In this case, the cop is in the wrong, legally and rationally.
1) The cop was off-duty, acting as a security guard. This means he was *not* acting as a cop, and his authority as a security guard was *limited* to that area where he was working. Outside of that area, *unless* he observed a felony crime in progress, that he could respond to as a cop, he was under “civilian” rules.
2) He observed a group of men standing around, *not* committing any obvious felony. When he approached them, one of them took off running.
His *critical* mistake was in pursuing him out of his authorized area. At that point, legally he was on the same ground as a civilian with a gun chasing another civilian. As such, his “predator” police training failed him.
He should have called a cop.
3) A civilian with a gun chasing another civilian can *legitimately* be considered, by the chased man, as a threat to his life. “...the suspect (NOT A SUSPECT, BUT A CHASED MAN) approached the officer (THAT HE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN WAS AN OFFICER) in an “aggressive” (DEFENSIVE) manner, with a physical altercation occurring. The (CHASED) man then turned and fired three rounds at the officer before his gun jammed...”
At that point, what the chased man did was *indistinguishable* from a “stand your ground” defense.
“The Missouri Stand Your Ground law justifies the use of deadly force when victims reasonably believe their lives to be in danger, and provides them immunity from civil and criminal action.”
4) Thus, being the aggressor, even though the off-duty cop was shot at, his response of shooting back resulted in some form of criminal homicide.
You wrote:
“The cop was off-duty, acting as a security guard. This means he was *not* acting as a cop, and his authority as a security guard was *limited* to that area where he was working.”
Your statement is not true in Texas (and I suspect that Missouri is very similar because this is a common state law pattern). In Texas: A peace officer has the same authority 24/7, regardless of whether he is on duty, providing private security or just going to eat at a restaurant with his family or whatever.
In Missouri, cops are cops. 24/7. Also, Missouri has “Castle Doctrine.”
The Cop was working off duty as hired security. He is still a police officer on and off duty. A switch is not flipped because he is not at his primary job. He still has police powers off duty. All off duty security jobs are done in police uniform in this area so I am making an educated guess that this guy was also in his police uniform.
2. Approaching a group of men is allowed. See consensual contacts. Once someone takes off running, that does give rise to suspicion that an offense is or has occurred and a detention is justified.
“His *critical* mistake was in pursuing him out of his authorized area. At that point, legally he was on the same ground as a civilian with a gun chasing another civilian. As such, his “predator” police training failed him.”
This is totally incorrect. His authorized area is the city that his commission is held in. Here in Texas a Department of public Safety Officer has state wide arrest powers. City officers have arrest powers in the city they work in. ON and off duty.
“As such, his “predator” police training failed him” Not too sure what “predator” training you are referring to. Maybe this was just a “barb” or passive aggressive statement on your part.
Again, I am working here on the presumption that the Officer was in police uniform since most off duty jobs are for uniformed presence with someone that can enforce the laws. The “stand your ground” stuff will not work in this case. Did you jump the gun on the Ferguson incident also?