Off Duty officer victim of road rage

I haven't read through the comments here but just from watching the video it's not a good shoot IMO. The black dude never raised his gun and immediately retreated with his back to the off duty officer trying to de-escalate as soon as he saw the officer was armed. Sure the dude broke the law but it looked to me like that officer let his anger get the best of him.
 
Last edited:
Now you guys are not being consistent from past comments. Do we not say if you are going to pull a gun the decision has been made the intention is to shoot. Furthermore if the gun is presented by the man in the van is he not a threat regardless of the distance he travels if he still is armed. I think LEO refer to it as eliminate the threat.
 
Flashpoint said:
I haven't read through the comments here but just from watching the video it's not a good shoot IMO. The black dude never raised his gun and immediately retreated with his back to the off duty officer trying to de-escalate as soon as he saw the officer was armed. Sure the dude broke the law but it looked to me like that officer let his anger get the best of him.
Click to expand...
To be fair there's no audio. The officer was pretty chill when the guy came up the first time and squared off on him. Guy started a gun fight over a parking spot and lost
 
You said it "fleeing armed felon" that just drew a large capacity weapon over a parking spot. How is it even debatable that he shouldn't have been dispatched? Was he gonna turn his life around after he made it across the street?
 
gunn24 said:
You said it "fleeing armed felon" that just drew a large capacity weapon over a parking spot. How is it even debatable that he shouldn't have been dispatched? Was he gonna turn his life around after he made it across the street?
Click to expand...

Yeah I get it, screw the innocent, we got some vigilante justice to carry out, because morals.

Fleeing is the operative word here. I don't know whether you have tried shooting someone while running full tilt in the opposite direction, but I can assure you it renders you ineffective as a threat.
 
Matt.Cross said:
Yeah I get it, screw the innocent, we got some vigilante justice to carry out, because morals.

Fleeing is the operative word here. I don't know whether you have tried shooting someone while running full tilt in the opposite direction, but I can assure you it renders you ineffective as a threat.
Click to expand...
Well the good guy had to make a split second decision.
Here's a cleaner video of it.

 
I’ll call out police brutality or violations of the constitution in a heart beat. But we need to be consistent with our arguments.

Once the guy came out with the gun deadly force was a valid response. You don’t have to wait to have the gun pointed at you. The threat of deadly force being used against you is understood by him having it in his hand.

Would a reasonable person feel that he was in jeopardy of death or great bodily harm by a person approaching with a gun in his hand who is obviously cursing and acting in a threatening manner?

Now, as far as shooting the guy when he was fleeing. As a simple citizen yes you would risk being charged because your duty is to protect yourself from death or great bodily harm. It’s different for police officers.

I’m not sure about CA but in a lot of places police officers have a duty to protect the public from a felony in progress. That guy was in the act of committing a felony and was still in possession of the weapon making him a continued threat to the public.

He was no less deadly than a speeding vehicle. The only real issue is accuracy and round count at that point as stray rounds put the pubic at risk.
 
Last edited:
gunn24 said:
Well the good guy had to make a split second decision.
Here's a cleaner video of it.

Click to expand...



Well from that angle looks like the cop didn't cut the bad guy off cause he was sitting still for a full 7 seconds before he tried to move to the parking space. In addition to that he cut the pedestrian off whom the cop was waiting on to get out of the way before he took the spot.
 
Chdamn said:
I’ll call out police brutality or violations of the constitution in a heart beat. But we need to be consistent with our arguments.

Once the guy came out with the gun deadly force was a valid response. You don’t have to wait to have the gun pointed at you. The threat of deadly force being used against you is understood by him having it in his hand.

Would a reasonable person feel that he was in jeopardy of death or great bodily harm by a person approaching with a gun in his hand who is obviously cursing and acting in a threatening manner?

Now, as far as shooting the guy when he was fleeing. As a simple citizen yes you would risk being charged because your duty is to protect yourself from death or great bodily harm. It’s different for police officers.

I’m not sure about CA but in a lot of places police officers have a duty to protect the public from a felony in progress. That guy was in the act of committing a felony and was still in possession of the weapon making him a continued threat to the public.

He was no less deadly than a speeding vehicle. The only real issue is accuracy and round count at that point as stray rounds put the pubic at risk.
Click to expand...


“Once the guy came out with the gun deadly force was a valid response. You don’t have to wait to have the gun pointed at you. The threat of deadly force being used against you is understood by him having it in his hand. ”

This^^

Would have been a good shoot when felon approached with the gun, I’m actually totally shocked he didn’t get shot then (any deadly weapon at that distance, let alone a gun, should have drawn immediate fire) however as it went down, no way a good shoot (maybe, as some have said, the first shot or two but even that is debatable) it actually seems crazy he kept shooting at a fleeing man
 
Last edited:
BlackGun said:
Now you guys are not being consistent from past comments. Do we not say if you are going to pull a gun the decision has been made the intention is to shoot. Furthermore if the gun is presented by the man in the van is he not a threat regardless of the distance he travels if he still is armed. I think LEO refer to it as eliminate the threat.
Click to expand...

I think "if you are going to pull a gun you have to shoot it" is bad advice. You shoot if you still feel threatened...your intention is to defend yourself if you have to.

I think the first few shots were fine but once van guy retreated running for his life he was no longer a threat...it didn't appear that he was turning trying to return fire nor was he ducking behind cover for an advantage.

I definitely will not miss the thug but I am not sure we should advocate on the spot executions for people who posses a gun, even if they are retreating from a suspected aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. A lot of good guys can get the wrong end of the deal on that.
 
Chdamn said:
It’s different for police officers.
Click to expand...
The use of deadly force is not different for police officers under the law...the same rules apply to all. The double standard of those enforcing the law is what causes this confusion. That and tv/movies.
 
Robbie said:
The use of deadly force is not different for police officers under the law...the same rules apply to all. The double standard of those enforcing the law is what causes this confusion. That and tv/movies.
Click to expand...

Officers can shoot dangerous armed fleeing felons to protect the public. Whether this incident falls under that, I don't know.
 
Last edited:
SPST said:
Officers can shoot dangerous armed fleeing felons to protect the public. Whether this incident falls under that, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Anybody can shoot a person in the defense of others if they can successfully articulate the threat. There is no additional permission to kill as a law enforcement officer.
 
Last edited:
Robbie said:
Anybody can shoot a person in the defense of others if they can successfully articulate the threat. There is no additional permission to kill as a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...

A LEO can shoot a fleeing felon. We can't. Again, whether this shooting fits that, I don't know.
 
I'm not normally one to bring race into things but had this been a white off duty officer there would have been riots before charges. Which would have lead to charges and all kinds of other crap.
I don't agree that officers should be held to a higher standard. There should only be one standard but it should be applied equally to everyone. Call me a dreamer. That said I think he had a legal window to shoot the guy that slammed shut before he actually killed him.
 
Last edited:
Cowboy said:
I'm not normally one to bring race into things but had this been a white off duty officer there would have been riots before charges. Which would have lead to charges and all kinds of other crap.
I don't agree that officers should be held to a higher standard. There should only be one standard but it should be applied equally to everyone. Call me a dreamer. That said I think he had a legal window to shoot the guy that slammed shut before he actually killed him.
Click to expand...
I see your point. Maybe valid. I would make the attorney’s argument at no point was it still safe to stop shooting because he was still in sight with the ability to circle back around.
 
SPST said:
A LEO can shoot a fleeing felon. We can't. Again, whether this shooting fits that, I don't know.
Click to expand...
You can keep saying it but it isn't accurate.

Tennessee vs Garner established that law enforcement cannot simply shoot fleeing felons. There are very limited circumstances in which fleeing felons can be shot by law enforcement officers and they all overlap with situations in which the average citizens may find themselves in...for example: You witness a mass shooting and you believe the fleeing shooter will continue to shoot people...that is a fleeing felon you (a non LEO) can shoot. Example 2, you witness masked men exiting a bank with guns in there hands, and you believe they are now using those guns to hijack cars to escape...you (a non LEO) can shoot those fleeing felons. Example 3, you were just ambushed by armed robbers and a shootout occurs...you put one of them down and you believe the second is running for cover to reload, you (a non LEO) can shoot that fleeing felon. 4. You witness a guy shooting a cop as he starts to flee, you (a non LEO) can shoot that fleeing felon. The trick is properly articulating and winning your court case if you are charged.

As an ex LEO, I can say with great certainty that a LEO will get more latitude when shooting fleeing felons, but there is no blanket authorization to "shoot fleeing felons to protect the public" and any situation where a fleeing felon is shot will have to be properly explained (in theory).

Since they didn't charge the officer, this shooting is a definite example of latitude given.
 
Robbie said:
Anybody can shoot a person in the defense of others if they can successfully articulate the threat. There is no additional permission to kill as a law enforcement officer.
Click to expand...

You could use deadly force in the defense of others if: The person whom you are defending is legally justified in using deadly force themselves. You basically take over for them. You better be damn sure they have that right i.e. didn't instigate the fight.
 
Robbie said:
You can keep saying it but it isn't accurate.

Tennessee vs Garner established that law enforcement cannot simply shoot fleeing felons. There are very limited circumstances in which fleeing felons can be shot by law enforcement officers and they all overlap with situations in which the average citizens may find themselves in...for example: You witness a mass shooting and you believe the fleeing shooter will continue to shoot people...that is a fleeing felon you (a non LEO) can shoot. Example 2, you witness masked men exiting a bank with guns in there hands, and you believe they are now using those guns to hijack cars to escape...you (a non LEO) can shoot those fleeing felons. Example 3, you were just ambushed by armed robbers and a shootout occurs...you put one of them down and you believe the second is running for cover to reload, you (a non LEO) can shoot that fleeing felon. 4. You witness a guy shooting a cop as he starts to flee, you (a non LEO) can shoot that fleeing felon. The trick is properly articulating and winning your court case if you are charged.

As an ex LEO, I can say with great certainty that a LEO will get more latitude when shooting fleeing felons, but there is no blanket authorization to "shoot fleeing felons to protect the public" and any situation where a fleeing felon is shot will have to be properly explained (in theory).

Since they didn't charge the officer, this shooting is a definite example of latitude given.
Click to expand...

Your explanation is not nuanced enough, your conflating terms. A felon is someone convicted of a crime. Your using a legal term in the context of an active threat. The rules for the use of deadly force for a civilian are pretty clear. You need to be in fear of your life, great bodily harm or sexual assault. There are other mitigating factors, but those are the basic rules.
 
Variable said:
Your explanation is not nuanced enough, your conflating terms. A felon is someone convicted of a crime. Your using a legal term in the context of an active threat. The rules for the use of deadly force for a civilian are pretty clear. You need to be in fear of your life, great bodily harm or sexual assault. There are other mitigating factors, but those are the basic rules.
Click to expand...

My explanation is pretty spot on. Convicted felons don't have "CONVICTED FELON" tattoo'd on their foreheads. The context of "fleeing felon" in this discussion is that they are fleeing the commission of a felony. In any of those cases, you don't just standby and ignore the threat if the perpetrators have no prior convictions.

Your greatly abbreviated interpretation leaves out the "defense of others"...which would be the general basis for shooting fleeing felons except for those you think are trying to gain a tactical advantage on yourself.
 
Robbie said:
My explanation is pretty spot on. Convicted felons don't have "CONVICTED FELON" tattoo'd on their foreheads. The context of "fleeing felon" in this discussion is that they are fleeing the commission of a felony. In any of those cases, you don't just standby and ignore the threat if the perpetrators have no prior convictions.

Your greatly abbreviated interpretation leaves out the "defense of others"...which would be the general basis for shooting fleeing felons except for those you think are trying to gain a tactical advantage on yourself.
Click to expand...

About defence of others. No, it didnt. I answered that in a previous post. I teach CCH in NC and in that course it outlines the use of deadly force for a civilian. So i know what the rules are. You are wrong. A civilian cannot shoot someone who is fleeing a crime. Its quite clear. I can quote you the lines from the book when I leave work if you like. Now, if they are fleeing the crime and raise their gun up to shoot someone, that is different... You are speaking in broad generalities. It is just piss poor advice generally. Legally justified shooting is not something that is flippant or "the trick is." There are clearly articulated rules. Your commentary points out what we talk about in class, Cops don't know what the law is. That is what you have prosecutors and lawyers for. Civilians in NC have no right to act as law enforcement, there is no citizens arrest. It doesn't exist. Therefore your only legal use of force, in your rambling scenarios, is the defense of others. Again, the Defense of Others clause is pretty clear. The person who you are defending has to have the right to use deadly force themselves. Giving out bad information and claiming you know what you re talking about because you were in "law enforcement" well.. I don't think your testimony will help them a court of law.

V
 
SPST said:
A LEO can shoot a fleeing felon. We can't. Again, whether this shooting fits that, I don't know.
Click to expand...

And someone please tell me HOW the off duty LEO is supposed to KNOW the aggressor is a convicted felon?? I didn't see any tat's or a sign around his neck to indicate his status. Neither did the aggressor KNOW that the other guy was an off duty LEO.....
 
Variable said:
About defence of others. No, it didnt. I answered that in a previous post. I teach CCH in NC and in that course it outlines the use of deadly force for a civilian. So i know what the rules are. You are wrong. A civilian cannot shoot someone who is fleeing a crime. Its quite clear. I can quote you the lines from the book when I leave work if you like. Now, if they are fleeing the crime and raise their gun up to shoot someone, that is different... You are speaking in broad generalities. It is just piss poor advice generally. Legally justified shooting is not something that is flippant or "the trick is." There are clearly articulated rules. Your commentary points out what we talk about in class, Cops don't know what the law is. That is what you have prosecutors and lawyers for. Civilians in NC have no right to act as law enforcement, there is no citizens arrest. It doesn't exist. Therefore your only legal use of force, in your rambling scenarios, is the defense of others. Again, the Defense of Others clause is pretty clear. The person who you are defending has to have the right to use deadly force themselves. Giving out bad information and claiming you know what you re talking about because you were in "law enforcement" well.. I don't think your testimony will help them a court of law.

V
Click to expand...
I didn't say they were acting as law enforcement and I never said anybody was arresting anyone...I was discussing defending others from violent fleeing felons.

So in the case of a mass shooter, are you arguing that his next potential victim doesn't have the right to use deadly force? Are you saying a "civilian" bystander has never used deadly force to stop another person from being carjacked? Are you saying that those are not legitimate uses of deadly force?

Please cite a case similar to my rambling examples where someone was sent to jail because they could not establish that the victim they were saving was entitled to use deadly force.

I am pretty sure the stereotypes for hillbilly tacti-tard CCW teachers is no better than those for cops but that is a separate debate. My comments related to law enforcement were that cops get more latitude when it comes to prosecution but there is no license to shoot felons.
 
Last edited:
1. Watch ASP..real world shootings to help you see good and bad from all points available. You'll see a lot of one hand shooting and maybe 1 reload per thousand videos. Good stuff!
2. I have worked 100s of hours with LEs and have Never seen a car searched for firearms under the hood. Felons are smart about hiding stuff. This video alone should help change LE search procedures.
3. Officer Missed while shooting at the guy the length of an auto. Then shot 3 more times. Once from 30 yards. That's why we tell our folks if the local LEs are shooting at you...stand Still..you run, you might wander into a stray bullet.
4. A real world example of why The Wizard Drill can help save your life.

Those things said, I will venture a perspective from this end. I would Hope I would never have been in this situation to start with. I would not have entered into Any conversation with him under these circumstances other than Go Away and Leave Me Alone...Stop Right There. IF I had been trying to go about my business all the while Watching this man, when I saw him retrieve any weapon and start back towards me, this old man would have "lit him up". He would never have said another word to me once he armed himself. We are Now in RED!

This officer needs some in depth remedial firearms training. He didn't "win" this fight through any skills. His first missed shot proves that.

Watch ASP, good stuff can be learned there.
 
Bailey Boat said:
And someone please tell me HOW the off duty LEO is supposed to KNOW the aggressor is a convicted felon?? I didn't see any tat's or a sign around his neck to indicate his status. Neither did the aggressor KNOW that the other guy was an off duty LEO.....
Click to expand...

If he is a regular offender, it's possible that the cop has seen him before?
 
Robbie said:
I didn't say they were acting as law enforcement and I never said anybody was arresting anyone...I was discussing defending others from violent fleeing felons.

So in the case of a mass shooter, are you arguing that his next potential victim doesn't have the right to use deadly force? Are you saying a "civilian" bystander has never used deadly force to stop another person from being carjacked? Are you saying that those are not legitimate uses of deadly force?

Please cite a case similar to my rambling examples where someone was sent to jail because they could not establish that the victim they were saving was entitled to use deadly force.

I am pretty sure the stereotypes for hillbilly tacti-tard CCW teachers is no better than those for cops but that is a separate debate. My comments related to law enforcement were that cops get more latitude when it comes to prosecution but there is no license to shoot felons.
Click to expand...

Your inability to logically stay on track leads me to believe that continuing is pointless. Carry on.

V
 
Robbie said:
My explanation is pretty spot on. Convicted felons don't have "CONVICTED FELON" tattoo'd on their foreheads. The context of "fleeing felon" in this discussion is that they are fleeing the commission of a felony. In any of those cases, you don't just standby and ignore the threat if the perpetrators have no prior convictions.

Your greatly abbreviated interpretation leaves out the "defense of others"...which would be the general basis for shooting fleeing felons except for those you think are trying to gain a tactical advantage on yourself.
Click to expand...
This guy hadn't committed a felony though.

Fleeing felon was common law, back in the middle ages, you would do well to forget that ever existed.

Title: Tennessee v. Garner - The Fleeing Felon Rule

"In its decision, the Court held that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the fourth amendment, and that its use to prevent the escape of all felony suspects was constitutionally impermissible. The proper rule, as the court suggests, would allow the use of deadly force only when a suspect poses a substantial risk of serious physical harm. However, a major problem with the decision is that it requires a police office to be practically certain that a suspect is dangerous without providing any guidance to the arresting officer for making this determination. A better approach would be to emphasize the risk encountered by the officer in a specific situation, but also to allow the officer to be guided by the nature of the crime involved. This approach would limit the use of deadly force to inherently dangerous situations, while also providing the protection needed to the arresting officer and the general public. 121 footnotes."

What you're looking for is A O J. Ability, did the guy have the ability to do harm? In this case yes. Opportunity, did the guy have the opportunity to do harm? I'd say yes. Jeopardy, was the officer in jeopardy? At the beginning I'd say sure but when the guy was a hundred feet away and accelerating? I personally think no but it seems CA. has a law that allows it if you can articulate that the guy was just retreating to a spot where he could engage you better.
 
Bailey Boat said:
And someone please tell me HOW the off duty LEO is supposed to KNOW the aggressor is a convicted felon?? I didn't see any tat's or a sign around his neck to indicate his status. Neither did the aggressor KNOW that the other guy was an off duty LEO.....
Click to expand...
In the video I posted a different angle showed the off duty LEO watch "Cheddaman" pop the hood and retrieve a firearm. He's probably a damn good cop to begin with. He was trying to defuse the situation on the first encounter
 
I think a good lesson to learn from this is that escalation and de-escalation is a skill set we all need to consider. I didn't see what the cop was doing when the guy went back to his car, so we don't know if he was just turning to go on his merry way, or if he was still watching the guy as he went back to his car. How I feel about this is worthless, but if the officer had shot the guy as soon as he came around the corner of the car with his pistol in hand I would have almost zero issue...but the shot to his back, and then the continued shots as he ran is disconcerting. Exonnerated in court or not, I would not be looking to my court date (as a civilian) if I had pegged a guy in the back while he was full blast running away from me.

I fully get the "he was doing a tactical retreat" scenario...but the officer, standing perfectly erect, aiming precisely without a thought to cover, gives me more an impression that he cared less for protecting himself and those around him than he did putting a bullet into a fleeing suspect.
 
J R Green said:
This guy hadn't committed a felony though.

Fleeing felon was common law, back in the middle ages, you would do well to forget that ever existed.

Title: Tennessee v. Garner - The Fleeing Felon Rule

What you're looking for is A O J. Ability, did the guy have the ability to do harm? In this case yes. Opportunity, did the guy have the opportunity to do harm? I'd say yes. Jeopardy, was the officer in jeopardy? At the beginning I'd say sure but when the guy was a hundred feet away and accelerating? I personally think no but it seems CA. has a law that allows it if you can articulate that the guy was just retreating to a spot where he could engage you better.
Click to expand...
Yes, Tennessee vs Garner essentially said the common law use of fleeing felon violated the 4th amendment...so "fleeing felon" was essentially restricted to those presenting an immediate threat when fleeing the commission of a violent felony. You are right, it would have been best to drop that language altogether as it causes the confusion we are having here. But law enforcement does still use fleeing felon language in their deadly force policies.

I'd ask you go back and re-read what I said as I don't think I asserted this shooting was good/covered as a fleeing felon...I was addressing the notion that "civilians" can't shoot fleeing felons. If you can narrow down/quote the wording that you disagree with, if there is still a disagreement, I will try to see where you are coming from.

I'd say he was very much able to do harm as he initially walked away and then looked back towards the officer but definitely not as he ran for his life once the officer began shooting. Like I said earlier, I think those first couple shots were justified. The ones as the van guy had run well down the street...not so much. The part about trying to gain a position of cover or advantage is pretty standard, not just in CA, but it seems that would be hard to argue when he is booking it at max speed down the center of the road.
 
Last edited:
gunn24 said:
In the video I posted a different angle showed the off duty LEO watch "Cheddaman" pop the hood and retrieve a firearm. He's probably a damn good cop to begin with. He was trying to defuse the situation on the first encounter
Click to expand...

I will need to watch this again to see what the officer was doing, if this is the case, then I think the officer got really lucky that the bad guy was "flexing" and not dedicated to the task at hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom