What if this were an "ordinary" citizen?

[kludge]

Would the shooting still be justified?

I'm guessing not. Continuing to shoot after the threat is clearly gone?

Hamilton Police shooting video

Jury said cop was justified. Do LEOs have justification for a fleeing felon in Indiana? Anyone know what the Indiana case law is on this type of stuff?

NO COP BASHING! Lets' talk about actual laws and cases.

 

[00BlasterResto]

The circumstances of this case make it an apples vs oranges sort of thing.
An "ordinary" citizen would not be on a traffic stop and approaching a vehicle, the perp was not just randomly attacking someone, he didn't want to go to jail.
I guess the best way to go with this would be "was this justified".
I feel that it was.
The officer started shooting just as the vehicle begins to move, at that point the officer was fighting for his life. The officer was clearly not prepared for a gun fight, considering he had a flash light in his gun hand. By the time he got his gun out, he would have had a hard time knowing if the perp was fleeing in the vehicle or getting out to finish him. I think that the officer was shooting in the general direction of his attacker to fend him off. The attacker had after all just attempted to shoot him in the face and when the gun jammed, the attacker cleared it and tried to shoot him again.
at that point the officer would have had to be in panic mode, fighting for his life. This all happened in a matter of moments andI think that with that kind of adrenaline it may have even been hard to tell that the vehicle was moveing. Add that to the fact that the man seamed determined to kill the officer, who knows if the man may have circled around and either tried to shoot the officer again or run him over with the large SUV.
I guess my thought on it is that it happened very fast and the officer was fighting for his life. The crook engaged in a firefight with the officer and I do not think that the officer had the duty to retreat.
-Something to that affect-

 

[E5RANGER375]

well i think the cop was justified too. he had just been (attempted to be) shot at and who knows if someone else was in the back maybe getting ready to shoot back. its pretty sad that most people who like to judge others that have been in a shooting have never experienced anything close to it. you have to train your body to not shut down from the adrenaline dump. The self control this cop had and the precision of his shots are actually very impressive by any standard. I would give him a gold ****ing medal not send him to jail. I cant believe we are talking about this.
the guy was a dirty criminal. is one more tax dollar being used on him even worth the waste? I say no.

 

[mrjarrell]

The guy shot at him. I don't see how this isn't justified. If someone shot at me I'd return fire.

Someone ever tries to kill you, you try to kill 'em right back!

Malcolm Reynolds

 

[eatsnopaste]

I think you picked a very poor example for your question. This shoot looks like the epitome of why we give police the right to use and carry a gun...to protect us and themselves from people who would do others harm.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Dupe

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...ng_stop_video_thank_god_for_malfunctions.html


IBTL

^^^ That was for spasmo

 

[kludge]

OK, I know that an ordinary person is not going to be making traffic stops, I didn't think that would even come up, but whatever, I'll restate the question to make it more clear...

Base your responses on Indiana law/cases. Here are the situations:

CASE 1: (choose your own scenario, but not at your dwelling) An aggressor fires on an ordinary citizen who draws and returns fire, the citizen is fortunately not hit. The aggressor flees either on foot or in a car. The ordinary citizen continues to fire at the aggressor, emptying his magazine, while the aggressor is fleeing.

Video evidence is presented at trial that clearly shows the citizen initially acts in self defense, and also however shows the citizen emptying his magazine after the aggressor is fleeing/has fled. The aggressor dies from gunshot wound(s).

How would it go for our Ordinary Citizen?

CASE 2) An Indiana LEO in an identical situation as depicted in the video. Video evidence clearly shows the LEO initially acting in self defense, and clearly shows the LEO continuing to shoot at the aggressor as he flees/has fled.

How does it go for the LEO? What cases to we have for LEO firing on fleeing felons?

 

[kludge]

Dupe

Video is a dup. Question is not.

 

[rich8483]

well im not a lawyer or layer as the case may be on CSI nor did i sleep at a holiday inn express so i dont know how to even begin to look up case law.

i will tell you, if i was on the jury, LEO or "civilian" i would render it justified.

you cannot without a doubt see through the vehicle to see if the threat has ended. so to me for the threat to have ended.

1 man has to be dead or
2 gun thrown out window or
3 vehicle and man have to be out of fireing line, out of sight over the horizen.

and, since this IS an LEO and you cannot get away from that fact. if it were 2 or 3. he would then have to call back up and persure the assailent. or if he had information already, track him down later.

 

[Hoosierdood]

Video is a dup. Question is not.

Ok, then to answer your question, then...

You cannot compare the duty of a police officer to that of a "normal" citizen. I have never had t do a traffic stop. I have never approached a drivers window and found a gun pointed at my face. This situation would never come up in a "normal" citizen's routine.

As far as case law goes, I would have the same argument. Since this is not normal in an ordinary citizen's life, I would have to say that there is no case law to substantiate it.

Here is Indiana Law on the subject (emphasis added)

IC 35-41-3-3
Use of force relating to arrest or escape
Sec. 3. (a) A person other than a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force against another person to effect an arrest or prevent the other person's escape if:
(1) a felony has been committed; and
(2) there is probable cause to believe the other person committed that felony.
However, such a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under section 2 of this chapter.
(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(c) A law enforcement officer making an arrest under an invalid warrant is justified in using force as if the warrant was valid, unless the officer knows that the warrant is invalid.
(d) A law enforcement officer who has an arrested person in custody is justified in using the same force to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody that the officer would be justified in using if the officer was arresting that person. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that deadly force is necessary to prevent the escape from custody of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.
(e) A guard or other official in a penal facility or a law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, if the officer has probable cause to believe that the force is necessary to prevent the escape of a person who is detained in the penal facility.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (b), (d), or (e), a law enforcement officer who is a defendant in a criminal prosecution has the same right as a person who is not a law enforcement officer to assert self-defense under IC 35-41-3-2.

The only thing that I see the officer may have done wrong legally under this section is that he did not say "Stop! Or I'll shoot!" I say it is justified under Indiana Law.

 

[Denny347]

We can shoot a fleeing felon if the threat of him getting away poses a significant threat of harm (deadly) to the general public.

Would the shooting still be justified?

I'm guessing not. Continuing to shoot after the threat is clearly gone?

Hamilton Police shooting video

Jury said cop was justified. Do LEOs have justification for a fleeing felon in Indiana? Anyone know what the Indiana case law is on this type of stuff?

NO COP BASHING! Lets' talk about actual laws and cases.

 

[rich8483]

We can shoot a fleeing felon if the threat of him getting away poses a significant threat of harm (deadly) to the general public.

dont be all "thinkin" and stuff

 

[rbrthenderson]

We can shoot a fleeing felon if the threat of him getting away poses a significant threat of harm (deadly) to the general public.

This was what I was going to say. The officer's priority is to keep himself safe and the public safe. He knew the man was armed and was willing to use the weapon. I would say it was his duty to stop the threat.

 

[Hoosierdood]

dont be all "thinkin" and stuff

Actually, the law requires us to "think" before we shoot. This is no different for a police officer. Throughout the law the term "reasonable person" can be found. This indicates that a "reasonable person" would need to process the information given to him, and make a decision based solely on that information.


Hypothetical example: A man breaks into your house. You feel threatened with bodily harm, and protect yourself by shooting him. Afterwards, it is discovered that he had no weapon, and was homeless. He was just trying to find some food. A reasonable person could only go by what they knew at the time. They felt their life was in danger, so they are justified. (I know, the castle doctrine negates this situation, but bear with me)


The LEO did not stop and ask the guy what his intentions were. He didn't ask him where he was headed. The guy had a gun and was not afraid to shoot at a LEO. He may have been headed to his girlfriend's house to murder her because they got in a fight. Why did he have the gun in the first place.

You see, "THOUGHTS" have a lot to do with it, and LEO's are given a greater responsibility to use their discernment in these situations. He obviously felt that this man was a threat, and would possibly pose a threat to others after he fled. According to Indiana Law, he is justified.

 

[kludge]

We can shoot a fleeing felon if the threat of him getting away poses a significant threat of harm (deadly) to the general public.

Would that also be an affirmative defense?

 

[Denny347]

Would that also be an affirmative defense?

Could be if it got that far. However, this is something that should be plainly obvious at the scene. Not somehting that would only be raised in court.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

For the officer under Indiana law, I believe this would be well justified:

Indiana Code 35-41-3-3

(b) A law enforcement officer is justified in using reasonable force if the officer reasonably believes that the force is necessary to effect a lawful arrest. However, an officer is justified in using deadly force only if the officer:
(1) has probable cause to believe that that deadly force is necessary:
(A) to prevent the commission of a forcible felony; or
(B) to effect an arrest of a person who the officer has probable cause to believe poses a threat of serious bodily
injury to the officer or a third person; and
(2) has given a warning, if feasible, to the person against whom the deadly force is to be used.

The officer, who thankfully survivied having a pistol shoved in his nariz, had reason to believe that the motorist posed a threat to himself or third persons.

For a non-LEO perhaps if you were coming out of the mall or grocery and found somone in your car who was in your vehicle and then stuck a pistol in your nose like the poor officer, then look to:

IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
(1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person:
(1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Would that also be an affirmative defense?

The defense has to bring it up and then the state has to disproved it beyond a reasonable doubt.