Wikipedia is not a reliable source
San Diego police killed boy, 15, in school parking lot
- Thread starter AK68
- Start date
spat
.950 JDJ
It is accurate in this case, would you care to find something more reliable that contradicts it ?
it is not your assumption and your argument? It is up to you provide an affirmative defense. Wikipedia is the mother jones of research any college student will attest to.
Your assumption is that a fatal police shooting is a crime of homicide correct?
All 50 states have laws that govern police use of deadly force. A police shooting is assumed to be justifiable homicide until it is proven not to be therefore it is not a crime. The investigation into the circumstances of the incident would have to prove that policy, procedures and laws were not followed when the incident took place. Amnesty international penned a report that compiled all the states use of deadly force laws California's is on page 40 of the report. https://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/aiusa_deadlyforcereportjune2015.pdf
Use of Lethal Force
§ 196. Justifiable homicide; public officers, West’s Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 196
West’s Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 196
§ 196. Justifiable homicide; public officers
Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or resisting such arrest.
Affirmative defense in this case would not apply
Affirmative Defense
As I said before: "the officers would only have to describe the situation as it happened," in this instance, they would not have to justify anything. The circumstances of the shoot would stand on its own merit, when compared to the laws of the municipality and the Police Force's, Use of force policy. The investigators and the prosecutor would have to prove they failed to follow policy and law when it came to use of deadly force and therefore broke the law. A police shooting is presumed not to be a crime until evidence is presented/provided to the contrary.
Here is some other light reading on the use of deadly force. USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
SUMMARY
The law requires the Division of Criminal Justice to investigate whenever a law enforcement officer, while performing his or her duties, uses deadly physical force that causes someone's death. It must also determine whether the officer's use of deadly physical force was appropriate under standards established by statute and submit a report of its findings and conclusions to the chief state's attorney. The division is a state executive branch agency headed by the chief state's attorney, and is in charge of the investigation and prosecution of all criminal matters in the Superior Court.
The statutory standards allow an officer to use deadly physical force when the officer reasonably believes it is necessary to (1) defend himself or herself or a third person from the use or imminent use of deadly physical force or (2) arrest or prevent the escape of someone the officer reasonably believes has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the infliction or threat of serious physical injury, and, if feasible, the officer has given warning of his or her intent to use deadly physical force.
If the division concludes it cannot adequately investigate the incident, the chief state's attorney, or a state's attorney may apply to a panel of judges selected by the chief justice for the appointment of an investigatory grand jury to investigate the circumstances of the death. The appointment is discretionary and will happen only if:
1. other normal investigative procedures (a) have been tried and have failed, (b)reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried, or (c) are too dangerous to employ or
2. due to the specific nature of the alleged crime or the nature of the investigation, it is reasonable to conclude that the use of normal procedures would not result in obtaining information that would advance the investigation or would fail to secure and preserve evidence or testimony that might otherwise be compromised.
The investigatory grand jury must submit its finding to court within 60 days after completing its investigation. It must also file a copy with the panel that authorized it and with the chief state's attorney or a state's attorney who applied.
The grand jury findings must state whether or not there is probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.
Last edited:
You're sort of right, but the method you detail here is not how police shootings are handled in the courts. There is no "defense" unless brought to trial. The prosecutor usually does present a case to the GJ, but will include the information that shows why the police were justified in their actions (if they were).
spat
.950 JDJ
In other words, they have to provide a defense.
If an officer was accused of some form of homicide and their defense was that they didn't kill the guy, they are entitled to keep thier mouth shut, and the prosecutor has to prove they did it.
If they want to claim it was justified, they have to admit that they killed him, and then claim and offer evidence to show that it was justified.
If the first case, the defense could win without presenting any evidence or even cross examining any witnesses.
In the second case, the prosecutor could win without presenting any evidence. That is the fundamental difference.
Also, nowhere in your article did I see any evidence that the legal standard is any different for an officer than anyone else. Even if in practice the difference is huge.
Everyone will be required to justify their action if they ever intend to use self defense as a defense to a criminal charge.
Last edited:
GuyMontag
.44 mag
dsdmmat is right about the statutory authority, but an officer involved in a shooting is more likely to be hit by an asteroid than ever charged with a crime for excessive force. Let's be real about how badly, publicly, and transparently you've got to F-up a shooting to be charged as a member of LE.
spat
.950 JDJ
Yes, thankfully the vast majority of justifiable cases never see a trial. More so for a cop than the rest of us. The procedure before a trial is somewhat different for a cop though.
If a prosecutor decides to go ahead with a charge, then everyone planning on using a justification has to present it, there is no assumption as there is with innocence.
You literally have to plead guilty of a crime, then present evidence of the justification to use that as a defense.
It really is exactly like the case of a drivers license, or a pistol permit. In both cases if you are accused of the criminal act you have to provide the evidence you have "permission".
An officer is duly authorized to use deadly force when enforcing the statutes. Joe Schmoe the rag man does not have the same statutory authorizations or protections.
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other legal duty; or,
tomato- tomato. A report is going to be required on the incident, there is no other rationalization (Justification) required.
Last edited:
spat
.950 JDJ
If their report doesn't include the justification, they will be convicted. That is the difference.
If they were accused of shooting the guy when they didn't, and their report never said anything either way, they are fine.
If they are accused of shooting him and they forgot to mention that he had a gun pointed at them it is a very different matter.
John Stark
.44 mag
The only real questions here are:
... which group of Soros-funded domestic enemies put this kid up to a suicidal stunt, purposely or "inadvertently," to gin up positive press coverage for them as they scream "racists!": Antifa, Black Lies Matter, La Raza, the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR or ISNA, Occupy Squat, etc.
... and which subversives in government are helping to coordinate the attack on American Liberty.
Getting kids to do stuff like this is right out of the Palestinian/Hamas playbook, and no one should doubt the leftist/Marxist+Jihad axis of evil in cooperation that is going on behind the scenes between the Deep State and the Street-cred crowd. Getting a "cell" or "activist" to go active is as easy as a squawk on a burner phone.
... which group of Soros-funded domestic enemies put this kid up to a suicidal stunt, purposely or "inadvertently," to gin up positive press coverage for them as they scream "racists!": Antifa, Black Lies Matter, La Raza, the Muslim Brotherhood CAIR or ISNA, Occupy Squat, etc.
... and which subversives in government are helping to coordinate the attack on American Liberty.
Getting kids to do stuff like this is right out of the Palestinian/Hamas playbook, and no one should doubt the leftist/Marxist+Jihad axis of evil in cooperation that is going on behind the scenes between the Deep State and the Street-cred crowd. Getting a "cell" or "activist" to go active is as easy as a squawk on a burner phone.
Last edited:
Doc8404
.450/400 Nitro Ex
Post #40=sad truth
Things like this shouldn't happen in a sanctuary city...there is no death just puppies and unicorns riding rainbows... (sarcasm off)
Shadow2
6.5 Creedmoor
In the 80s stand offs where common most ended with out incident. It was the era where Suicide by cop became a "thing" When someone was shot it was because there was a blatant attack on police to destroy the stand off. Nobody argued justification back then,". What changed is the real question. Just to give you a hint crazy hasnt changed and neither have criminal acts.