OT: Interesting item on deadly force law in Missouri

[trader_4]

In all the news and rioting, only last night did someone cite the MO law covering the use of deadly force by police. The statute says it's justified when an officer reasonably believes deadly force is immediately required to effect the arrest AND the officer has reasonable grounds to believe the person is wanted for a felony or has committed a felony.

Wow, that's HUGE. Good luck convicting the cop with that standard as the law.

The latter part is almost surely met on two separate basis. The two had just committed a felony robbery, they matched the description. And assuming the officer has injuries, witnesses that Brown hit him while he was in the car, that also meets it.

So the law says the cop doesn't even have to be in fear for his life, only that deadly force is needed to effect the arrest. By that standard, if I were a fat cop, sounds like I could shoot some felony suspect that's fleeing in the back, because that's the only way to effect the arrest.

[Pico Rico]

why don't you look up the law of self defense? That is what will apply here.

[trader_4]

Because the above MO law specifically covers *police officers* performing their duties?

[Pico Rico]

no, because the law of self defense does not exclude police officers.

[trader_4]

I didn't say that the law of self defense excludes police officers. That is a possible *additonal* defense. But MO has laws on the books that specifically address use of deadly force by police officers. The rules of what a cop can do and under what circumstances are not the same as what a citizen on the street can do. Did you read the law?

[Pico Rico]

yes, and I know this law may very well be limited by court decisions. And, the argument as to whether deadly force is IMMEDIATELY required to affect an arrest is open to lots of discussion.

I would take all defenses possible, but I think the self defense argument is number one. You don't hear of cops shooting fleeing felons in the back much these days, do you? Even when they escape capture when a bullet would have ended the run. There is a reason for that.

Read the rest of the statute - those other reasons are what will stand the test of time. Oh, did YOU read the law?

[trader_4]

So, you'd go into court and use the self defense laws that cover ordinary citizens as your main defense, instead of the much more favorable laws that cover police officers? Glad you're not my lawyer.

You don't hear of cops shooting fleeing felons in the back much

I agree that the MO laws covering police officers have probably been limited over the years by court decisions. They probably can't just shoot any fleeing felon in the back. But that still doesn't mean the officer has to rely on self defense laws for ordinary citizens as his best defense, when there are specific laws for police officers that are far more favorable.

The rest of what statute? The cited statute pertains to the use of deadly force by police officers and yes I read it. Your claim is that it's irrelevant, and the officer has to rely on the general self defense laws. I see no basis for that. The statute for police officers is far more favorable to the officer.

[Pico Rico]

You are wrong. The law covering police use of deadly force is not what you make it out to be.

Watch and learn.

[Pico Rico]

That case certainly squares with the self defense laws regarding the use of deadly force.

[Pico Rico]

of course they will. That is the reason.

The law allows deadly force when called for

like - for self defense or defense of others!

I'd like to read your pleadings, with terms such as "the critter needed killin'"

oh man.

[Pico Rico]

They are the same thing. A homicide is justifiable when necessary in the defense of self or others. It will be hard to convince a jury that this was a justifiable homicide if it was not the result of necessary self defense.

[Pico Rico]

justifiable homicide as the result of necessary self defense.

you are kidding, right? That is what their defense generally is. The days of shooting a generic fleeing felon in the back as he is climbing over a fence live on only in movies of yesteryear.

[Pico Rico]

you first.

it is applicable to all.

but you would tell him what the law is. Good luck!

[Pico Rico]

no surpise there.

[Pico Rico]

yes, for the reason that it was in defense of self or others.

but SCOTUS nor anyone else ever ruled they CANNOT.

unless they happen to stumble upon one in progress. It happens.

[Pico Rico]

it is self defense. if it results in a homicide, it is a justified homicide.

yeah, like that's what I said. (rolls eyes).

keep laughing. "a police officer will NEVER claim self defense". LMAO.

[Pico Rico]

do your own research. If you know how.

[Terry Coombs]

Back in the early 90's I was a Pizza Hut delivery manager . Got a call that 2 armed men were trying to kick the door down , and they couldn't get thru on 911 . I did get thru , relayed the info to the 911 operator , and jumped in my car to haul ass to the store . Over an hour after I arrived , an officer that we frequently comped pizza for showed up to see what was happening ... THE OFFICERS THAT WERE DISPATCHED TO THE STORE NEVER SHOWED UP !! The next day I had a handgun in my desk drawer , against all company rules . BTW , I believe it happened just as they said , my ass't mgr had footprints up his back where the crew ran over him headed out the back door . Serve and protect my dyin' ass .

[Doug Miller]

"Pico Rico" wrote in news:ltm1im$4gp$ [e-mail]:

You don't seem to understand that a different set of rules applies to law enforcement officers in the course of carrying out their duties.

[trader_4]

Exactly. Missouri has laws that specifically cover when a *police officer* can use deadly force. And they apparently give an officer more lattitude than an ordinary citizen. It's bizarre to suggest that the general laws on self defense would be the main defense when there are statutes specififc to police officers using deadly force.