Teen sues officer who held him at gunpoint near bus stop

[joko104]

Hollywood on guns is all fantasy:

1. If you shoot a bad guy, he doesn't instantly drop dead and rarely is incapacitated by a single shot. Even with a heart shot he's got many seconds left.

2. If you point a gun on someone shouting "freeze! Don't move! Get down!" usually they won't. They'll stop, startled, trying to figure what to do. Some will comply but most don't. They will ultimately either charge you or run - more likely the latter. How they will react to a cop is very different than a non-cop. No, you can't shoot the fleeing person in the back - UNLESS he has a gun and then probably ok - because he could swing around a fire before you physiologically would be able to react.

(This is a situation a kill shot may not be necessary. Break-in with a knife or even unarmed poises an attack danger, possibly having you fighting over your own gun for reaction delay. If the person is not complying and you sense the attack may happen any instant - blowing out one of his knees with the AA buck shot ends that prospect, still leaving the other barrel (and then reloading the spent barrel). He has been crippled, probably for life, but he'll live.

3. The false quick draw concept is based on #1 and fails to recognize the actual inherent delay in reaction ability is quite slow - from the time your eyes send the info to your brain, your brain processes it sending the nerve signals to your muscles (which is not as fast as light speed) and your muscles then can do their thing is quite delayed.

In the past, I've demonstrated this many times to police officers with a challenge.

I would stand 10 feet from the officer. He would KNOW I am going to charge. So he can fully mentally prepare, even have his hand on the non-functioning practice pistol in its holster. He would know when I shout "go!" I am rushing him.

Without exception, that officer would end up on the ground and my holding his pistol, he never gotten off a pretend shot. Why? 1. Inherent reaction time delay and 2.) because one hand was at his gun dealing with that, he was a one arm defender against a two arm attacker. The only possible chance would be for the officer to MORE focus on running backwards than drawing his gun.

They teach the minimum safe distance for a knife attack defended with by a gun - even drawn and pointing - is 30 feet. You may well shot the attacker - but that doesn't mean he still doesn't get his knife into your throat.

(Knives are a TERRIBLE self defense weapon for the untrained, particularly untrained woman. Killing someone with a knife isn't fast almost no matter how you do it. It certainly isn't with a wild slash or jab. They have no impact power. A knife is a slow kill weapon for any untrained person. The defender's own knife is more likely to be taken and used against the defender. However, a knife does have a fear factor.)

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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...

Nope, but I do have something against police officers confronting people who are __[fill in the blank]__ in a manner that differs from the way that they interact with people who are NOT __[fill in the blank]__.

On the other hand, I also have something against people (regardless of whether they are __[fill in the blank]__ or not __[fill in the blank]__) killing police officers (or anyone else for that matter) over trivial matters.

I consider myself fortunate to live someplace where the amount of concern that I have to give to the possibility of either of those happening is LOWER than the amount of concern that I have to give to killing myself because I accidentally slipped and fell in my bathtub.

Now, back to the "substance" of your "response".

I noticed that you didn't actually provide an answer to the bolded portion of

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?
​

so I am wondering if that was accidental or deliberate.

If it was accidental, I have no doubts as to whether or not you will correct that accidental omission.

If it was deliberate, I would really like you to explain why. However I have the same amount of doubts that you will do so.

 

[Lursa]

OK, but the vacationing officer was from Colorado. I guess your point is that once an officer becomes scared (paranoid?) enough then they can (should?) use that as a reason (excuse?) to hold 'suspicious' folks at gunpoint anywhere.

And putting other people at risk, because she would have assumed the kid was armed.

She should have just been a 'good witness' and called 911 if she was really concerned.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

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.

One can almost sense the orgasm waves radiating from your post.

 

[joko104]

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.

She was not in her state so had no police status. Her municipality, the Wyoming municipality nor her cop insurance (if she had it) wouldn't cover the lawsuit or judgment for that reason.

All he could do is try to collect from her personally - and she could dump that with bankruptcy as her credit card debts, car loan and rent/mortgage contract all are priority debts that his judgment would be inferior to - meaning he'd never see a dime. He/his lawyer would just end up having paid their own court costs (could be thousands of dollars with depositions) that they can't recover. There is no award of attorney fees in a tort case.

Normally the local or county government does have to cover cops. Because she was off duty and on vacation in another state, she wasn't a cop so everyone but her is off the hook.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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.

The difficulty may be in getting the municipality (in CO) to accept responsibility for the independent actions of an employee while on vacation in another state (WY).

 

[Lursa]

She didn't "investigate " a suspect. She pulled a gun on him and arrested him

And since she says she believes he had a gun, she put everyone in the vicinity in danger.

IMO the greatest benefit of her being sued is if she was removed from the job and other cops learned from it.

 

[dirtpoorchris]

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

Being male and running is not a crime. If she accidentally arrests someone with deadly force she committed a crime. Simple as that she rolled the dice and lost HARD. Maybe next time she should ask some questions before pulling her gun out on 18 year olds who are non-violent?

 

[Lursa]

The difficulty may be in getting the municipality (in CO) to accept responsibility for the independent actions of an employee while on vacation in another state (WY).

Yeah, as I read further I think you may be right. OTOH, they could take action on her actions...which I think would be appropriate in terms of her employment.

 

[joko104]

Yeah, as I read further I think you may be right. OTOH, they could take action on her actions...which I think would be appropriate in terms of her employment.

She could lose her police job over this - particularly if she identified herself as police and displayed her department's badge to the guy while doing so. Depending on the department, they may not like that a lot. Might even need to as an assurance of avoiding departmental liable to demonstrate that she definitely was acting outside of police.

Then again, depends on the department. She might be the mayor's or chief's daughter if a small city. Also, if there is a police union involved, her job is safe.

 

[Master Debator]

This is a situation a kill shot may not be necessary.

Oh kill shots! I've heard of those. It's when you you hold your gun sideways and fire while holding your crotch right after doing a tactical roll.

:lamo

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yeah, as I read further I think you may be right. OTOH, they could take action on her actions...which I think would be appropriate in terms of her employment.

The initial step for taking any civil action is to establish (place?) a justified monetary value on the alleged damages. That, after all, is the only thing that winning a civil suit can do - have the court award the young man some monetary settlement (an IOU) from the vacationing officer.

The legal costs (especially the plaintiff's attorney fees) of taking civil action generally cannot be included as part of those damages. The lawsuit most likely would result a very small settlement with most, if not all, going to cover the plaintiff's attorney fees and expenses.

 

[j-mac]

Nope, but I do have something against police officers confronting people who are __[fill in the blank]__ in a manner that differs from the way that they interact with people who are NOT __[fill in the blank]__.

On the other hand, I also have something against people (regardless of whether they are __[fill in the blank]__ or not __[fill in the blank]__) killing police officers (or anyone else for that matter) over trivial matters.

I consider myself fortunate to live someplace where the amount of concern that I have to give to the possibility of either of those happening is LOWER than the amount of concern that I have to give to killing myself because I accidentally slipped and fell in my bathtub.

Now, back to the "substance" of your "response".

I noticed that you didn't actually provide an answer to the bolded portion of

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?
​

so I am wondering if that was accidental or deliberate.

If it was accidental, I have no doubts as to whether or not you will correct that accidental omission.

If it was deliberate, I would really like you to explain why. However I have the same amount of doubts that you will do so.

I deny the premise...I would like to see the laws in this country applied equally regardless of color, heritage, or socio- economic status...Now, is it a perfect world? Nah...Is Canada perfect in that respect? nah....So, do I have to accept a so called study presented by instigators in a group like BLM? Hell no! No more than you would accept a study from some activist group on the right....

 

[joko104]

The initial step for taking any civil action is to establish (place?) a justified monetary value on the alleged damages. That, after all, is the only thing that winning a civil suit can do - have the court award the young man some monetary settlement (an IOU) from the vacationing officer.

The legal costs (especially the plaintiff's attorney fees) of taking civil action generally cannot be included as part of those damages. The lawsuit most likely would result a very small settlement with most, if not all, going to cover the plaintiff's attorney fees and expenses.

No award of attorney fees in a tort case. Only in contract cases. That's why all accident cases are on contingency fees - the attorney can only get a cut of the judgment. Court costs are covered if the Plaintiff wins.

 

[joko104]

Oh kill shots! I've heard of those. It's when you you hold your gun sideways and fire while holding your crotch right after doing a tactical roll.

:lamo

You always fail at humor. Stupid sneering means the only laughing would be AT you.

 

[Master Debator]

You always fail at humor. Stupid sneering means the only laughing would be AT you.

I admit, I'm not half the comedic writer that you are. That hog story was comedy gold. Tell us again how you zeroed in on the dangerous Wilbur beast with your double barrel.

 

[joko104]

Being male and running is not a crime. If she accidentally arrests someone with deadly force she committed a crime. Simple as that she rolled the dice and lost HARD. Maybe next time she should ask some questions before pulling her gun out on 18 year olds who are non-violent?

You are exactly wrong. IF she was legitimately acting as a police officer within her jurisdiction, her conduct was legal and in my opinion correct. If an officer sees someone fleeing what the officer believes may be fleeing from a crime, the officer can stop and detain the person, may draw their side arm ordering the person to the ground, and may advise the person he will be shot if he does not comply. There is NOTHING illegal about that, it is correct procedure, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Had she actually fired on him, the question would be did she have a legitimate reason to fear for her or anyone else's life? It is common for officers to shout out "Keep your hands where I can see them or I WILL kill you!" NOTHING she did was illegal - OTHER than she was not a police officer in that jurisdiction.

It is irrelevant if a crime had been committed. Only that she suspected one may have been. Nor is it relevant if he had committed any crime, only that she had reason to believe he may have - and running for the area is sufficient to believe that was possibly true.

Contrary to what you posted, the US Supreme Court has ruled police may stop someone who is running if they believe this is fleeing a crime or to avoid the police. Whether the person actually was fleeing a crime doesn't matter. If you don't like it, send everyone on the Supreme Court a hate letter, because it was unanimous.

ALL of this is WELL established law - and WELL established common police practices.

The problem is she was not in her jurisdiction so had no police authority. That is the ONLY problem with it.

Cop haters will hate cops. So they try to micro-analyze to find anything to rant "imprison the cop! Fire him! Lock him up for life!" They are nearly always wrong on the law, wrong on upper court rulings, wrong on police practice and would get lots of police and other people killed while causing lots of criminals to escape so they can victimize more people.

 

[Master Debator]

You are exactly wrong. IF she was legitimately acting as a police officer within her jurisdiction, her conduct was legal and in my opinion correct. If an officer sees someone fleeing what the officer believes may be fleeing from a crime, the officer can stop and detain the person, may draw their side arm ordering the person to the ground, and may advise the person he will be shot if he does not comply. There is NOTHING illegal about that, it is correct procedure, and has been upheld by the Supreme Court.

Had she actually fired on him, the question would be did she have a legitimate reason to fear for her or anyone else's life? It is common for officers to shout out "Keep your hands where I can see them or I WILL kill you!" NOTHING she did was illegal - OTHER than she was not a police officer in that jurisdiction.

It is irrelevant if a crime had been committed. Only that she suspected one may have been. Nor is it relevant if he had committed any crime, only that she had reason to believe he may have - and running for the area is sufficient to believe that was possibly true.

Contrary to what you posted, the US Supreme Court has ruled police may stop someone who is running if they believe this is fleeing a crime or to avoid the police. Whether the person actually was fleeing a crime doesn't matter. If you don't like it, send everyone on the Supreme Court a hate letter, because it was unanimous.

ALL of this is WELL established law - and WELL established common police practices.

The problem is she was not in her jurisdiction so had no police authority. That is the ONLY problem with it.

Cop haters will hate cops. So they try to micro-analyze to find anything to rant "imprison the cop! Fire him! Lock him up for life!" They are nearly always wrong on the law, wrong on upper court rulings, wrong on police practice and would get lots of police and other people killed while causing lots of criminals to escape so they can victimize more people.

See the real police already said she acted improperly. So if we're being asked to take the word of real police or fantasy pig wranglers I know who'll I'll be going with.

 

[sangha]

I admit, I'm not half the comedic writer that you are. That hog story was comedy gold. Tell us again how you zeroed in on the dangerous Wilbur beast with your double barrel.

You should read his manatee story

 

[Master Debator]

You should read his manatee story

Did he subdue it with his bare hands? Fashion a saddle from seashells with his Bowie knife before riding her to depths to slay a gang of killer sharks?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The difficulty may be in getting the municipality (in CO) to accept responsibility for the independent actions of an employee while on vacation in another state (WY).

If one of the basis for the lawsuit is "failure to train properly" then the municipality could well be found "jointly and severally liable" (upon that basis being accepted by the courts).

IF the municipality is found "jointly and severally liable" (without any apportionment of liability) then the judgment creditor is at liberty to enforce 100% of the judgment against the municipality (or any of the other tortfeasors) - whereupon the municipality (or the other tortfeasor) could seek "an apportionment of liability and contribution" from the other tortfeasors.

Since the municipality is the most likely to have "deep pockets", the municipality would be the primary target for the enforcement of any judgment.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Oh kill shots! I've heard of those. It's when you you hold your gun sideways and fire while holding your crotch right after doing a tactical roll.

:lamo

Based on personal experience, at anything over 10 yards, for the average handgun user, a "good shot" is a round that sort of comes near the target and a "fantastic shot" is one that actually hits the target SOMEWHERE.

 

[ttwtt78640]

If one of the basis for the lawsuit is "failure to train properly" then the municipality could well be found "jointly and severally liable" (upon that basis being accepted by the courts).

IF the municipality is found "jointly and severally liable" (without any apportionment of liability) then the judgment creditor is at liberty to enforce 100% of the judgment against the municipality (or any of the other tortfeasors) - whereupon the municipality (or the other tortfeasor) could seek "an apportionment of liability and contribution" from the other tortfeasors.

Since the municipality is the most likely to have "deep pockets", the municipality would be the primary target for the enforcement of any judgment.

The biggest problem that I see is in convincing a judge or jury that a significant monetary value is justified as compensation for the alleged damages.

 

[sangha]

Based on personal experience, at anything over 10 yards, for the average handgun user, a "good shot" is a round that sort of comes near the target and a "fantastic shot" is one that actually hits the target SOMEWHERE.

Yeah but we're talking about a cop

So at 10 yards, anything that doesn't hit an innocent bystander

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I deny the premise...

What "premise". The statistical data is drawn from the US national data banks maintained by the FBI.

I would like to see the laws in this country applied equally regardless of color, heritage, or socio- economic status...

So would any rational person.

Now, is it a perfect world? Nah...Is Canada perfect in that respect? nah....

Where did you ever see me saying that it was?

So, do I have to accept a so called study presented by instigators in a group like BLM?

Are you trying to tell me that the FBI is an arm of "Black/Blue Lives Matter"?

No more than you would accept a study from some activist group on the right....

If the "activist group on the right" DID have independently confirmable data upon which to base their conclusions and if their data DID back up their conclusions, then I WOULD "accept" that study.

• Wouldn't you?

Oh, wait, of course you wouldn't.

If the group was an activist group on the right and they DID NOT have independently confirmable data upon which to base their conclusions and/or if their data DID NOT back up their conclusions, then I WOULD NOT "accept" that study.

• Would you?

Oh wait, of course you would.