Cop mistakes cane for gun

[scratchy]

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?

[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.

[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.