Comments on: Hazardous duty self defense

By: Gideon

Gideon — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:46:10 +0000

I haven’t heard of many cops opting for a bench trial. In these parts, if memory serves me right, most recent cop shooting trials have been tried to a jury. Can’t remember the last time one was convicted, though.

By: Bill Thompson

Bill Thompson — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:15:57 +0000

It takes a pretty damn egregious set of circumstances for a police officer to be held accountable for the vast majority of these so-called reasonable use of force cases. An overwhelming number of such incidents are never charged in the first place. In rare cases where they are, amazingly, many coppers opt for a bench trial and are eventually acquitted, reinstated and receive back pay. In a recent case in my area, the police were raiding a bar allegedly involved in drug trafficking and on the way in one of them smashes a bystander (who by all accounts was doing nothing more than simply hanging out in front of the place), in the face with the butt of an assault rife. Waived a jury and the judge acquitted him of felonious assault. I think this is more representative of what typically happens when the system is confronted with such scenarios and evidences the fact that the police are certainly not in need of greater protections, but, indeed, fewer. While hesitant (only a little) to paint all law enforcement officers with a broad brush, the fact of the matter remains that way too many cops enter the field with a bully mentality…

By: Gideon

Gideon — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:19:03 +0000

(Un)fortunately, I don’t think he will have any response.

By: Windypundit

Windypundit — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:08:10 +0000

Indeed he did, which is good news. But I’m curious if Massameno believes that guy defending his child against what appears to be a violent break-in also deserves the same exception. If not, why? Is parental instinct not as strong an influence on behavior as police training? Or if Maye does deserve the split-second exception, then why limit it only to the police? I don’t think Massameno can have a consistent response to this.

By: gerardw

gerardw — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 02:14:02 +0000

Fortunately he got a new trial on appeal

By: Windypundit

Windypundit — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:08:53 +0000

Reading this, two words sprang to mind: Cory Maye.

Maye shot a guy breaking into his child’s bedroom. It turns out the guy was a cop trying to serve a warrant on the adjacent apartment. Maye was sentenced to death.

I wonder if Massameno believes Maye deserved a split-second error exception for shooting the cop?

By: LJS

LJS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:47:04 +0000

Training helps, but not as much as one might think. And good, realistic use of force or self-defense training is expensive and time consuming.

But key in this officer’s testmony would be questions about what training he received, the distances involved, and very fact-specific details about the aggressor/victim’s movements and actions. Were I thinking about questioning the officer in this way, I’d want to know about specific training in that department on reaction time.

Also remember that the officer on the stand has the benefit of hindsight, he knows if a weapon was found on the aggressor/victim and may know much more about that person than your client did.

Some interesting reading:
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/shotinback.pdf
Tobin & Fackler, Officer Reaction – Response Times in Firing a Handgun, 3:1 Wound Ballistic Rev.
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/tempestudy.pdf
http://www.forcescience.org/articles/tempestudy2.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2006/march2006/mar06leb.htm#page14
http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm

AND
Violent Encounters: Felonious Assaults on America’s Law Enforcement Officers is available for free from the UCR Program Office, FBI Complex, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV 26306-0150 or by calling 888-827-6427

By: LJS

LJS — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 22:46:16 +0000

If he wanted to help with those decisions, there is some good training available for prosecutors (which could also be done for defense attorneys) about use of force issues.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/april2009/law_enforcement.htm

By: Miranda

Miranda — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:25:21 +0000

Okay, this may be totally cynical and unfair, but this proposal seems to be a protection for prosecutors who are too scared to do the right thing. If a police officer is charged with assault or murder for shooting someone, and that officer has a good self-defense claim, doesn’t the prosecutor have the authority under the current law to drop the case or resolve it favorably for the officer? Why do we need a change in the law that casts such a wide net when we have prosecutors who should use their discretion and make individual determinations about whether a case should proceed/go to trial or not? Seems to me that this change in the law would be a disservice to our citizens (and to the police departments to the extent that relations further deteriorate with the community), doesn’t serve to protect our officers in the line of duty (would anyone seeking to hurt an officer be deterred by this law – aren’t these the situations in which the officer would be justified in using force anyway?!), and merely would ensure that prosecutors don’t have to make tough decisions and be in the hot seat. Sorry, but not enough to convince me.

By: Gideon

Gideon — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:57:15 +0000

I knew someone would have an idea of the research out there.

I think all your points are very well taken: the fact that self-defense includes a subjective component as well as objective and both would cover the areas Massameno proposes for this special police instruction.

I think apart from the law, there are further societal implications of such a proposal: it further divides the police from the community they are charged with protecting and it may serve only to fuel the perception that one set of rules apply to cops and another to everyone else.