Play stupid games, win stupid prizes

[hollohas]

Not saying the cops didn't screw the pooch, but I still assert that BG put himself in a hazardous situation, and knew it (hence the big honkin knife).

So if you need to use your CCW, then you must have put yourself in a bad situation and knew it or why else would you have it, right?

Yes, dumb for the BG to do that. Yes, BG is a tool and should be in jail. YES, BG still has right to defend himself against attack.

What if the shoplifter was actively pursuing the guard, even after the guard chose to step back and let him escape?

If the guard steps back and the shoplifter still attacks him, then yes, by Colorado law Mr. no-proof-security guard can defend himself.

[CrufflerSteve]

The guying demanding money for the keys was a scumbag but even this news report says the cop started the violence. Plainclothes, no badge. I don't think the cop should get convicted but he should be fired for cause. A case of $50 ransom for car keys does not warrant an undercover operation. It sounds like a uniformed cop who really wanted to become a detective but instead should become an ex-cop for being a dumbass.

Steve

[Ronin13]

The guying demanding money for the keys was a scumbag but even this news report says the cop started the violence. Plainclothes, no badge. I don't think the cop should get convicted but he should be fired for cause. A case of $50 ransom for car keys does not warrant an undercover operation. It sounds like a uniformed cop who really wanted to become a detective but instead should become an ex-cop for being a dumbass.

Steve

But Steve, he had the op signed off by his SGT and LT! Sounds like some house cleaning is in order for APD.

[TFOGGER]

So if you need to use your CCW, then you must have put yourself in a bad situation and knew it or why else would you have it, right?

Yes, dumb for the BG to do that. Yes, BG is a tool and should be in jail. YES, BG still has right to defend himself against attack.



If the guard steps back and the shoplifter still attacks him, then yes, by Colorado law Mr. no-proof-security guard can defend himself.

I consider everything outside of my control to be a potentially hazardous situation, so I carry. I don't (usually) carry in the bathroom of my own home, as the muzzle flash might ignite the fumes and then.... .

I'm not willing to condemn the cop without knowing the facts. It's entirely possible that the conversation went:

Cop: It's a bad day for you, I'm a police officer. You are under arrest.

BG: You'll never take me alive, coppah!!

Cop: reaches in to grab the keys out of the ignition

BG: Slugs cop

Fight ensues. Curtain falls on on scene of BG laying on the ground bleeding out...

[Bailey Guns]

Cop should be fired. Attempted extortion or not. If some dude in plain clothes, no cop car and no badge comes up to me and tries to forcibly take me out of my car, I'd have no other choice but to assume he was trying to car jack me, beat me or kidnap me. I'd run his ass over to get out of there. If that didn't work, then he'd be lucky if only a knife comes out.

There have been plenty of cases around the country where bad guys posing as police have hurt people. And any reasonable person would agree that he was justified to defend himself against a plain clothes person with no identification or badge.

If this went the other way and he had killed the plain clothes officer without a badge and survived the resulting police responders, I am willing to bet he would be found not guilty.

I'm sure officer also broke all sorts of department protocol by removing his uniform, not carrying his badge during his shift and driving another person's car to make an arrest. This all adds up to intent in my mind.

This officer played a stupid game and he needs to win a stupid prize.

By Colorado state law, he should be tried for murder. The aggressor and instigator of an altercation cannot use self defense as a defense to murder when the victim of his aggression tries to defend himself with force. I am paraphrasing by memory of course... EDIT: Check out Colorado Revised Statutes 18-1-704 and 18-3-107 for your own reference.

While some of your statement is opinion, and some of it I agree with, you're wrong about this (bold paragraph).

While I have serious issues with the decision to go "UC" on this arrest, it was approved by two superior officers, apparently.

Furthermore, Title 16 of the CRS states:

16-3-101. Arrest - when and how made.

(1) An arrest may be made on any day and at any time of the day or night.
(2) All necessary and reasonable force may be used in making an arrest.
(3) All necessary and reasonable force may be used to effect an entry upon any building or property or part thereof to make an authorized arrest.


16-3-102. Arrest by peace officer.
(1) A peace officer may arrest a person when:
(a) He has a warrant commanding that such person be arrested; or
(b) Any crime has been or is being committed by such person in his presence; or
(c) He has probable cause to believe that an offense was committed and has probable cause to believe that the offense was committed by the person to be arrested.

I can find no statute, nor do I recall one, that required an officer to do more to identify him/herself to a suspect while effecting an arrest than what this officer did. Granted, the suspect had the choice to believe or not believe the officer. It doesn't, however, excuse his behavior.


The only time positive ID of the officer would be necessary, I believe, is when the arrested person is charged with an obstruction/resisting type of crime where the identification of the officer is an element of the offense.


And all the chest-thumping in the world isn't going to change the fact that had it been you in this suspects position and you had killed the officer, you'd likely be going to jail for a long time.


Oh...and BTW. You should also check out 18-1-701 and 702.

[Bailey Guns]

There's more to this statute but it deals with detention settings.

18-1-707. Use of physical force in making an arrest or in preventing an escape.

(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, a peace officer is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary:

(a) To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person unless he knows that the arrest is unauthorized; or

(b) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of physical force while effecting or attempting to effect such an arrest or while preventing or attempting to prevent such an escape.

(2) A peace officer is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person for a purpose specified in subsection (1) of this section only when he reasonably believes that it is necessary:

(a) To defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) To effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody, of a person whom he reasonably believes:

(I) Has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of a deadly weapon; or

(II) Is attempting to escape by the use of a deadly weapon; or

(III) Otherwise indicates, except through a motor vehicle violation, that he is likely to endanger human life or to inflict serious bodily injury to another unless apprehended without delay.

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) (b) of this section shall be deemed to constitute justification for reckless or criminally negligent conduct by a peace officer amounting to an offense against or with respect to innocent persons whom he is not seeking to arrest or retain in custody.

(4) For purposes of this section, a reasonable belief that a person has committed an offense means a reasonable belief in facts or circumstances which if true would in law constitute an offense. If the believed facts or circumstances would not in law constitute an offense, an erroneous though not unreasonable belief that the law is otherwise does not render justifiable the use of force to make an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody. A peace officer who is effecting an arrest pursuant to a warrant is justified in using the physical force prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of this section unless the warrant is invalid and is known by the officer to be invalid.

(5) Except as provided in subsection (6) of this section, a person who has been directed by a peace officer to assist him to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape from custody is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that force to be necessary to carry out the peace officer's direction, unless he knows that the arrest or prospective arrest is not authorized.

(6) A person who has been directed to assist a peace officer under circumstances specified in subsection (5) of this section may use deadly physical force to effect an arrest or to prevent an escape only when:

(a) He reasonably believes that force to be necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force; or

(b) He is directed or authorized by the peace officer to use deadly physical force and does not know, if that happens to be the case, that the peace officer himself is not authorized to use deadly physical force under the circumstances.

(7) A private person acting on his own account is justified in using reasonable and appropriate physical force upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to effect an arrest, or to prevent the escape from custody of an arrested person who has committed an offense in his presence; but he is justified in using deadly physical force for the purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force.

[Ronin13]

The only time positive ID of the officer would be necessary, I believe, is when the arrested person is charged with an obstruction/resisting type of crime where the identification of the officer is an element of the offense.


And all the chest-thumping in the world isn't going to change the fact that had it been you in this suspects position and you had killed the officer, you'd likely be going to jail for a long time.

So if a guy claims to be a LEO and grabs me out of my car, I should refuse to defend myself if he has no identification as a cop, then he robs me, beats me to within an inch of my life, and he can walk? I think not. I will adequately defend myself in court stating he had no proof that he was a cop, and if I was resisting he should have shown a badge. Any asshole can say they're a cop, the burden of proof falls on their shoulders, prove you're a cop and you can lawfully detain me, otherwise, I'm assuming you're a BG trying to use posing as a cop to get the upper hand.

[Bailey Guns]

Sure...you can assume that. But don't forget we're talking about totality of circumstances.

And you're scenario of being robbed/beaten isn't what we're talking about here. Any officer who's intent on arresting you is:

a) Going to arrest you without incident if you cooperate.
b) Will probably escalate use of force depending on your reaction.

Not to mention if you know you're committing a crime and a guy approaches you claiming to be a police officer and says you're under arrest for (whatever crime you're committing)...ummm..he's probably a police officer. I think your "burden of proof" statement is a little exaggerated and I don't really think it exists.

Besides, if you're resisting, what's the cop supposed to do? Call time out while he gets his wallet/badge out? I think not.

You can always show me in the CRS where it details what type of ID an officer is required to display upon attempting to arrest someone...because I can't find it (with the exceptions of resisting/obstruction type charges).

Not saying it isn't there...just that I can't find it.

[hollohas]

@Bailey

All that is true and I see your point. Ok, the officer was within the law when he tried to arrest the BG. Even if it was the dumbest way to possibly go about it. But are you saying that these statues mean we should all let the next guy who says he's a police officer attack us, handcuff us or kill us because if he actually is a real police officer he's justified in doing so?

I don't think so. I'm not doing shit for some guy that simply says he's a police officer. And if he tires to forcibly detain me, I'm defending myself until he produces a badge.

Because nowhere there does it say that a civilian has to assume a person is a peace officer just because they said so.

Also, I have zero problem with police using force. As I said before I come from a LE family and my own father was involved in a shooting situation (I'll just say he was the victor). I have also defended damn near every LEO use of force story we have ever discussed here. Unlike some here, I respect LEOs until they give me a reason otherwise, not the other way around.

Bailey, I seem to remember you said you used to be LE. Maybe you can tell me, with what we know, why this particular officer removed his uniform, left his badge, left his unit, left his dash cam and drove a private civilian's car to make an arrest???? Something ain't right there...

My father carried his badge even when off-duty...

And if it went the other way and the cop was killed, it would be a hard court battle and the below statute says to me that they would not be able to get the BG on murder of a LEO...

18-3-107
(2) As used in this section, "peace officer or firefighter engaged in the performance of his or her duties" means a peace officer as described in section 16-2.5-101, C.R.S., or a firefighter, as defined in section 18-3-201 (1), who is engaged or acting in, or who is present for the purpose of engaging or acting in, the performance of any duty, service, or function imposed, authorized, required, or permitted by law to be performed by a peace officer or firefighter, whether or not the peace officer or firefighter is within the territorial limits of his or her jurisdiction, if the peace officer or firefighter is in uniform or the person committing an assault upon or offense against or otherwise acting toward such peace officer or firefighter knows or reasonably should know that the victim is a peace officer or firefighter.

[hollohas]

Cop: It's a bad day for you, I'm a police officer. You are under arrest.

BG: You'll never take me alive, coppah!!

Cop: reaches in to grab the keys out of the ignition

BG: Slugs cop

Fight ensues. Curtain falls on on scene of BG laying on the ground bleeding out...

If that's how it happened, then BG should be dead. But it'd still be fishy as to why the cop would go through all the hassle of making sure he went to make an arrest with absolutely no proof he was a cop...