• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teen sues officer who held him at gunpoint near bus stop

Good question. I don't know. Once a sworn officer......

While lacking legal police status for being in another state, the relevancy would be to her motive and reasons for her reaction. She reacted like a police officer. If she had been in her jurisdiction there would be no legal issue in terms of law. What she did is legal for police, but probably not for non-police. Whether her conduct should be criticized otherwise is another matter.
 
While lacking legal police status for being in another state, the relevancy would be to her motive and reasons for her reaction. She reacted like a police officer. If she had been in her jurisdiction there would be no legal issue in terms of law. What she did is legal for police, but probably not for non-police. Whether her conduct should be criticized otherwise is another matter.

Agreed. And certainly there are lots of assumptions being made to conclude she is a bad seed. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't.

Beyond that, I guess the court will decide if Mr. Becerra has a case.
 
I hope....and I mean this....that no one in your family is ever killed or sexually assaulted.

If they are dont call the fire dept
If anyone is being murdered or raped, I really doubt the perp is going to take a break to let the victim call the police

It's attitudes like yours that contribute to the hostility towards law enforcement. Health care providers are FAR more likely to save my (or any other person's) life. That doesn't mean it's OK for them to pull a gun on innocent people.
 
Remember that time you ran toward gun fire ( I do)......oh wait.....that never happened
I know that I would never do that.

Like every other job, being a cop requires certain skills and abilities. There's no shame in realizing that you don't possess those. I certainly don't feel any.

This woman doesn't possess them either.
 
wyoming-teen-lawsuit-1-teen-credit-jackson-hole-news-and-guide.jpg

Picture of him smiling away and saying he was "exhilarated" doesn't help his emotional distress case, does it?
Ummm, it was the female cop who said she was exhilarated
 
I hope....and I mean this....that no one in your family is ever killed or sexually assaulted.

If they are dont call the fire dept

I recall and urban police officer saying if a person REALLY desperately needs the police being under attack in your home, don't call the police. Call the fire department and shout out the address and then "Fire! The baby is trapped!"The only faster response might be dialing 911 and shouting "heart attack!' to bring an ambulance.

A person I know quite being a paramedic in a big city because he was tired having a gun or knife in his face as they almost always arrive before the police to domestic disturbance calls where both the police and an ambulance were needed.
 
However, my views on personal self defense are unusual that just about no one on either side of the gun issue cares much for. It is my opinion, and based on some studying, that once you start shooting at someone with anything - they're running and if they have a gun they're so busy running they won't hit anything.

An interesting observation and one that is incredibly more likely to be true in an incredibly high percentage of cases.

Of course, if "The Other Guy" shoots first it's also likely to be true.

BTW, my observation is that the average "Bad Guy With A Gun" is highly likely to be a really crappy shot whose chance of hitting the broadside of a barn is dependent on whether or not they are inside the barn or not.
 
It does not work on everyone and we do not even know if she tried verbal commands before pulling her gun

It's tough to tell, but from the information that we have already it sounds like she was pulling out her gun as she was bailing out of her car.

Equally, it sounds like the only thing that kept the young man from being shot was that he had sense enough to follow the dictum "Any time someone says that they are a cop and will shoot you unless you __[fill in the blank]__ you'd better __[fill in the blank]__ RIGHT NOW because if you don't they will kill you.".
 
Few want to discuss this on a realistic legal level. I do.

Criminal: That is up to the prosecutor's office, specific to state law and practically subject to local standards in the community and prosecutor's office.

So far you are, indeed, dealing with "this on a realistic legal level".

Were this NYC, even outside a gun charge, they would threaten her felony assault with a deadly weapon, felony illegal imprisonment, felony impersonating a officer, having a coke larger that 16 ounces - anything they could think of to get her to immediately plea to a misdemeanor - her night in jail time served, a fine, community serve not caring if she does it or not. But if she didn't and it became a big media deal? Then they'd get tough.

In Wyoming? A young, pretty female cop and no one hurt? A hung jury at best for the prosecutor. The prosecutor has already decided.

So much for dealing with "this on a realistic legal level".


Civilly:
He can't sue either department - her's or Wyoming - because she wasn't legally acting as a cop.

Wrong.

There no substantial economic loses

So what>

- other than those stemming from emotional distress.

Which does provide for an award of damages.

Scaring someone, even by illegal conduct, isn't recoverable.

Wrong.


Even with a judgment, there is no money to get.

Are you saying that the woman has no income or assets?

Neither her insurance (if she has it) or department is liable,

Please provide a copy of the insurance policies.

... as she was not legally a cop in that jurisdiction.

So what?

Thus, there is no money to get.

See above.

That's it. That the legal topics and outcome. No prosecution because the prosecutor said so. No civil money because of no economic harm and no money to get anyway.

One out of three is NOT a passing grade.

... but in terms of actual legalities it adds up to nothing. I do think there is a good chance she'll lose her job over this.

Make that one out of five.
 
Has any article said whether or not she told him she is a police officer? Flashed her department's badge? Her department might have a problem with that.

Not only that, but the minute she identified herself as a police officer (assuming that she did), the laws concerning "liability for acts of agents (even when those acts are contrary to the instructions of the principle)" could well kick in.
 
and IF the kid had just shot someone, she would be hailed a hero

you cant have it both ways

either you want your police officers actually caring, and making a difference, or not caring and not giving a ****

she thought something was amiss....she wanted to check it out...we dont know the exact exchange between the two, but teenager to adult in civvies, he probably told her to screw off

she is authorized to follow up and detain....

and yes, that includes pulling a gun if necessary...but it shouldnt be necessary if our youth was respectful of law enforcement or adults in general

Except, she didn't check anything out. She just stopped somenone running by. She had no idea if anyone was hurt, if a crime was committed, if an active shooter was behind her, etc. If she would have taken a moment to assess the scene, we wouldn't be talking about this now.

And technically, she isn't authorized to detain anyone in Wyoming. Perhaps in Colorado, but there's still that pesky issue of probable cause.

And the whole point of this is that the gun wasn't necessary -- and it certainly wasn't necessary to threaten to shoot the kid.
 
Call me crazy but I don't think we should have to accept the possibility of being murdered by the police because some coward cop heard a loud noise.

Now that's simply not true.

You wouldn't have been killed because the police officer "heard a loud noise", you would have been killed because


"After becoming alerted to the possible commission of a violent felony by hearing a sound that my training and experience led me to conclude was a gun shot, I identified the potential perpetrator of the violent felony by his highly suspicious actions in attempting to flee the place where he had committed the violent felony. I called on the fleeing felon to halt and he ignored my legal directions to halt. While the fleeing violent felon continued to attempt to evade arrest, he appeared to be reaching for an object. Knowing that the fleeing violent felon had just committed a violent felony involving the use of firearms, I concluded that the fleeing violent felon was about to deploy an illegal weapon with the felonious intent of committing a felonious assault upon my person. Seeing how agitated and uncontrolled the behaviour of the fleeing violent felon - who was attempting to deploy an illegal firearm against me, I also concluded that the fleeing violent felon constituted an immediate danger to the lives and safety of the other people in the general vicinity. Accordingly I discharged my firearm and kept on doing so until the violent criminal scum was no longer a threat to either me or any of the innocent bystanders."

I am sure that you can see the difference.
 
Not only that, but the minute she identified herself as a police officer (assuming that she did), the laws concerning "liability for acts of agents (even when those acts are contrary to the instructions of the principle)" could well kick in.

That was my thought. And actually, she would have had to identify herself as an officer and show identification -- otherwise she would have been the one on the ground when the police arrived.
 
Except, she didn't check anything out. She just stopped somenone running by. She had no idea if anyone was hurt, if a crime was committed, if an active shooter was behind her, etc. If she would have taken a moment to assess the scene, we wouldn't be talking about this now.

And technically, she isn't authorized to detain anyone in Wyoming. Perhaps in Colorado, but there's still that pesky issue of probable cause.

And the whole point of this is that the gun wasn't necessary -- and it certainly wasn't necessary to threaten to shoot the kid.

so again...if a crime had been committed, she would be hailed a hero

in this case, she is a scumbag in some eyes because she cared enough to actually stop the person and check

so he missed the bus....boo hoo

i have been stopped because my car matched a car that just committed a armed robbery

it wasnt the one...but i understand the precaution the officers took....

it is all in the perception one holds....
 
Hmmm....Wonder why this particular story hit your radar? Some kid who wasn't hurt, held for a short time....While headlines like this:

A police officer was shot dead in Alabama and authorities are searching for the suspect

Alabama police shooting: An officer was killed and authorities are searching for the suspect - CNN

happen much more frequency these days....Maybe you support what happened in Alabama? Nah, that couldn't be true....could it?

I don't find it "unusual" when criminals act like criminals.

I do find it "unusual" when police officers act like jerks.

Just for the record, I take no issue with


The people of Blue Lives Matter have valid statistical evidence that a police officer is more likely to be shot and killed in any given situation if the person they are dealing with is "Black" then they have in an identical situation if the person they are dealing with is "White".

Now, do you take issue with


The people of Black Lives Matter have valid statistical evidence that a "Black" is more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer in any given situation than a "White" would be in an identical situation.

Do you think that the first justifies ignoring the second?

Do you think that the second justifies ignoring the first?
 
Now that's simply not true.

You wouldn't have been killed because the police officer "heard a loud noise", you would have been killed because


"After becoming alerted to the possible commission of a violent felony by hearing a sound that my training and experience led me to conclude was a gun shot, I identified the potential perpetrator of the violent felony by his highly suspicious actions in attempting to flee the place where he had committed the violent felony. I called on the fleeing felon to halt and he ignored my legal directions to halt. While the fleeing violent felon continued to attempt to evade arrest, he appeared to be reaching for an object. Knowing that the fleeing violent felon had just committed a violent felony involving the use of firearms, I concluded that the fleeing violent felon was about to deploy an illegal weapon with the felonious intent of committing a felonious assault upon my person. Seeing how agitated and uncontrolled the behaviour of the fleeing violent felon - who was attempting to deploy an illegal firearm against me, I also concluded that the fleeing violent felon constituted an immediate danger to the lives and safety of the other people in the general vicinity. Accordingly I discharged my firearm and kept on doing so until the violent criminal scum was no longer a threat to either me or any of the innocent bystanders."

I am sure that you can see the difference.

Absolutely. That carefully crafted statement cleared everything right up. My mistake.
 
Now that's simply not true.

You wouldn't have been killed because the police officer "heard a loud noise", you would have been killed because


"After becoming alerted to the possible commission of a violent felony by hearing a sound that my training and experience led me to conclude was a gun shot, I identified the potential perpetrator of the violent felony by his highly suspicious actions in attempting to flee the place where he had committed the violent felony. I called on the fleeing felon to halt and he ignored my legal directions to halt. While the fleeing violent felon continued to attempt to evade arrest, he appeared to be reaching for an object. Knowing that the fleeing violent felon had just committed a violent felony involving the use of firearms, I concluded that the fleeing violent felon was about to deploy an illegal weapon with the felonious intent of committing a felonious assault upon my person. Seeing how agitated and uncontrolled the behaviour of the fleeing violent felon - who was attempting to deploy an illegal firearm against me, I also concluded that the fleeing violent felon constituted an immediate danger to the lives and safety of the other people in the general vicinity. Accordingly I discharged my firearm and kept on doing so until the violent criminal scum was no longer a threat to either me or any of the innocent bystanders."

I am sure that you can see the difference.

Mueller report? Crossfire hurricane got it
 
I don't find it "unusual" when criminals act like criminals.

I do find it "unusual" when police officers act like jerks.

Just for the record, I take no issue with


The people of Blue Lives Matter have valid statistical evidence that a police officer is more likely to be shot and killed in any given situation if the person they are dealing with is "Black" then they have in an identical situation if the person they are dealing with is "White".

Now, do you take issue with


The people of Black Lives Matter have valid statistical evidence that a "Black" is more likely to be shot and killed by a police officer in any given situation than a "White" would be in an identical situation.

Do you think that the first justifies ignoring the second?

Do you think that the second justifies ignoring the first?

Ah clever....Trying to turn it around on me won't work here bud....You seem to have something against police confronting anything other than white suspects...
 
so again...if a crime had been committed, she would be hailed a hero

in this case, she is a scumbag in some eyes because she cared enough to actually stop the person and check

so he missed the bus....boo hoo

i have been stopped because my car matched a car that just committed a armed robbery

it wasnt the one...but i understand the precaution the officers took....

it is all in the perception one holds....

sigh. Your anecdote is something different. Your car was stopped by working police (likely uniformed in a police car) because it matched an actual description of a vehicle from an actual crime. The officers likely ran your plates, spoke with you, and let you move on.

She didn't check anything. She grabbed the first person who happened to be running in the vicinity, and threatened to shoot him. A prudent officer would have surveyed the scene and tried to understand what happened first.
 
An interesting observation and one that is incredibly more likely to be true in an incredibly high percentage of cases.

Of course, if "The Other Guy" shoots first it's also likely to be true.

BTW, my observation is that the average "Bad Guy With A Gun" is highly likely to be a really crappy shot whose chance of hitting the broadside of a barn is dependent on whether or not they are inside the barn or not.

Most bad guy shooting is at VERY close range - a few feet. Hard to miss. But at any distance, sure. So are most police. Pistol range shooting has very limited value as in most real life situations a person is doing no-aiming impulse shooting and in a sudden panic situation, possibly while moving too.

For my practice shooting with a handgun, I only do "impulse" shooting - to just lift the pistol or revolver and start firing pointing towards the target but no taking a stance or really aiming down the sights. Home defense (and service) pistols/revolvers all have Crimson Trace instant on laser grips - the bullets go where the red dot is. Otherwise I am a very pitiful shot with a handgun, even if carefully aiming. A shotgun is a different matter, I'm dead on with those. If time, the home defense gun is a double barrel 12 gauge "coach" gun (short barrels but within legal minimum).

For modern pistols/revolvers, I load them alternatively with ordinary cone ammo (for penetration) and man-stoppers (basically slicers - hollow points that also have somewhat like wires that come out on impact) for maximum tissue diameter damage.

For the shotgun I keep changing around. For home defense one barrel will be loaded with a bean bag or bird shot, and the other with AA - but 5 more shells in a stock holder - slugs and AA. The reason is if there is the slightest doubt who I'm shooting and why, I'd fire the bean bag first. At the range of a few feet they hit hard and of course the terror of a shotgun blast at the person. If certain it is a life threatening situation I can first fire the AA or fire it as my second round if the person is still coming. I NEVER miss with a shotgun for some reason and beyond the better sighting with a longer barrel or pellet spread - which will be minimal at short range.

If in the brush or otherwise outdoors, the bean bag (or bird shot) is replaced with a slug. My real danger is unlikely a human, but hogs - with an extremely unlikelihood of a black bear. A hog can charge out of palmettos at 20 mph only a few feet away. You have maybe 2 seconds to react - and try to stop it before it ripped up the main artery in your leg and then just keeps on tearing you up. Extremely life threatening and lethal. VERY hard to stop even hitting it point blank with both barrels unless you get the brain of upper spine. I wrote about my experience with this earlier on this thread.

I like lasers and double 12 gauges also for their fear factor. I would rather scare someone enough to not have to shoot. Shining a laser on a pistol at night outdoors to concerning sounds would scare off any sane person. There is something about a short 12 double barrel with hammer locks that is particularly intimidating - particularly if pointed at you. Because my distant path, I have great confidence in an old fashioned double barrel hammer locks short barrel coach gun.

They say no gun has "knockdown" power, only possibly stopping power. I'm confident if a bad guy is hit chest center with a 12 slug and AA buck shot - he's instantly going down and not coming back up. The impact force is greater than hitting him chest center full force with a sledge hammer.

But again, I desire NOT to shoot anyone, if I do, my goal will be defense, not to kill the person, nor do I believe every shot has to be a kill shot based upon circumstances.
 
Most bad guy shooting is at VERY close range - a few feet. Hard to miss. But at any distance, sure. So are most police. Pistol range shooting has very limited value as in most real life situations a person is doing no-aiming impulse shooting and in a sudden panic situation, possibly while moving too.

For my practice shooting with a handgun, I only do "impulse" shooting - to just lift the pistol or revolver and start firing pointing towards the target but no taking a stance or really aiming down the sights. Home defense (and service) pistols/revolvers all have Crimson Trace instant on laser grips - the bullets go where the red dot is. Otherwise I am a very pitiful shot with a handgun, even if carefully aiming. A shotgun is a different matter, I'm dead on with those. If time, the home defense gun is a double barrel 12 gauge "coach" gun (short barrels but within legal minimum).

For modern pistols/revolvers, I load them alternatively with ordinary cone ammo (for penetration) and man-stoppers (basically slicers - hollow points that also have somewhat like wires that come out on impact) for maximum tissue diameter damage.

For the shotgun I keep changing around. For home defense one barrel will be loaded with a bean bag or bird shot, and the other with AA - but 5 more shells in a stock holder - slugs and AA. The reason is if there is the slightest doubt who I'm shooting and why, I'd fire the bean bag first. At the range of a few feet they hit hard and of course the terror of a shotgun blast at the person. If certain it is a life threatening situation I can first fire the AA or fire it as my second round if the person is still coming. I NEVER miss with a shotgun for some reason and beyond the better sighting with a longer barrel or pellet spread - which will be minimal at short range.

If in the brush or otherwise outdoors, the bean bag (or bird shot) is replaced with a slug. My real danger is unlikely a human, but hogs - with an extremely unlikelihood of a black bear. A hog can charge out of palmettos at 20 mph only a few feet away. You have maybe 2 seconds to react - and try to stop it before it ripped up the main artery in your leg and then just keeps on tearing you up. Extremely life threatening and lethal. VERY hard to stop even hitting it point blank with both barrels unless you get the brain of upper spine. I wrote about my experience with this earlier on this thread.

I like lasers and double 12 gauges also for their fear factor. I would rather scare someone enough to not have to shoot. Shining a laser on a pistol at night outdoors to concerning sounds would scare off any sane person. There is something about a short 12 double barrel with hammer locks that is particularly intimidating - particularly if pointed at you. Because my distant path, I have great confidence in an old fashioned double barrel hammer locks short barrel coach gun.

They say no gun has "knockdown" power, only possibly stopping power. I'm confident if a bad guy is hit chest center with a 12 slug and AA buck shot - he's instantly going down and not coming back up. The impact force is greater than hitting him chest center full force with a sledge hammer.

But again, I desire NOT to shoot anyone, if I do, my goal will be defense, not to kill the person, nor do I believe every shot has to be a kill shot based upon circumstances.

These reads like bad fan fiction in the back of 90's edition of guns and ammo
 
Absolutely. That carefully crafted statement cleared everything right up. My mistake.

Always happy to assist public officials fulfill their duties efficiently and effectively.

PS - The bit between the quotation marks is copyrighted and may only be used in any official and/or legal situation after the payment of the appropriate licensing fee.
 
Getting judgement in your favor in civil court (an official IOU) is not that difficult, but collecting on it from someone, especially out of state, is not so easy.

Yeah but if it's a solid case, he'll easily find a lawyer to take it on contingency because municipalities settle this stuff pretty commonly.
 
Back
Top Bottom