3 ms·

...even if the cop did have a reasonable belief that they were being threatened with deadly force, they would also have to believe that there was no way for the

...even if the cop did have a reasonable belief that they were being threatened with deadly force, they would also have to believe that there was no way for them to escape the situation. Not that there is no way; just that they reasonably couldn't. Like, once someone has drawn a gun on you. People must generally retreat if they can but cops generally can't retreat -- they have to serve the warrant, perform the arrest or find the briefcase, whatever it was they were dispatched to do. And even then, most state's "self defence" laws require that the defender not be the instigator of the situation. Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator but it's a situation where I can (and often must) defend myself. If we flip it a little bit -- I am robbing someone's house and they draw a gun on me -- then I am not acting in self defence if I draw a gun on them. They key ingredient is whether I am acting lawfully. The issue is not "who started it" (which would be tough for the law to deal with) but rather if someone is doing something lawful in a place where they have a right to do it. Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them. If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation. ----Edit for background follows---- California is a "Castle Doctrine" state. One is presumed to be acting lawfully when one acts against an intruder on one's real property (home, business, &c). In other situations, there must be a clear threat of bodily harm. https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-self-defense-laws.html* https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-self...

DuskStar 8y ago
> People must generally retreat if they can but cops generally can't retreat -- they have to serve the warrant, perform the arrest or find the briefcase, whatever it was they were dispatched to do. Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street? My impression would be that all of those have the option to retreat, even though that will result in their jobs not being completed. So this sounds like a way that cops have 'special rights relating to killing other people', at least to me. > Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc. > Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them. > If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation. Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street? No, they don't. With cops though, they are just going to have to come back tomorrow. Not delivering the package is an option, but skipping an arraignment usually is not. Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc. In this, we may be close to a meeting of minds. Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs. I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?". What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict. Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill?
  - DuskStar 8y ago
    > I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?". Obviously, because people aren't allowed to kill cops when the cops draw guns on them. Even if they weren't doing anything illegal beforehand. > What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict. > Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill? If the law says "you can kill people in situation X if you got there by method Y (or also Z if you're a cop)" IMO that would be giving cops additional permission to kill. But once again, what's written into the law and what's actually enforced are two very different things, and cops are relatively rarely prosecuted for killings that civilians would be in prison for.
    - 8y ago

DuskStar 8y ago

> People must generally retreat if they can but cops generally can't retreat -- they have to serve the warrant, perform the arrest or find the briefcase, whatever it was they were dispatched to do. Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street? My impression would be that all of those have the option to retreat, even though that will result in their jobs not being completed. So this sounds like a way that cops have 'special rights relating to killing other people', at least to me. > Being the instigator isn't really a clear criterion. Consider the case where someone trespasses in my home, and I approach them and tell them to leave, and they draw a gun on me. I am the instigator Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc. > Police can lawfully approach and detain people and generally badger them in a far wider range of circumstances than other people can -- and indeed that is part of their charter, that's why we have them. > If police are acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation. Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs.

solidsnack9000 8y ago
Does the meter reader coming to see how much someone owes the power company not have the option to retreat, then? The FedEx delivery guy dropping off a package? The Uber driver called to pick someone up down the street? No, they don't. With cops though, they are just going to have to come back tomorrow. Not delivering the package is an option, but skipping an arraignment usually is not. Actually, in most states the intruder is the instigator. First illegal act, etc. In this, we may be close to a meeting of minds. Sure sounds like 'special rights relating to killing other people' to me. I mean, you can argue that police SHOULD have the right to kill people in much wider circumstances than the rest of us... But arguing that they DON'T have those rights seems to be an exercise in splitting hairs. I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?". What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict. Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill?
- DuskStar 8y ago
  > I am not sure how it sounds like that. Does it sound wrong to you if I replace "police" with "anyone" and say "If anyone is acting lawfully and someone draws down on them, they are in a self defence situation?". Obviously, because people aren't allowed to kill cops when the cops draw guns on them. Even if they weren't doing anything illegal beforehand. > What I am arguing is that police don't have a special right to kill in self defence -- everyone has that right -- but they have special rights to engage with people in a way that may lead to conflict. > Where does it say anywhere in the law, that a cop has special permission to kill? If the law says "you can kill people in situation X if you got there by method Y (or also Z if you're a cop)" IMO that would be giving cops additional permission to kill. But once again, what's written into the law and what's actually enforced are two very different things, and cops are relatively rarely prosecuted for killings that civilians would be in prison for.
  - 8y ago