in625shooter
Master
- Mar 21, 2008
- 2,136
- 48
This thread is full of people who said it was a justified shooting because the militia member had a gun.
You keep saying that. So indulge me and provide in detail why one person is held to one standard and the other person is not. When, exactly, is it no longer necessary to know who/what one is shooting at?
While this is true, this wasn't legitimate self defense.
Well, when a BP agent shoots in self defense, we can discuss self defense legal nuances. Shooting at a man just because you see he has a firearm is not justifiable self defense.
No one said that they were justified just because the militia member had a rifle, there will be an investigation, However BP agents are some of the best trained so I would doubt that they did anything aginst policy. No one knows if the militia member didn't follow their orders, did he run up on them not realizing they were BP agents, the list goes on.
To many folks are fixated and think they shot at him only because of the rifle. No one here know that which the investigation will pan out.
As far as a higher standard everyone is held to pretty much the same, the difference is LEO's can be covered in the "scope of their employment" where others are not. In the case where LEO is justified at shooting a perp and hit an innocent person that in it's self is not criminal so the agency will usually cover the cost of any civil litigation as long as that Officer followed agency approved policy. A homeowner acting on his own only has himself to cover him in the same scenario. In the case of a homeowner killing a non player in their house, very few would be criminally charged.
But no matter which scenario LEO or homeowner there will be an investigation