unmarked police officer claims self defense in gun killing

Why did he approach him in the first place, did I miss that part or was it in the OP?

 

cops are required to identify themselves as law enforcement, anyone could put flashing lights on their car too, but you better stop if one comes up behind you

 

He probably suspected him of something, and was going to search him or check his identity.

It's not in the story and they probably don't really know. (And even if the officer did tell them, it's possible he could be lying about that too to make his situation look better)

 

I suppose the question is in what situation should individuals be legally permitted to use defensive actions, and what the proper etiquette (on both sides) should be in those interactions.

The fact that this was single officer ties into the equation because the man had more reason to suspect it might not have been a real officer, and had more reason to believe taking self-defense would be effective in that situation.
That's why they almost always put officers in pairs when they are approaching someone (for something potentially serious that's not just a traffic violation).

In fact, I could see an argument that approaching the situation without a partner was one of the factors in creating the confrontation.

 

If he was approaching him in official capacity as a police officer, he would have had to notify someone.

 

Self defense against police officers has been successfully used in the past.

https://www.theeagle.com/news/local...cle_549b0586-cefc-53a2-bd34-80a8f07816b4.html

 

Not that it's a good idea in the vast majority of situations. (Or even in cases where the other person is not police)

There's a difference between legally permissible and a good idea.
Something could be legally permissible but still give another person the legal right to kill you.

 

It's a valid defense to be in fear for your life, even if it's a police officer.

The trick is, you can't be committing a crime at the time you claim self defense, or be the aggressor.

This is why I'm firmly against no-knock warrants. Someone is going to die.

 

There probably have been cases where police have planted evidence or made false testimony to make it look like there was a crime, when they were not happy about one of their own being killed.

There are some rare cases where no-knock warrants are justified, but they can potentially lead to very dangerous confrontations that didn't need to happen.

 

If it is not a factor, then what would be your defense in this case?? How exactly would you plead that defense? Which words would you use to, validate, how that is not a factor? I'd love to know.

 

I'm just saying what justice should be, not what would actually happen. There's a whole delicate and subtle etiquette that would apply to an interaction in such situations, which I am not going to get into here, and I doubt many people have ever thought about.
(will not elaborate further since that will take this discussion far off-topic)

Examining this from a logical perspective, shouting out "Police!" is not adequate enough identification to believe that the suspected robber is in fact police.
Logically, the suspected robber shouting this should not have made a difference in how the man reacted.

I will not comment on whether the victim had the right to pull out a gun to protect himself, but if he had the right to do that to a suspected robber in that situation then he also would have had the right to do that to a suspected robber who claimed to be police, when there was no time to verify the claim.

 

Yes, you better since cops refuse to recognize the Fourth Amendment while the courts and right wingers always defend them in their abuses.

 

yes, but a cop can not hide behind the badge if they did not identify themselves

if a criminal does identify themselves as a cop it's an additional crime of impersonating a cop while committing a crime

 

The jury convicted the cop of murder. Bravo!

 

The findings of a judge and jury are not necessarily synonymous with legal logic.

Many people erroneously make that assumption.

I think the findings of the jury in that case are not necessarily relevant to the discussion here.
(There's no reason to necessarily assume that that the judge and jury must have gotten it right)

 

I don't believe making a poor half-hearted attempt to identify themselves (simply shouting something out) is relevant to any different treatment they should receive because they were a law enforcement officer.

I think we need to examine more closely when exactly a law enforcement officer should be treated differently by the law from an ordinary person.
Let's use some exacting and systematic logic here.​

That's pretty much irrelevant if we're talking about a crime like robbery.

 

so you think you should be able to ignore a cops orders... could get you dead, but yes, you have that right

 

you think you have to obey anyone's orders because they say they're a cop?

Yes, it could get you dead. But that could happen regardless of whether they are law enforcement or not, so not really so relevant here, is it?

I see you seem to be holding on to some extreme logical fallacies and misconceptions. You might want to step back and look at this in a more systematic way.

The law enforcement officer was supposed to follow a certain procedure (announce that he was a law enforcement officer) but, for whatever reason, he didn't. The question then becomes does that make him responsible for the death of the other man? To answer that question, you have to look at what would have happened if he had announced he was a law enforcement officer.

Do you agree with that so far?

I'm simply claiming that the victim would have had no logical reason to act differently in this situation if the law enforcement officer had announced the claim of being a law enforcement officer.

Now he might have acted differently, but that doesn't mean he had logical reason to act differently.

Are you going to hold the law enforcement officer responsible for that death because the procedure he should have but did not follow might have elicited an emotional (but illogical) reaction in the victim that would have averted him being killed?

(sorry if that's not entirely the most clear, but that's as clear as I can think of to state this)

 

I never said that, I said the cop could not hide behind his badge if he did not identify himself as a cop

"Yes, it could get you dead. But that could happen regardless of whether they are law enforcement or not, so not really so relevant here, is it?"

yes, but in my life I have never met a criminal pretending to be a cop, if it was common I would agree

when I went to PR, they told us not to stop if a cop car with light came up behind us, cause I guess it's common that they are not cops - just depends

 

Why do you necessarily believe that?

He wasn't wearing a uniform, yet presumably we both agree that isn't always required.

 

Having followed the case from the beginning, the conviction was proper.

The cop murdered an innocent man.

 

he has the same rights as anyone else if not showing a badge or identifying himself as a cop, you can't hide behind a badge if your do not identify yourself as a cop

 

I'm just questioning if this is really the case.

First, let's ask ourselves why a law enforcement officer has different types of legal rights than anyone else. Then we can go from there and try to ask ourselves whether not "identifying" himself as a law enforcement officer should have an effect on these legal rights.
To me it doesn't seem to make much of a difference in this situation.

Simply saying you're a law enforcement officer doesn't prove that you are, so I question how relevant of a factor this actually is.

People should not have to obey a law enforcement officer simply because they claim to be.

 

Yet you think it would not have been murder if only he had shouted "Law enforcement!" ?

 

because if your doing your job protecting America it's different then just some random guy doing the same thing

now I am not saying the victim is any less a victim either way, I am saying a cop doing his job is different