Police procedure question (self defense)

[sassnetguy50]

I'm looking to buy a Volquartsen and search Carroll IA where they're made.  This news article pops up from a 2021 stop.  The officer involved is alive and broke his back.

 

If you're standing in front of a car which takes off, trying to run you down.  You jump up, landing on the hood.  At what point is it self defense to shoot the driver who is using the car as a deadly weapon?  Is there a point where it is no longer considered self defense/defense of the public to shoot the assailant? IE: when you go from the hood to the roof or to the trunk or into the ditch as the car speeds into town.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/car-chase-video-shows-iowa-officer-clinging-to-hood-of-suspects-car/ar-AA1bk2oE

 

 

[sassnetguy50]

In this video the officer steps onto the car but my question is if the car comes at you and you had no other option.  Eliminating the question of should you have been on the car.

[LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L]

At the point that the offender is intentionally trying to, or through grave indifference to human life, endangers your life and has to be stopped from doing so.  

 

Ability.  Opportunity.  Jeopardy.   The offender has to have the ability to harm you.  He has to have the opportunity to harm you.  He has to be placing you in jeopardy of harm, or making you think you are in harm's way.  Once those three are met, it's game on.  Example.  He has an operable vehicle.  You are in the path of his vehicle.  He accelerates the vehicle towards you when he could have surrendered, or reversed away from you.  

[Sedalia Dave]

Unfortunately in today's world it depends on the DA and their political leanings.

[Alpo]

2 hours ago, LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L said:

Example.  He has an operable vehicle.  You are in the path of his vehicle.  He accelerates the vehicle towards you when he could have surrendered, or reversed away from you.  

But - you jump out of the way, and as he is driving on down the road you pull your gun and shoot at him a few times.

 

It seems awfully fair to me. He tried to kill me with a car, and I am defending myself with a gun.

 

But if he is driving away, would that mean he has broken off the attack, and if I shoot at him I am now the aggressor?

 

With some of the people on the roads today, I've thought about this one several times.

 

Often I have been almost struck by a car thatWHERE the driver is lighting a cigarette or eating a hamburger or combing his hair or changing the radio station or picking his nose - or doing something besides paying attention to what's in the road. But there's a few times, the way the car acts, didTHAT it appears that he is intentionally trying to hit me. I have had to jump off of the road, dragging the dog by her neck, to avoid being hit. And several times I thought about shooting at them as they drive off. Have not done it, but I have thought about it.

 

And don't tell me I should not be in the road. If you have a nice residential neighborhood, with sidewalks, certainly walk on the sidewalk. But if you have a normal residential neighborhood, your choices are walking the edge of the road or walk in someone's yard. And frequently walking in people's yards gets them upset with you.

Edited May 18 by Alpo

[Muleshoe Bill SASS #67022]

Depends on what the particular state laws are on deadly force.

[Subdeacon Joe]

39 minutes ago, Alpo said:

But if he is driving away, would that mean he has broken off the attack, and if I shoot at him I am now the aggressor?

 

I think it depends on circumstances.  On the face of it, exactly as you stated, with no other considerations, he has broken off the attack and is no longer a threat so shooting at him as he drives away would be uncalled for.

 

That said, if he had been driving, shooting at people from his car, using his car as a weapon to injure or kill others, then it might be justified, although there is a high probability of it being seen as reckless endangerment to others.  

 

40 minutes ago, Alpo said:

With some of the people on the roads today, I've thought about this one several times.

 

Stupidity isn't intent.  

 

[LawMan Mark, SASS #57095L]

57 minutes ago, Alpo said:

But - you jump out of the way, and as he is driving on down the road you pull your gun and shoot at him a few times.

 

It seems awfully fair to me. He tried to kill me with a car, and I am defending myself with a gun.

 

But if he is driving away, would that mean he has broken off the attack, and if I shoot at him I am now the aggressor?

 

With some of the people on the roads today, I've thought about this one several times.

 

Often I have been almost struck by a car thatWHERE the driver is lighting a cigarette or eating a hamburger or combing his hair or changing the radio station or picking his nose - or doing something besides paying attention to what's in the road. But there's a few times, the way the car acts, didTHAT it appears that he is intentionally trying to hit me. I have had to jump off of the road, dragging the dog by her neck, to avoid being hit. And several times I thought about shooting at them as they drive off. Have not done it, but I have thought about it.

 

And don't tell me I should not be in the road. If you have a nice residential neighborhood, with sidewalks, certainly walk on the sidewalk. But if you have a normal residential neighborhood, your choices are walking the edge of the road or walk in someone's yard. And frequently walking in people's yards gets them upset with you.

If you shoot after you are not in danger, you are committing an assault with intent to kill.  You can only use self defense to stop the unlawful use of force.  Not to play catch up.

 

[Alpo]

Doesn't really matter whether he intended to run over me or not. I'm still laying on the ground battered, bruised and bleeding while he drives off down the road still playing with his touch screen.

 

 

I remember a discussion similar to this a few years ago. You remember those thugs that were running up behind people at the bus stop, punching them in the head and then running off.

 

The opinion of the cops on this board seemed to be that since he was now running away, he had broken off the attack, and if the victim retaliated, or if a witness decided to retaliate, they were the aggressor. And the poor little thug was the victim.

 

The laws in this country have gone to hell.

[Henry T Harrison]

Lesson #1 from the police academy and the department manual Never shoot at a moving vehicle.  All you are doing is turning it into an unguided missile 

[Subdeacon Joe]

40 minutes ago, Alpo said:

I remember a discussion similar to this a few years ago. You remember those thugs that were running up behind people at the bus stop, punching them in the head and then running off.

 

40 minutes ago, Alpo said:

Doesn't really matter whether he intended to run over me or not. I'm still laying on the ground battered, bruised and bleeding while he drives off down the road still playing with his touch screen.

The difference is in the intent.  In the first case the thugs are TRYING to injure people just for fun.  In the second case the idjit is being stupid and inattentive.  HUGE difference.  If I am in a hurry, don't see you while I'm walking, bump into you and knock you down that's stupidity on my part.  If I see you coming and give you a forearm shiver, break your ribs and knock you to the ground that is battery.

 

40 minutes ago, Alpo said:

The opinion of the cops on this board seemed to be that since he was now running away, he had broken off the attack, and if the victim retaliated, or if a witness decided to retaliate, they were the aggressor. And the poor little thug was the victim.

 

 

As I recall it, there was a split opinion on that, again, depending on circumstances. If there are other people around, and there is a reasonable belief that the little thugs pose a direct and immediate threat to others, then it may be justified.  If there is no threat to others, it isn't.

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

Did he look like a bad guy? Shoot 'im. Was he driving in the wrong lane? Shoot 'im. Is the car ugly? Shoot 'im. Was he eating Skittles? Shoot 'im. Got some new ammo to test out? Shoot 'im. Doesn't know who Merle Haggard is? Shoot 'im twice.

[Gracos Kid]

55 minutes ago, Alpo said:

The laws in this country have gone to hell.

In Georgia, if you break into a vehicle and don't even find anything to steal, you have still committed a felony.  However, if you steal the vehicle itself, as long as it is valued at less than $1500, it is merely a misdemeanor.   Go figure......

[Dantankerous]

 Plenty of cases where police have shot a fleeing suspect in the back because they could articulate they believed he was going to continue to be a danger to others. I don't see any difference if a law enforcement officer is not personally in danger of said moving car but can articulate he thought the danger still existed to others and the driver needed to be stopped.

 

But as already mentioned a lot depends on the district attorney. A Democrat Soros backed district attorney will quickly vilify law enforcement and make a victim out of the criminal. Anti 2nd amendment democrats like to do this to move up the perceived democrat ladder of success.

 

Edited May 18 by Dantankerous

[Subdeacon Joe]

57 minutes ago, Alpo said:

The laws in this country have gone to hell.

 

In some ways,yes, in some ways no.   Many of the laws are to protect us from the kind of BS Oakie posted just above.  And the laws pertaining to law enforcement officers and the use of force are there to protect us from the terrible power of the State.  You know, the protections we are guaranteed by the Constitution.  People rail about "Oh!  The laws protect the criminal more than the victim!"  Well, the victim isn't being held and put on trial by the State.  I want every protection that can be wrung out of the Constitution.  I want every impediment, every roadblock, every hindrance to that power.  If you are never put on trial, of course "the laws don't protect" you because you don't need those protections. Like a fire extinguisher - you want to have it but pray you never need it.  But if you do need it you want it right there for you.  

[Subdeacon Joe]

2 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

Plenty of cases where police have shot a fleeing suspect in the back because they could articulate they believed he was going to continue to be a danger to others.

 

A few years ago, after an officer shot an armed and fleeing suspect in the back and cause a national uproar because of it, there was a meme out showing a guy obviously running away, but his upper body was partially turned and he had extended his arm, gun in hand, toward the camera, and the caption on it was, "Do you think he isn't a threat?"  or something like that.  Regardless, it illustrated that even a person running away can still be a threat to someone following him.  

[Dantankerous]

Cops wearing cameras has changed things... mostly for better protecting the officers by showing the small details often missed until reviewed. 

 

Cameras can and have shown us the unrelenting garbage cops have to deal with constantly.

[Subdeacon Joe]

4 minutes ago, Dantankerous said:

Cops wearing cameras has changed things... mostly for better protecting the officers by showing the small details often missed until reviewed. 

 

Cameras can and have shown us the unrelenting garbage cops have to deal with constantly.

 

That's why, after so many years of demanding body cameras for police to "hold police accountable" the ACLU and a certain "community" changed their tunes and started saying that body cameras are "an invasion of privacy."  All too often they show that the heavily edited clip that they posted on Youtube was only the last part and the officer was justified in the use of force.
I can't find them now on Youtube, but there were a pair of dashcam videos posted.  One shows an officer getting out of his car and shooing someone who was walking away from him.  That's the one that got the most air time on the evening news. The other one, from a different camera shows the person who became shot calmly walking along shooting a pistol at people and cars in the parking lot, ignoring cops yelling at him to put the gun down.   Of course, that got almost no air time.
 

[Dantankerous]

SDJ,

 

Exactly.

 

 

[Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381]

3 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

Cops wearing cameras has changed things... mostly for better protecting the officers by showing the small details often missed until reviewed. 

 

Cameras can and have shown us the unrelenting garbage cops have to deal with constantly.

 

You couldn't pay me enough to be a LEO in today's world. Hat's off to those who take the abuse.

[El Chapo]

Ultimately it's up to the jury to decide whether any use of force in self defense is reasonable. 

 

The police have a broader privilege to use force than self defense would allow.  I'm not sure if your question is limited only to law enforcement or the general public, but the police have a broader ability to use force because they have a duty to place people in custody.

 

  

4 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

A few years ago, after an officer shot an armed and fleeing suspect in the back and cause a national uproar because of it, there was a meme out showing a guy obviously running away, but his upper body was partially turned and he had extended his arm, gun in hand, toward the camera, and the caption on it was, "Do you think he isn't a threat?"  or something like that.  Regardless, it illustrated that even a person running away can still be a threat to someone following him.  

 

They can also be a threat to the general public.  That's why the police will run people off the road if they're fleeing from the police, or shoot into their car to stop them.  In the hierarchy of life value, innocent life ranks above all else, even the officers.

Edited May 18 by El Chapo

[Guest BigBelle]

Don't he should be on the hood of the car at all, This is real life not mission impossible.

[Dantankerous]

17 hours ago, El Chapo said:

Ultimately it's up to the jury to decide whether any use of force in self defense is reasonable. 

Yes, it will get to that IF the DA or a grand jury decide to bring charges. 

[El Chapo]

5 hours ago, Dantankerous said:

Yes, it will get to that IF the DA or a grand jury decide to bring charges. 

 

Yes, but if a person shoots another person, that virtually always happens unless the situation is thoroughly investigated and not reasonably in dispute as to what happened and the justification.  Obviously it differs by jurisdiction.  Some prosecutors will make the decision themselves, stare into a camera, and tell the public that they made the decision and that's the end of it.  Others are of the opinion that only our fellow citizens should make that call.  I've seen both kinds.  I prefer the former these days, a DA really should be willing to say that they're the chief law enforcement official and only they decide when it's appropriate to charge, but many DAs don't want to make the decision.

[John E. Law]

On 5/18/2023 at 2:05 PM, Okie Sawbones, SASS #77381 said:

 

You couldn't pay me enough to be a LEO in today's world. Hat's off to those who take the abuse.

28 years in and I'll say been a fun but stressful ride, but all said,  I would NOT do it again,  especially during the times we live in.

 

JEL

[One Gun Jimmy]

You know, in the case of self defence, officers or private.

 

I have a radical view I guess.

 

I believe there should be a "forfeiture of life clause"

 

Not gonna write a book to hash this out but basically  F*&k around and find out.

 

If you come at me with a car on purpose, there will be holes in your Windshield and those holes will continue to appear until the car stops coming at me or all together.

 

If I catch you in my home, your not gonna make it out and I am not giving a warning.

 

Perfect example, I saw a video of a guy trying to steal a guy's motorcycle and the rider shot him. The question posed was "is property worth his life"...Well, the thief apparently thought so and "forfeited his right to live" for it. 

 

If you go outside the realm of civil society and a person refuses to stand for it, his reaction can't be considered over reaction, it's just a reaction and the perp should have weighed the consequences. 

 

Now I know how grey of an area you can get in and obviously understand the potential for out right murder disquised as justified.

 

The point is there are way to many feelings involved with criminals.

 

If a guy breaks in my garage to steal thousands of dollars of stuff I am not letting him do it.  I'm not asking questions. I will call the police but by the time they get there the situation is handled. 

 

Growing up in the country, there were posted signs, if you went past them it was our decision if you left on your own or never left. 

 

You made YOUR decision by passing the signs. The next decision was ours.

 

It's funny tho, people new that about where I grew up, and we had very very little crime.

 

[sassnetguy50]

4 hours ago, One Gun Jimmy said:

You know, in the case of self defence, officers or private.

 

I have a radical view I guess.

 

I believe there should be a "forfeiture of life clause"

 

Not gonna write a book to hash this out but basically  F*&k around and find out.

 

If you come at me with a car on purpose, there will be holes in your Windshield and those holes will continue to appear until the car stops coming at me or all together.

 

If I catch you in my home, your not gonna make it out and I am not giving a warning.

 

Perfect example, I saw a video of a guy trying to steal a guy's motorcycle and the rider shot him. The question posed was "is property worth his life"...Well, the thief apparently thought so and "forfeited his right to live" for it. 

 

If you go outside the realm of civil society and a person refuses to stand for it, his reaction can't be considered over reaction, it's just a reaction and the perp should have weighed the consequences. 

 

Now I know how grey of an area you can get in and obviously understand the potential for out right murder disquised as justified.

 

The point is there are way to many feelings involved with criminals.

 

If a guy breaks in my garage to steal thousands of dollars of stuff I am not letting him do it.  I'm not asking questions. I will call the police but by the time they get there the situation is handled. 

 

Growing up in the country, there were posted signs, if you went past them it was our decision if you left on your own or never left. 

 

You made YOUR decision by passing the signs. The next decision was ours.

 

It's funny tho, people new that about where I grew up, and we had very very little crime.

 

See this in the news a lot and the family blaming the victim of the crime instead of the convicted felon.

[One Gun Jimmy]

3 hours ago, sassnetguy50 said:

See this in the news a lot and the family blaming the victim of the crime instead of the convicted felon.

It's rampant 

 

I don't get it.

 

3 time felon or a yet to be caught degenerant.

 

There ARE people that society would be better without. 

 

When one of them dies nobody should mourn and the family should be embarrassed they weren't raised better.

 

I know its harsh, but I'm tired of this mess.

Edited May 21 by One Gun Jimmy
Spelling

[El Chapo]

On 5/20/2023 at 9:22 AM, One Gun Jimmy said:

You know, in the case of self defence, officers or private.

 

I have a radical view I guess.

 

I believe there should be a "forfeiture of life clause"

 

Not gonna write a book to hash this out but basically  F*&k around and find out.

 

If you come at me with a car on purpose, there will be holes in your Windshield and those holes will continue to appear until the car stops coming at me or all together.

 

If I catch you in my home, your not gonna make it out and I am not giving a warning.

 

Perfect example, I saw a video of a guy trying to steal a guy's motorcycle and the rider shot him. The question posed was "is property worth his life"...Well, the thief apparently thought so and "forfeited his right to live" for it. 

 

If you go outside the realm of civil society and a person refuses to stand for it, his reaction can't be considered over reaction, it's just a reaction and the perp should have weighed the consequences. 

 

Now I know how grey of an area you can get in and obviously understand the potential for out right murder disquised as justified.

 

The point is there are way to many feelings involved with criminals.

 

If a guy breaks in my garage to steal thousands of dollars of stuff I am not letting him do it.  I'm not asking questions. I will call the police but by the time they get there the situation is handled. 

 

Growing up in the country, there were posted signs, if you went past them it was our decision if you left on your own or never left. 

 

You made YOUR decision by passing the signs. The next decision was ours.

 

It's funny tho, people new that about where I grew up, and we had very very little crime.

 

 

You might be surprised to learn there are a lot of people in prison because they did something just like that.  That's why I buy insurance instead of getting into a fight over a piece of property.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't be furious if someone took my stuff, but I can't imagine how angry I'd be to have the privilege of going to prison on top of losing my stuff.

[Eyesa Horg]

Odds are a burglar didn't file an itinerary!!

[One Gun Jimmy]

51 minutes ago, El Chapo said:

 

You might be surprised to learn there are a lot of people in prison because they did something just like that.  That's why I buy insurance instead of getting into a fight over a piece of property.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't be furious if someone took my stuff, but I can't imagine how angry I'd be to have the privilege of going to prison on top of losing my stuff.

I don't disagree, but it isn't a situation I think I can practice enough for to over ride my instinct. 

 

Hire a good lawyer and let it go.

 

It's also going to be on my to pay the increase in premium to pay for my stuff that he stole.

 

I also own some things that I can't get back.

 

Bottom line in my comment isn't really about how it is and definitely not legal advice.....but more how I think it SHOULD be.

[Badlands Bob #61228]

2 hours ago, Eyesa Horg said:

Odds are a burglar didn't file an itinerary!!

A missing person that nobody misses.

[Henry T Harrison]

20 hours ago, El Chapo said:

 

You might be surprised to learn there are a lot of people in prison because they did something just like that.  That's why I buy insurance instead of getting into a fight over a piece of property.  Doesn't mean I wouldn't be furious if someone took my stuff, but I can't imagine how angry I'd be to have the privilege of going to prison on top of losing my stuff.

In todays society doing what some are suggesting is nothing more than a ticket to bankruptcy and a life in prison. I’m not going to roll those dice 

[One Gun Jimmy]

1 hour ago, Henry T Harrison said:

In todays society doing what some are suggesting is nothing more than a ticket to bankruptcy and a life in prison. I’m not going to roll those dice 

Have to be careful when we give up the fight...

 

When things become to risky or to difficult to stand against, evil will prevail.

 

If good people lay down to criminals all hell will break lose.

 

Look at these thieves in big cities stores that have no consequences.  The brazen way they just walk in, tear a whole display off the wall and walk out, no mask, no rush, no chits to give.

 

Predators eat the prey, not because the prey are delicious,  they would eat each other in a heartbeat....its because its EASY.

 

It's very important that predators do not know there is easy prey or they WILL take it.

 

In a civilized society, there has to be either, prey that grow teeth, or predators that curve there appetite for the greater good or it will fall apart.

 

And everyone has their rules of life and engagement.  Great thing about FREEDOM.

 

Point is, I live in a fairly upity neighborhood (best schools).

 

There are plenty of democrats and woke minds.

 

All I can say is if someone comes to my neighborhood to cause chaos, not every address is equal, choose wisely. 

Edited May 26 by One Gun Jimmy

[El Chapo]

On 5/26/2023 at 2:21 PM, One Gun Jimmy said:

Have to be careful when we give up the fight...

 

When things become to risky or to difficult to stand against, evil will prevail.

 

If good people lay down to criminals all hell will break lose.

 

Look at these thieves in big cities stores that have no consequences.  The brazen way they just walk in, tear a whole display off the wall and walk out, no mask, no rush, no chits to give.

 

Predators eat the prey, not because the prey are delicious,  they would eat each other in a heartbeat....its because its EASY.

 

It's very important that predators do not know there is easy prey or they WILL take it.

 

In a civilized society, there has to be either, prey that grow teeth, or predators that curve there appetite for the greater good or it will fall apart.

 

And everyone has their rules of life and engagement.  Great thing about FREEDOM.

 

Point is, I live in a fairly upity neighborhood (best schools).

 

There are plenty of democrats and woke minds.

 

All I can say is if someone comes to my neighborhood to cause chaos, not every address is equal, choose wisely. 

A civilized society has none of those things.

 

What you describe are how animals live.