarked police officer claims self defense in gun killing

For the first time in 26 years, a Florida police officer is standing trial for an on-duty killing — and one of his defenses will be the state's controversial "stand your ground" law.

The trial of fired Palm Beach Gardens officer Nouman Raja begins with jury selection Thursday. He is charged with manslaughter and attempted first-degree murder for the 2015 shooting of Corey Jones. Jones, a 31-year-old black musician, had just gotten out of his broken-down SUV when he was confronted by Raja, who was dressed in plainclothes and driving an unmarked white van. The shooting happened amid several highly publicized killings of black men by police officers nationwide, some leading to prosecutions. Raja, 41, could face a life sentence if convicted.

Prosecutors say an audio recording shows Raja never identified himself. They say that caused Jones, who had a concealed-weapons permit, to pull a handgun because he feared he was being robbed. They say Raja kept firing after he saw Jones throw away his gun, and lied to investigators about it.

"Absolutely nothing about him (Raja) provided any indication that he represented a law enforcement agency," prosecutor Brian Fernandes wrote in court documents, calling Raja a "rogue officer."

Raja's attorneys argue he identified himself and feared for his life when Jones pulled his gun. They argued that Raja should be protected under the stand your ground law, which says anyone with a legitimate fear of imminent danger can use lethal force. The law also says it is up to prosecutors to prove the person’s fear was lacking or unreasonable. One exception is that the person cannot be the initial aggressor.​

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...ur-ground-defense-trial-killing-black-n976066

This brings up some thorny legal questions. Under what circumstances, exactly, should one party be legally permitted to use lethal force on another party, and how does that get affected if one of those parties are law enforcement?

And I would think the self-defense exception would not apply (or at least would not entirely apply) in cases where the person who was forced to use defensive lethal force was the one who created that situation in the first place, through their own misconduct.

What obligation should law enforcement officers be under to prevent this type of unfortunate interaction from occurring. What types of procedures should be followed? And when those procedures are not properly followed, what type of after-the-fact legal response should there be?

Suppose in this story it had been the other way around and the officer had been the one to be killed first.
Does wearing a uniform make all the difference?

 

he doesn't count as law enforcement if he did not identify himself as such and he was not in a police uniform

I think the attempted coverup and obstruction of justice after the fact says a lot about the officer if true

 

If the prosecutors can prove that Raja did not identify himself as an officer and obstructed justice, Raja will go to prison.

 

Couldn't a robber just falsely identify themselves as law enforcement?

I'm just saying, I'm not sure how that should be a factor.

 

Anyone could identify themselves as a LEO in such circumstances. It only really only matters if/when they are identified after the event -then they have to explain themselves. A criminal who falsely identified themselves as a LEO would almost certainly be charged with the relevant 'impersonate' offense in addition to any other charges.

 

The officer has a legal obligation to clearly identify themselves as a LEO, and then issue commands to the suspect to cease and desist - unless the threat of death or serious injury to himslef or another is so imminent that there is no time to do so i.e. they are not expected to stand there shouting "stop police, drop your weapon" when under fire from an assailant.

The short answer no. The uniform does not make a difference, it all come sown to the situation at the time and the actions of the person involved, police or civilian.

 

I was just reading about an incident in Peru where a backpacker had his backpack stolen by two robbers who approached him who were dressed as police. They ordered him to hand his backpack over. He did. Then they took off with all his valuables inside that backpack.

Now, if the officer didn't identify himself as police, how does that really make any difference in this situation?

 

The situation you have described above is entirely different from the one that opened this thread.

1) Apart from the loss of property no-one was harmed in this instance - i.e. there was little or no physical violence involved.
2) The offenders weren't Police, they were impersonating Police. Which is an offense in and of itself.

The wearing of a uniform ensured compliance on the part of the victim. Had the offenders worn plain cloths it is likely the victim would have resisted or at least demanded they produce ID before complying with their demands. Two on one? In most cases it would be better to hand the backpack over rather than resist. So all in all I don't see any similarities to the initial post.

 

The point is, can you blame the officer for what happened because he was not wearing a uniform?
Suppose he was wearing a uniform. Does that automatically guarantee that what happened wouldn't have happened? Would the victim who had pulled out a gun then have been in the wrong?

I just think a lot of people are being simple-minded and not fully thinking this through.

 

Bases on the facts as stated in your first post (assuming events unfolded literally as you have stated) Officer Raja made three key errors;

1) He failed to identify himself as a LEO (as required by law);
2) He continued to fire his weapon after the the threat had ceased i.e. Jones had dropped his weapon (again contrary to the law - you are permitted to shoot only until such time as the threat has ceased); and
3) He then lied about his actions when interviewed later by Police (implying knowledge of his own culpability after the event via false denials).

A lot will depend on timing i.e. how much time passed between Officer Raja confronting Jones and the shooting. If it was matter of a couple of seconds Raja's solicitor might try to argue that he (Raja) didn't have time to complete points (1) and (2) above i.e. Jones drew his weapon before Raja had time to identify himself as a Police Officer and then dropped his weapon after Raja had engaged and started shooting. (I'm assuming a volley of shots from Raja at this time in the absence of any info the contrary) with Jones then dropping his weapon as he started to fall to the ground and before Raja has time to consciously recognize the fact that the threat was gone and he could cease pulling the trigger (tunnel vision under extreme stress).

If he (Raja) had been wearing a uniform at the time of the incident (and there was reasonable visibility - again I don't know) then a lot more of the responsibility for the incident falls back on Jones. This is because in good light and depending on how far apart they were were when the engagement started he (Jones) could be reasonably expected to recognize Raja as a LEO. But Raja wasn't in uniform and it is of course unreasonable to expect any officer to be in uniform 24/7.

I hope this clears up your questions. As I said previously, I have no knowledge of the case and the above is purely hypothetical. All you can do is hope that the ensuing judicial process clarifies events.

 

Jones perceived Raja to be a threat.

Nothing indicated Raja was a police officer.

 

Which goes to point (one) above. If Raja had time to identify himself as a LEO then he had a legal obligation to do so. As I said above I don't know the case, haven't seen any reporting on the matter and only posted on the 'theory' involved in such confrontations.

Either way no-one wins out of these kind of shootings. Jone's family and friends have lost a loved one and even if he gets off Raja's career and reputation are in ruins. And if he doesn't get off then he is an ex-police officer in jail for a considerable period of time.

 

That still does not necessarily mean he was to blame for what happened.

It's also possible he might not have had time to do so.

It's possible the situation happened so fast that he did not fully have time to think about what he was doing, assuming the first few shots (while the victim was holding a gun) were justified. When officers start firing shots into people, they go into kill mode. They want to neutralize the threat, that's how they are trained. Even if the gun left the victim's hand, it's still possible it could have been grabbed again.

It would really depend on the exact time frame and the details, of which are not really available.

Also sometimes while victims are reaching for their wounds, it might appear like they could be reaching for another concealed gun.

Lying about events does not necessarily automatically mean the person was guilty of misconduct.

People who believe that are mistakenly making the assumption that someone who did not commit misconduct has nothing to worry about.​

 

Lying about events can be considered as evidence that the person was protecting himself from his action of misconduct.

 

Investigators would have looked at the timing of the exchange as critical issue from the onset. If everything happened so quickly that neither party had time to de-escalate the situation murder charges would not be applicable. Obviously they have some evidence indicating this was not an issue.

Secondarily LEO are not trained to 'shoot to kill', that is a common misconception. With the possible rare exception of police marksmen in hostage situations or C.T. operations (in some jurisdictions) there is no such thing as 'shoot to kill' there is only 'shoot at the visible centre of mass' until and only until such time as the threat to the officer's or another person's life has ceased.

Shoot to kill implies an intention to kill - this is an important legal distinction with practical outcomes. You can only shoot someone to remove the threat and as soon as that threat has passed you are legally obliged not only to cease shooting but to render all possible assistance to the injured party, criminal or not

 

Not necessarily.​

Once they start to 'shoot to kill' it's difficult for them to stop. We're probably talking about the time interval of a few seconds here.

When someone is pulling out a gun on them, they're trained to immediately stop the threat and kill.

It's the same thing. The point was they are not trying to just make a disabling shot. That would be too risky to their own life.

Immediately stopping the threat is tantamount to the same thing, in this situation.
Anything they do to try to immediately end the threat is likely to kill.

Yes but we might be talking only a matter of a few seconds.

I don't believe it's completely unreasonable that he might have mistakenly continued shooting 3 seconds after the threat was no longer still present.
If you have a legal right to shoot and kill someone and start shooting, and then 2 or 3 seconds later you don't have the right to shoot, are you going to say they should be charged with murder?

I think it does depend on the details and the exact timeframe though. ​

 

I didn't say should. The operative word is 'could' depending on what you did or did not do. Short answer is they have charged Raja with murder, not a lesser offense relating to the unintentionally or recklessly causing Jones death. They had that option and didn't take it so this means by default they must believe they have sufficient evidence (whatever it may be) to convict him of that murder.

So just wait and see what that evidence is, there's no point trying to second guess the decision. Without the facts its all just speculation.

 

Sounds like circular logic, or at least very presumptuous. "They must have adequate evidence and proper reasoning to charge him because they charged him"
That's not always the case.

Did it ever occur to you that sometimes people could get charged (and convicted) based on opinions that may not be well grounded in logical reasoning?

 

Yes, certainly it can constitute evidence. But you would not argue that that should be the only evidence needed to convict someone, would you?

People might have legitimate logical reasons to cover up an incident even if they did not actually commit a crime or wrongdoing. That's not beyond the realm of possibility. Maybe, for example, the shooting was justified but he did not follow proper police conduct and feared losing his job. That certainly could have been reason to lie.

Police officers can risk losing their jobs in situations even if there was no misconduct, and individuals can get charged and go to prison for self-defense situations even if they technically did not break the law.
That's why I feel lying, or even covering up the scene, is not absolute evidence of guilt, except as those actions may be crimes unto themselves.

 

Do not put words in others' statements, please.I

Anyone who fails to identify her/herself as a police officer and assaults me, the person assaulted has a right to defend oneself.

If the assaulter lies, that is prima facie evidence that he has done something illegal in taking another's life.

 

You keep trying to second guess Raja's action's and those of Jones - what if this happened or what about something else? Point is that's all you or anyone else can do at the moment, speculate.

To be clear I'm not taking sides, I don't think Raja is guilty, I don't think he's innocent. I simply don't have enough information yet so as to be able to form an opinion either way. And neither does you or anyone else until such time as more details about the prosecution case come to light.

BTW my logic wasn't 'circular' it a simple statement of fact. If Raja is going to trial for murder then by default investigators must have convinced the prosecutor that they have sufficient evidence to support the charge in question and that based on that evidence they have a reasonable prospect of obtaining a conviction. People are not charged based on 'logical reasoning'. They get charged based on the evidence collected by the investigating officials including, if they have them Raja's own words when questioned. They also get charged with the crime that best fits the evidence discovered during that investigation. So if Raja has been charged with murder it's not because the prosecutor just picked a charge that was within the 'ball park' of the events that (night?).

Also any lies said during a formal interview, if detected, fall under the legal definition of 'false denials' one of three forms of oral evidence that can be used against any accused (including Police officers) - the other being admissions and confessions. Lies are legally regarded as evidence of consciousness of guilt. This is not a 'feeling' as you put it but rather a long established principal of law.

As for being convicted based on poor evidence that can happen to anyone, not just Police officers. He has a lawyer, he will have jury which has to be convinced of his guilt base on the evidence (poor or not) and he has a right of appeal. And at this point you don't even know if the evidence is 'poor'!

Wait for the facts to emerge then reach a conclusion.

 

Does that right go away when the other party shouts the word "Police!" ?

 

Yeah, to a large extent, but the person better not pull a firearm.

 

All I'm saying is that I'm questioning how big a factor it was that he didn't identify himself as police because I'm not sure it would have ended up making any difference.
The only difference, from the standpoint of the man who got killed, was that here comes a potential robber claiming to be police.

 

That has happened. Criminals have gone so far as to wear a cop uniform and put lights on their cars to do it.