Winchester
Well-Known Member
Definitely not worth a life either way!
-
Help Support TNDeer:
Veteran Wildlife Officer Kills Turkey Hunter
- Thread starter FLIPPER
- Start date
easy45
Well-Known Member
FLIPPER said:
All leo's are taught to shoot to kill, you never wound somebody on purpose
medwc said:
Yep.
pathfindr92
Well-Known Member
easy45 said:
It is also illegal. It is called "malicious wounding." In a shooting situation, LE or civilian, you may only shoot to "stop the threat," which is accomplished by shooting at vital areas. As easy45 said, this is what LEOs are trained to do, and it is what is preached in self-defense classes across the country.
You will be sued (and you will lose) and possibly charged with a crime if you intentionally "shoot to wound." This also means you may not knock someone down and "finish them off" if they have been incapacitated.
So if this guy feared for his life and saw it as a "life or death" situation, he doesn't have the right to protect himself or his property from a LEO or GW? And its illegal?
But Joe Blow can pull a gun on him and he DOES have the right to protect himself? And its legal?
But Joe Blow can pull a gun on him and he DOES have the right to protect himself? And its legal?
ddgonehntn
Well-Known Member
Ditto!buckdead said:
pathfindr92
Well-Known Member
FLIPPER said:
Only if the "average rational person" would see it the same way. He would have to convince 12 jurors that this GW was going to kill or seriously harm him without just cause. A bank robber is going to be "in fear for his life" if SWAT members are pointing guns at him, but he doesnt get to claim self-defense for shooting one of them because he is commiting a crime, and his actions and/or appearance (i.e. holding a gun, fitting the description of the armed robber) warrants SWAT officers to regard him as a threat.
When it comes to self-defense, private citizens and LEOs are under the same basic set of regulations. The difference is that LEOs during the legal performance of their duties, can do things that private citizens cannot, (i.e. kick your door in to arrest you) as long as they ID themselves as LEOs. You cant shoot a SWAT team operator that breaks into your house yelling "Police!" and claim self defense. In the same way, you cant shoot a GW tresspassing on your land b/c his job duties give him the right to inspect for game violations (love it or hate it, the law grants him that power).
You cannot use deadly force to defend property in TN. I think TX and a few other states allow it though.
I dont mean to be long-winded, just trying to explain everything so it's easier to understand.
If you believe you are in eminent danger, you can shoot someone who yells "police". A jury will decide your fate.
Having a badge and yelling "police", while busting down my door will get a few of us killed. Myself included most likely - FOR NO REASON.
Show your id to my attorney and call me first.
We'll then talk and sort things out.
Too many times, LEO could solve things by talking instead of being aggressive. This case is a prime example. Who needs to die over a wildlife violation? Bug out and catch him later. He's 76, he's not going far-
I don't do illegal stuff, therefore police do not visit my house. So bust down my door and I would feel like I was in eminent danger.
Yell "police" and I will still have that feeling.
Having a badge and yelling "police", while busting down my door will get a few of us killed. Myself included most likely - FOR NO REASON.
Show your id to my attorney and call me first.
We'll then talk and sort things out.
Too many times, LEO could solve things by talking instead of being aggressive. This case is a prime example. Who needs to die over a wildlife violation? Bug out and catch him later. He's 76, he's not going far-
I don't do illegal stuff, therefore police do not visit my house. So bust down my door and I would feel like I was in eminent danger.
Yell "police" and I will still have that feeling.
pathfindr92
Well-Known Member
Im not saying you're wrong for feeling that way, I'm just telling you what the law says. And you are definately right, a jury will decide your fate if you shoot a cop in your house.
In some cases, you would win. Obviously, if you cannot identify the police as police, you cant be held liable. If you should have been able to see that they were police with uniforms and badges, and they told you so, you wont fare too well in court.
But remember, you arent a criminal. I dont see the police breaking down your door too often. I was referring more to the raid on a crack house where some guy shoots at the cops and tries to pull the self-defense story.
As far as talking things through instead of being aggressive, I agree with you. Its apparently "cool" to be a jerk for many officers these days, especially younger officers. However, there are times when you dont have the luxury of trying to talk things over. Maybe this GW was too aggressive and shot this old man without cause. Then again, and old man with a shotgun is still a man with a shotgun. Just because he's old, doesnt mean he's harmless. (Think about it: R. Lee Ermey is 65. He's old. He's still very deadly with a gun in his hand.) This old man may have pointed that gun at that officer and threatened him. I dont know, I wasnt there. I dont have enough evidence to make the determination of whether this GW did the right thing or not. I just know we should all hope that he did.
In some cases, you would win. Obviously, if you cannot identify the police as police, you cant be held liable. If you should have been able to see that they were police with uniforms and badges, and they told you so, you wont fare too well in court.
But remember, you arent a criminal. I dont see the police breaking down your door too often. I was referring more to the raid on a crack house where some guy shoots at the cops and tries to pull the self-defense story.
As far as talking things through instead of being aggressive, I agree with you. Its apparently "cool" to be a jerk for many officers these days, especially younger officers. However, there are times when you dont have the luxury of trying to talk things over. Maybe this GW was too aggressive and shot this old man without cause. Then again, and old man with a shotgun is still a man with a shotgun. Just because he's old, doesnt mean he's harmless. (Think about it: R. Lee Ermey is 65. He's old. He's still very deadly with a gun in his hand.) This old man may have pointed that gun at that officer and threatened him. I dont know, I wasnt there. I dont have enough evidence to make the determination of whether this GW did the right thing or not. I just know we should all hope that he did.
SALECREEKHUNTER
Well-Known Member
wow :frown:
ghosthunter
Well-Known Member
That's terrible.
bigorangmd
Well-Known Member
Agreed. In a deadly force situation killing is only an unfortunate side effect. The idea is to neutralize the threat immediately. A shot that is not to the center of mass A) may miss B) May give the offender a chance to return fire. Anyone who kills a suspect has to carry guilt with them for the rest of their lives justifed or not but at the end of the day it's about going home to their wife and kids.
