Posted on 07/11/2013 5:31:39 PM PDT by Talisker
Okay, so let's say what happened to Zimmerman happened to a cop. The cop was not trying to enforce the law, he was not using professional training to surveil a suspect (I know Zimmerman was, but bear with me here, it's a thought experiment). The only thing the cop was doing was getting jumped, under exactly the same circumstances as Zimmerman was jumped.
It seems to me that the ONLY thing the cop would have to say is that he feared for his life. Right? There would be no inquiry as to whether the cop's head got beat into the pavement enough, or if it hit the grass instead. There would be no discussion about whether the cop was enough of a wimp to have to use his gun. Nothing. The only question would be whether the cop feared for his life – or even if he feared that he was going to suffer bodily injury, or even if he just was physically attacked at all. If so, then the shooting would be deemed justified, end of subject.
Right?
So why ddoesn't the same legal standard apply to a non-cop? In a case of purely self-defense for a cop, subtracting police work, what is left? The right of a human being to defend himself from injury, harm or death, right? How are these actual facts different for a non-cop under the law? What is the justification for using a different standard for basic self-defense, and why can't Zimmerman's lawyer simply say that in an identical situation, a cop would be ruled as using jusitfiable lethal force, therefore as Zimmerman did the same, he is similiarly not guilty.
And please, no cynical comments about "how the world really works." This is a legal question - I'm looking for a legal explanation of exactly why this defense argument wouldn't be allowed by a judge.
In short, why aren't the purely self-defense standards and thresholds equal for both cops and non-cops?
This happened in Cincinnati. Google Roach shooting.
End result is that police have hands off policy and
News channels have limit on black crime reporting.
Some are more equal than others.
“They always have an inquiry when a cop shoots someone.”
Cop gets a paid vacation and rarely are cops ever prosecuted. If Z was a cop this wouldn’t be happening.
However, I have noticed recently that cops now shoot dogs rather frequently. So maybe things have changed.
An attack on a cop in uniform performing his duties is a violation of law in itself, being against a police officer and usually a felony. An attack on a private citizen may be provoked, part of a mutual affray, or otherwise justified. In both instances though, self-defense may justify the use of lethal force.
A police officer is an AGENT OF THE STATE and in many cases, an officer of the court. They have received (supposedly) additional training in the use of deadly force. As such, they are often granted a greater amount of leeway from the courts.
civillians who carry are not cops. generally they do not want to be. the difference comes from that they have certain immunities doing their official duties and different powers than civillians who carry.
for one they can shoot someone for lesser reasons than fear of death or great permanent harm. they have detain and arrest powers. they have search powers. they can get into trouble if they go nuts with them, as officers are fired and arrested and tried and jailed for gross felonies, but in the general carrying out of their duties if they aren’t abusing their powers they have immunity if unintended mistakes are made, and that’s something a regular citizen doesn’t have.
They are equal in Texas and maybe more-so for non-cops.
If someone attacks you, deadly force may be used because you don't know the future - you could be dead in the future if you don't act or you could not be dead if you don't act. The problem is, you don't have the luxury of waiting to find out. You have to protect your life right then, so deadly force may be used. The attacker is responsible for his own death, not the person saving his own life.
Testimony has it that TM turned around and double backed about 100 yds to confront GZ, and no credible evidence to counter it.
“According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Garner v. Tennessee, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), a private citizen has broader authority to use deadly force under the common law than law enforcement officers.”
Thanks - I new that was the case in Washington State, but didn’t realize it was a national thing. And if Washington State one doesn’t need to be in fear for their life or in physical danger to shoot someone.
Although we’ll see how the case in Spokane works out, where the guy is being charged with shooting the car thief. Legal, as he was stopping a felony, and the police did not press charges. But the DA brought him in - similar to this Zimmerman fiasco.
That’s interesting- but isn’t the manslaughter exactly what the state has brought us to? The judge went with it.
important point is cops can shoot to wound OR shoot to kill.
civillians just shoot to stop the threat. whether the criminal’s wounded or dead isn’t a decision a civillian makes beforehand, either one is just the consequence of atopping the threat.
as a civillian you never shoot to wound or do a warning shot. in either case, if you can do either one of them, you don’t need to shoot at all.
Cops always say they feared for their life when they shoot dogs.
Here’s a question the defense should ask the jury: “If Trayvon Martin was beating Zimmerman with a chunk of concrete, would you belief Zimmerman acted in self defense? Trayvon Martin DID have a chunk of concrete. But instead of bashing Zimmerman’s head with it, he was bashing the concrete with Zimmerman’s head.”
A cop is a civilian.
A cop is an officer of the court. A cop will refer to you and me as civilians to distinguish us from them.
This trial is going to go on, and on, and on ad nauseam.
Then TM had to be pretty fast if he managed to circle the Earth in a few minutes, running barefoot across two oceans, and stumble upon GZ again.
Or TM, a football player, would have to be slower than a garden snail if a fat, short, in poor shape GZ was able to catch up with him without ever running. He was on the phone for most of that time, and he'd be unable to hide that he is running - he'd be short of breath within ten yards.
If you don't accept these two impossible scenarios, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth. And that means TM hid, then circled back and confronted GZ. There are trash cans and partitions behind houses, as seen in the walkthrough video; you could hide a small army there.
The official exoneration line for police is, “I felt threatened.”
TM did run away from GZ.
**************************
Ran to his fathers house and after chatting with his girlfriend circled back almost 500 feet to the north where GZ was to attack him. Prosecution successfully had cell phone data including Saint Trayvons text messages about prior beatdowns and tower info that would have shown his exact (plus or minus 10 yards) position at all times... withheld ... some was obliterated by “accident”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.