Cop mistakes cane for gun

[FortyTwo]

Got it, shoot first ask later. Don't take up defensive positions. Don't take the.5 second to think. Don't wear a vest to greatly increase survivability. Don't understand the cop signed up knowing it was a dangerous job to begin with and part of the job. Don't take into consideration the old man might be OLD and need a cain. Don't take in to consideration it was an expired license plate not an identified felon. If so worried don't wait for backup or even run the plates to see if a dangerous person may be involved. Just shoot the innocent old man grabbing a cain becuase the cop MAY be in danger.

Cops have a dangerous job which is ALL volunteer. If it comes down to them being in danger or an innocent the cop should ALWAYS go first.
It is the basic tenant of the job. If not they are adrenaline junkies that have no business being a cop to begin with. This is the same premise I had when I was in the Navy. I should die (if need be) before those at home. Not be the danger of the job. Does this mean all cops should die, not protect themselves or not take measures to be safer... Of course not. It also does not mean all cops are bad people. Does it mean they have every responsibility to take that extra .5 second before they ever put one down range....... Yes... Yes it does. They are supposed to be trained to have the ability to identify the good from the bad in that .5 seconds, which is not the same as 98% of all college students who are not.

As for armchair QB.... Everyday they also know that they will be judged for their actions, dash cams are a bitch/or savior. This sucked on all sides but the constant "Cops can do no wrong!" and the rest of us are just little people attitude brings on the BS "cop bashing" statements when anybody disagrees with a cops actions. This cop made a bad judgement. That does not mean he is a bad person or any other BS. He just screwed up (and he knew it.... it is obvious he is a good man by how that video ended). That is evident by the fact that he shot an unarmed, 70 year old vet that simply got out of his truck, got his cain and failed to read the cops manual (btw where is there any law that states we have to read about cop procedures? The cop never gave any instructions over his loudspeaker I could see that the man disobeyed, he just got out of his truck to deal with a cop he had no reason to fear)

To surmise in brevity: "Officer safety has become a higher priority than to protect and serve"

[Great-Kazoo]

Ultimately, Police Officers are civilians like the rest of us and used to be held to the same standard. If the shoot
is justified, it is justified whether or not a law enforcement officer fired it. What would have been the outcome
if a normal, non uniformed citizen had fired the shot?

He would be charged with a few felonies. 1 being road rage. However to debate the what ifs of a civilian engaging another civilian , should be done in another thread.

[Hound]

He would be charged with a few felonies. 1 being road rage. However to debate the what ifs of a civilian engaging another civilian , should be done in another thread.

That is not what he said. It is not about pulling him over. It is about the shooting and that is pertinent to this thread.

[Great-Kazoo]

He would be charged with a few felonies. 1 being road rage. However to debate the what ifs of a civilian engaging another civilian , should be done in another thread.

Ultimately, Police Officers are civilians like the rest of us and used to be held to the same standard. If the shoot
is justified, it is justified whether or not a law enforcement officer fired it. What would have been the outcome
if a normal, non uniformed citizen had fired the shot?

That is not what he said. It is not about pulling him over. It is about the shooting and that is pertinent to this thread.

Well since you want to continue

IF a civilian was to do that he'd be arrested

Because the shooter or driver #1 has / had an opportunity to FLIGHT / leave the area instead of engage. You / your attorney explain to the investigators, then at trial why you pulled over in the middle of an altercation to engage the other party instead of LEAVING THE SCENE and contacting LE.

How was said shooting justified as a civilian?? It was not. NOW if you were pulled over changing a flat tire, looking at a map, walking your dog, Then attacked by someone. That would be different.

Oddly enough something similar was being discussed on Boyles show thurs morn. One of the instructors from BluCore? was on talking about the chase, where 3 car jackings happened. He was asked if once out of the car and the attacker was speeding away, Could the owner use deadly force to stop the car (once it was leaving). He said no, as the threat was moving away, no longer a threat (at that moment) to the former owner of the vehicle.

[RMAC757]

Thankfully, being an armchair QB after the fact is easy...and safe...yet a few of you still suck at it. The whole situation sucks for the old man and the deputy.

I'd say it sucked worse for the older gent. Bailey, every other thread here is an armchair on one thing or another. Whether it be weapon choice or law passed. Damn your sensitive.

[Bailey Guns]

I'm not sensitive at all. You think it was a fuckin' party for the deputy?

I'm just amazed at the number of experts on this forum in the field of law enforcement training and tactics who've never actually had any training or experience in the field of law enforcement training and tactics.

[scratchy]

Yes, I was not commenting on the validity of the stop, I don't think that can be or should be in question. I was trying to spark a bit of thought, not necessarily debate, of the situation where a civilian perceived (wrongly) that a deadly weapon was being drawn.

[TFOGGER]

Oddly enough something similar was being discussed on Boyles show thurs morn. One of the instructors from BluCore? was on talking about the chase, where 3 car jackings happened. He was asked if once out of the car and the attacker was speeding away, Could the owner use deadly force to stop the car (once it was leaving). He said no, as the threat was moving away, no longer a threat (at that moment) to the former owner of the vehicle.

Kind of. CRS 18-1-704 allows :

(1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose.

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

(a) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or

(b) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or

(c) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

It would suck to have to use this as a defense in a criminal proceeding, and it would provide next to zero protection in civil court if one of the carjacking victims had shot him while he was driving away. Not to mention the possible consequences of an errant round in a crowded urban environment.

[Irving]

That was my thought TFOGGER, but it'd be pretty tough to argue it.