Cops in a shootout - help? Not help?

[GaryO]

So firing a warning shot is sorta like shooting a BG in the leg or knee?

Now that I think of it, President Bonehead said that firing your double barreled shotgun is the best way to deter crime and since he is the brightest person that has sat behind the big desk, it's obvious that the sheep are going to back him up.

 

[Asaltweapon]

Now that I think of it, President Bonehead said that firing your double barreled shotgun is the best way to deter crime and since he is the brightest person that has sat behind the big desk, it's obvious that the sheep are going to back him up.

Great minds think alike.

 

[AHM]

"In jailhouse interview, gun-obsessed Massachusetts man argues that children's lives are less important than his gun fetish runs his mouth. News at 11."

FTFY.

Yeesh; is Goldblum a Jughead in that clip.
(Jughead Jones § Jughead's Hat).

 

[Rockrivr1]

As messed up as MA is I almost choked on my coffee reading an op ed in the Herald this morning, JOYCE FERRIABOUGH BOLLING( who is no friend of freedom) referred to the guy who discharged his firearm to stop a crime as a "hero". Normally that sort of stuff is frowned upon in the Commonwealth by the beautiful people.

"At a time when we’re finally able to visit our beautiful parks for much-needed nature therapy, Franklin Park is starting to look like a hot spot for trouble instead of the haven it is meant to be. On Monday, an onlooker became a hero when he intervened in an assault on a woman. Licensed to carry a weapon, the Good Samaritan fired a warning shot, disrupting the attack."

I wonder if she would have said the same thing if the "Good Samaritan" had shot and killed the perp?????

 

[greencobra]

"At a time when we’re finally able to visit our beautiful parks for much-needed nature therapy, Franklin Park is starting to look like a hot spot for trouble instead of the haven it is meant to be. On Monday, an onlooker became a hero when he intervened in an assault on a woman. Licensed to carry a weapon, the Good Samaritan fired a warning shot, disrupting the attack."

jeez, franklin park has been a hot spot for as long as I can remember.

 

[Asaltweapon]

jeez, franklin park has been a hot spot for as long as I can remember.

I've never lived anywhere near it but same. I don't ever recall it being a "good place" and all of my 60 years have been right here in the area.

 

[Tim_McD]

I think that was Jeff Goldblum's first film....at the very least it was extremely early in his career.

I think that was the first movie appearance for Christoper Guest as well, he was the cop at the end of the movie…

 

[NewGuyRay]

Since I'm a resident of Mass, I'll assume the OP's scenario is playing out in Mass. Given that qualifier, if the perp is not a threat to me then it's none of my business. The perp is just being a perp and, unlike myself, the officer signed up knowing such a circumstance was a possible outcome. I'll let the law of the jungle sort it out and I'd deny I was even there.

 

[weekendracer]

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Mises Institute

The "social contract" is a one-way street. You pay your taxes or go to jail. In return, the government may or may not provide some of those services you

mises.org

Unless there is a new case being ballied about, all it says is you can't sue if they didn't get there in time to stop the crime. I simply don't care what an opinion story says. I read that piece and it's still based on the fact that there wasn't protection provided to those individuals individually. That 'resource officer' was a piece of shit coward. I've run to gunfire before, so yes, I can call a spade a spade here. That officer should lose everything he's ever earned.

 

[BOOTKNIFEFAN]

In ASSachusetts the cop and his/her family will thank you for saving their life or loved one's life and you will be considered the family hero.
The police chief will yank your LTC and confiscate all your firearms.
The District Attorney will investigate and you may be brought up on charges..
The bad guy or suspect's family will sue you in civil court.
There is no correct answer to hypothetical questions! Nobody knows what they would do in advance in any given fight or flight situation.

I would call 911 as I high-tailed it away from the scene. Not reporting a hotel fire is a felony in MA. Not sure about not reporting an attack on an LEO. Isn't this the state that discourages "self help"? Well, if I am not allowed to help myself, how can I be expected to help a cop in distress?

 

[BOOTKNIFEFAN]

Now that I think of it, President Bonehead said that firing your double barreled shotgun is the best way to deter crime and since he is the brightest person that has sat behind the big desk, it's obvious that the sheep are going to back him up.

He and Jill have Secret Service agents armed with everything from small compact backup pistols to custom, suppressed, .300 Winchester Magnum "JARs" (just another rifle, in USSS terminology) and even 6 barrel, electric 7.62mm miniguns that fire 4,000 rounds per minute! Janice and I do not have access to anywhere near that kind of firepower. He and Jill can spout whatever rubbish they desire, knowing they have infantry brigade equivalent firepower to protect them.

 

[daekken]

Unless there is a new case being ballied about, all it says is you can't sue if they didn't get there in time to stop the crime. I simply don't care what an opinion story says. I read that piece and it's still based on the fact that there wasn't protection provided to those individuals individually. That 'resource officer' was a piece of shit coward. I've run to gunfire before, so yes, I can call a spade a spade here. That officer should lose everything he's ever earned.

A couple of old cases:
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

And Warren v. Columbia.
"The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints"

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not saying most cops wouldn't, but it's pretty well established unless you have a new case being ballied about.

 

[weekendracer]

A couple of old cases:
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

And Warren v. Columbia.
"The trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual plaintiffs and dismissed the complaints"

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not saying most cops wouldn't, but it's pretty well established unless you have a new case being ballied about.

The reason for the ruling is otherwise the city/county would have to assign an officer to each individual person. I think we can all agree that is a ludicrous situation to talk about.

 

[daekken]

The reason for the ruling is otherwise the city/county would have to assign an officer to each individual person. I think we can all agree that is a ludicrous situation to talk about.

It doesn't change the fact that my original post, which you stated you would continue to "correct" is in fact legally accurate.

 

[GaryO]

He and Jill have Secret Service agents armed with everything from small compact backup pistols to custom, suppressed, .300 Winchester Magnum "JARs" (just another rifle, in USSS terminology) and even 6 barrel, electric 7.62mm miniguns that fire 4,000 rounds per minute! Janice and I do not have access to anywhere near that kind of firepower. He and Jill can spout whatever rubbish they desire, knowing they have infantry brigade equivalent firepower to protect them.

You do understand sarcasm right?

 

[dragonballzz]

Depends on who's the good guy and who's the bad guy. That, you don't know unless you were there for the whole incident.... or even before the incident.

 

[weekendracer]

It doesn't change the fact that my original post, which you stated you would continue to "correct" is in fact legally accurate.

The difference being by your statement is if a cop was standing there and did nothing, the city or the cop wouldn't be liable. That is factually untrue with regards to the SCOTUS cases you sling around. It's a fundamental difference that people like you can't wrap your head around.

 

[Navy Moose]

I would help within the limits of my training.

 

[MisterHappy]

 

[MisterHappy]

"In jailhouse interview, gun-obsessed Massachusetts man argues that children's lives are less important than his gun fetish. News at 11."

You know, I wanted to like this post.

But I could not figure out whether to laugh at the cleverness, or to do the sad emoji, as it's likely not that far from the (hypothetical) truth.

 

[Bonesinium]

The difference being by your statement is if a cop was standing there and did nothing, the city or the cop wouldn't be liable. That is factually untrue with regards to the SCOTUS cases you sling around. It's a fundamental difference that people like you can't wrap your head around.

Well maybe you can help explain it to us and Joseph Lozito then. Who’s Joseph Lozito? He was repeatedly stabbed while two cops stood just feet away watching and did nothing, by a man who the day before had stabbed four people to death. He sued. The court said the cops had no duty to protect him.

So whatever the SCOTUS case says, other courts have taken it to mean cops have no duty to do anything in every example that’s come before them.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xZKVSNjlSp0

 

[EddieCoyle]

I hate these threads. Mind your business.

 

[Matt_SERE]

I hate these threads. Mind your business.

This reminds me of the Mall Shooting thread years ago. Get your family out.

 

[MisterHappy]

I hate these threads. Mind your business.

I just read a book on New England quaintness. One guy had a description of his life, "Having no business, and minding my own."

 

[weekendracer]

Well maybe you can help explain it to us and Joseph Lozito then. Who’s Joseph Lozito? He was repeatedly stabbed while two cops stood just feet away watching and did nothing, by a man who the day before had stabbed four people to death. He sued. The court said the cops had no duty to protect him.

So whatever the SCOTUS case says, other courts have taken it to mean cops have no duty to do anything in every example that’s come before them.


View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xZKVSNjlSp0

Sure, some youtube video. Give me the case cite and I'll look into it. Hell, I'll send it to the chief counsel for my agency and get his opinion on it.

So, send me the case, not some damn hippy looking youtube video. I couldn't get through the first couple minutes of it. Cut to this, cut to that, do you feel safe....blah blah.

 

[Bonesinium]

Give me the case cite and I'll look into it.

Good excuse to avoid responding meaningfully. The guy in the video is the guy stabbed himself. It’s okay to be wrong. We’ve cited cases to support our position. You have not.

But because I’m nice.

“The law is abundantly clear that no liability flows from negligence in the performance of a police function unless there is a special relationship (see Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667).

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf

 

[weekendracer]

Good excuse to avoid responding meaningfully. The guy in the video is the guy stabbed himself. It’s okay to be wrong. We’ve cited cases to support our position. You have not.

But because I’m nice.

“The law is abundantly clear that no liability flows from negligence in the performance of a police function unless there is a special relationship (see Yearwood v Town of Brighton, 64 NY2d 667).

http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2013JUL/3001010882012002SCIV.pdf

The crux of Mr. Lozito’s claim lies in the seconds that it took the police officers to intervene and eventually apprehend Gelman. Plaintiffs claimed that the officers negligently secured their own safety in the motorman’s booth while observing the attack on Mr. Lozito. Plaintiffs also claimed the police officers were negligent in failing to recognize Gelman when they boarded the train and in failing to heed the warnings made by another passenger (see Deft Mot, Exh B, para 18.

So, by his own admission it was mere seconds. I will admit, if they saw the weapon, they were slow to act. Does the slow reaction make the city liable for damages? If the threat had not manifested into action (deadly force movement for us older LEOs), could the officers legally apply force? I'd say no under the old system back in 2013, today there is a case that allows for pre-emptive use of force. I can't remember the spelling exactly, it's Matute vs someone (spelled phonetically), there's an 'O' somewhere in the name. It was a couple of years ago maybe, but is just now being taught in the UOF continuum. I tried to look it up quickly and I didn't get the results I wanted. I have the case info on my work computer.

Things have changed quite a bit since 2013 based on several new cases and interpretations of Graham and Garner mainly. So while relevant, it's not recent.

edit: The case involves a person walking with a shotgun, moving away from where gunshots had been heard. The person was walking towards a crowd with the shotgun in the open, officers fired and the subject was hit in the back. The main point of the decision is taking into account that officers do not have to wait until they (or others) are not in the direct line of fire to act. To me, it's a huge difference from when force could be applied previous to the decision. Fractions of seconds, but huge when you are looking at someone you believe to be a threat.

 

[heron163]

sounds like an excellent way to get yourself shot...

 

[cathouse01]

sounds like an excellent way to get yourself shot...

Yup. As pointed out by @safetyfirst2125 :

Looks like Samaritan was shot by responding police…

“Good Samaritan” in Olde Town Arvada shooting was killed by police, source says

The “good Samaritan” credited by police with saving lives by intervening with an active shooter in Olde Town Arvada this week was shot and killed by an Arvada police officer, a source f…

www.denverpost.com

 

[jct61765]

Colorado good 'Samaritan' who killed gunman fatally shot by cop while holding suspect’s rifle, police say

The “good Samaritan” who fatally shot a gunman following an attack that left a Colorado police officer dead was himself killed by an officer responding to the chaotic scene, investigators said Friday.

www.foxnews.com