Shoot back at LEOs

[goose]

Caveat, I do not intend nor want this to be a LEO bashing thread. But it has been running around in my head for a couple of days.

Could you ever see yourself firing back at LEO when incorrectly being shot at? A related question for the legal eagles: Is it ever lawful to defend yourself from uniformed, or even non-uniformed officers? Are we required by law to wait it out until they decide it's over?

Many of us have talked about the shootings of civilians in pickup trucks out in LA. I readily admit at the beginning that firing back at officers is only going to escalate a situation like that but would it ever be prudent to get them to possibly put their heads down and stop firing for a second? I also readily admit that this is a one in ten billion chance of happening to any of us. But obviously it has happened. Would it always be illegal to defend ones self against wrongful incoming LEO fire?

[steve817]

I wouldn't think it illegal. Being able to prove it assuming you survived the encounter would probably be more difficult than surviving it.

[louisf1]

While I would hope to never find myself in this situation I would say that one would be justified with deadly force against anyone that is using deadly force wrongfully against you. Obviously if you did something to justify their use of force then you would be wrong to use force. In the instance where law abiding civilians were riding down the road and mistakenly fired upon in California I would agree that they would have been in a position to use what ever force neccessary to stop the rounds from coming in. All in my opinion of course.

[G26ster]

Caveat, I do not intend nor want this to be a LEO bashing thread. But it has been running around in my head for a couple of days.

Could you ever see yourself firing back at LEO when incorrectly being shot at? A related question for the legal eagles: Is it ever lawful to defend yourself from uniformed, or even non-uniformed officers? Are we required by law to wait it out until they decide it's over?

Many of us have talked about the shootings of civilians in pickup trucks out in LA. I readily admit at the beginning that firing back at officers is only going to escalate a situation like that but would it ever be prudent to get them to possibly put their heads down and stop firing for a second? I also readily admit that this is a one in ten billion chance of happening to any of us. But obviously it has happened. Would it always be illegal to defend ones self against wrongful incoming LEO fire?

I hope I'm never in that situation, but here's a part of the Penal Code that may address the issue. I AM NOT A LAWYER!

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

The above may address the LEGAL aspects, but in real life, I think the outcome would be very bad. I hate to even think about being in a situation like this.

[Scott in Houston]

The only situation that this makes me think of is the gentleman whose house was mistakenly raided by some "swat" team in Arizona, and the former army (maybe marine) soldier lost his life defending his home against the invaders who happened to be LEO's, but made a dreadful mistake of which house to invade.

I cannot see how anyone in this man's shoes, if he had survived, could be prosecuted afterwards for defending your house, self, or family. There would be no way to know whether the invaders were LEO or just home invaders.

[The Annoyed Man]

You do carry a cell phone, don't you?

Here is the correct response (in my opinion): Call 911 and say that someone is shooting at you, and that you suspect that they are police officers. Tell them that you are a CHL holder. Tell them that you have not yet returned fire, but that you will defend yourself if the other shooters get any closer, or if they keep shooting at you without giving you a chance to extricate yourself from the situation. Tell them you will cooperate with the police if they stop shooting at you.

911 will be aware of whether or not there is a police involved shooting at your location. They will advise police on the scene of your location and that you have phoned 911 to complain that you are being fired on by unknown people at their location. Between dispatch and the LEOs on scene, they will determine if it is you they are shooting at in error, and they will then issue instructions through the 911 operator to your phone, to get yourself out of the beaten zone without getting hurt.

It may be your legal right to defend yourself with deadly force against police who are using deadly force against you in error, but shooting a cop is the LAST thing you want to do, even if it is ultimately justifiable. Much better to prone out, let them disarm you, and satisfy themselves that they were shooting at you in error. They are cops. They are not going to execute you if they don't have to shoot you. Too much paperwork. It will be far better for them (and you) to take you alive, and sort it out afterward.

There are just very few types of circumstances where shooting at a cop is worth it. It's a lose/lose deal. Don't leave home without two things: pistol and cellphone. Always try to use the phone first if you possibly can.

[baldeagle]

First of all, if you were ever to consider this you'd have to consider the disparity of force. If it's one or two officers you might have a chance. If it's more than that, you'll likely die in the attempt to defend yourself.

As for precedent, there is this:
No charges in Diamondhead Police shooting (The police officer attempted to run over the homeowner and then shoot him before the homeowner returned fire, wounding the officer)

[goose]

I appreciate all of the responses. I agree that this is a HUGE sticky wicket. It is just an interesting question. While I have 99% love for LEO (1% disdain for LEO speeders without lights and unsignaled lane changers out writing tickets) I am also happy to read that we at least are not required to just belly up and wait for them to stop. Rounds coming into the family car or even into the house, might be cause for me to want to at least get someone to put their head down and not charge closer with guns blazing.

TAM, as always cool and well thought out. Thank you sir. I once called 911 to break up a possible child abduction, thankfully never had to draw despite being confronted by alleged abductor. I backed away faster than he could pursue. I would absolutely be on 911 if at all possible.

[G26ster]

You do carry a cell phone, don't you?

Here is the correct response (in my opinion): Call 911 and say that someone is shooting at you, and that you suspect that they are police officers. Tell them that you are a CHL holder. Tell them that you have not yet returned fire, but that you will defend yourself if the other shooters get any closer, or if they keep shooting at you without giving you a chance to extricate yourself from the situation. Tell them you will cooperate with the police if they stop shooting at you.

911 will be aware of whether or not there is a police involved shooting at your location. They will advise police on the scene of your location and that you have phoned 911 to complain that you are being fired on by unknown people at their location. Between dispatch and the LEOs on scene, they will determine if it is you they are shooting at in error, and they will then issue instructions through the 911 operator to your phone, to get yourself out of the beaten zone without getting hurt.

It may be your legal right to defend yourself with deadly force against police who are using deadly force against you in error, but shooting a cop is the LAST thing you want to do, even if it is ultimately justifiable. Much better to prone out, let them disarm you, and satisfy themselves that they were shooting at you in error. They are cops. They are not going to execute you if they don't have to shoot you. Too much paperwork. It will be far better for them (and you) to take you alive, and sort it out afterward.

There are just very few types of circumstances where shooting at a cop is worth it. It's a lose/lose deal. Don't leave home without two things: pistol and cellphone. Always try to use the phone first if you possibly can.

Great answer TAM. Mine just addressed the statute, but offered no advice. Yours gave sound advice, which I will be sure to remember.

[flechero]

You do carry a cell phone, don't you?

Here is the correct response (in my opinion): Call 911 and say that someone is shooting at you, and that you suspect that they are police officers. Tell them that you are a CHL holder. Tell them that you have not yet returned fire, but that you will defend yourself if the other shooters get any closer, or if they keep shooting at you without giving you a chance to extricate yourself from the situation. Tell them you will cooperate with the police if they stop shooting at you.

911 will be aware of whether or not there is a police involved shooting at your location. They will advise police on the scene of your location and that you have phoned 911 to complain that you are being fired on by unknown people at their location. Between dispatch and the LEOs on scene, they will determine if it is you they are shooting at in error, and they will then issue instructions through the 911 operator to your phone, to get yourself out of the beaten zone without getting hurt.

It may be your legal right to defend yourself with deadly force against police who are using deadly force against you in error, but shooting a cop is the LAST thing you want to do, even if it is ultimately justifiable. Much better to prone out, let them disarm you, and satisfy themselves that they were shooting at you in error. They are cops. They are not going to execute you if they don't have to shoot you. Too much paperwork. It will be far better for them (and you) to take you alive, and sort it out afterward.

There are just very few types of circumstances where shooting at a cop is worth it. It's a lose/lose deal. Don't leave home without two things: pistol and cellphone. Always try to use the phone first if you possibly can.

I can't imagine a scenario (except a safe room maybe) where you have time to stop down and make a phone call in the middle of taking incoming fire. Statistically, I think most shootouts are over by the time you could dial and the 911 operator would answer.

[tbrown]

Could you ever see yourself firing back at LEO when incorrectly being shot at? A related question for the legal eagles: Is it ever lawful to defend yourself from uniformed, or even non-uniformed officers? Are we required by law to wait it out until they decide it's over?

I hope to never be in that situation but if a bad guy is trying to kill me, I will defend myself. It makes precious little difference morally if the bad guy is wearing a hoodie, a badge, or a blue helmet.

Legally, it can be a murky question and even when it's legally justified, the deck is stacked against you if you get caught. It may be best to take your cue from Henry Bowman if you're forced to shoot someone on a government payroll.

[wheelgun1958]

PENAL CODE
CH. 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY

Subch. C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than
necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or
other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter
except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.

[DocV]

... While I have 99% love for LEO (1% disdain for LEO speeders without lights and unsignaled lane changers out writing tickets) ...

At one time I would have agreed with you about unlit LEO speeders and unsignaled lane changers. Then someone broke into our neighbor's house while she was grocery shopping. She ran crying to our house when she discovered her broken-in door. We 911'ed it and a bunch of unlit speeding swat LEOs surrounded her house. I would bet they worried not one nonce about signaling lane changes on the way over. Now I understand LEOs may need to get somewhere quickly and silently and have replaced my prior bad judgement with a new appreciation for what might be the reason for such actions.

[goose]

... While I have 99% love for LEO (1% disdain for LEO speeders without lights and unsignaled lane changers out writing tickets) ...

At one time I would have agreed with you about unlit LEO speeders and unsignaled lane changers. Then someone broke into our neighbor's house while she was grocery shopping. She ran crying to our house when she discovered her broken-in door. We 911'ed it and a bunch of unlit speeding swat LEOs surrounded her house. I would bet they worried not one nonce about signaling lane changes on the way over. Now I understand LEOs may need to get somewhere quickly and silently and have replaced my prior bad judgement with a new appreciation for what might be the reason for such actions.

Not to belabor the point and digress a bit, but I am referring to the many police cars I see driving around over the limit and changing lanes just getting around town. I am very comfortable that we'd all know it if a cop car was traveling at a high speed in order to save a life. I would also suggest that in all but special cases, the lights on the cars are to help protect those civilians they will encounter along the way of a high speed run. Those lives are equally as valuable as the lives they are racing towards. Going silent a bit before reaching a destination makes sense. Driving for miles that way would take more explanation for me.

[baldeagle]

Here's another case where a man shot police and was not convicted Admitted police shooter walks free The police raided his house for drugs, broke down the front door and came in, then tried to enter the bedroom, at which point he shot through the door, wounding two of the officers.

"There was testimony that my client had been threatened by some guys from the neighborhood," Schantz said. "He had a real reasonable fear that some people might try to enter his home and harm him or his family. Based on that fear he purchased the handgun and only had it two or three days before this incident."

Schantz disputed police records indicating Green is a gang member and says he has no felony convictions.

"It was my initial assessment of Mr. Green that he was a very good young man who was caught in an unfortunate circumstance and acted within seconds in a way that I probably would have as well," said Schantz.