Legal Obligation...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The link didn't work for me either...

As a private citizen, I don't think you ever have a legal obligation to employ lethal force, whether or not a LEO tells you to. Now an ethical obligation? Maybe, but that will depend on the person.

What if the shooter didn't feel comfortable with the shot? It could be anything from too much movement/not a clear shot, lack of skill on the shooter's part, or even innocents in the background. If something went wrong, it would be the guy pulling the trigger who had to answer for his actions, and historically "because he said to" is a poor legal defense.
 
Obligation no. It pretty much justifies it however. The cop being in the best postion to determine if he is at risk of death or severe bodily injury.

Mike
 
In Florida, state law (FSS 901.18) allows LEOs/LEAs to direct any other person, whether or not also an officer, to assist in execution of civil and criminal duties, including making arrests. Florida Statute 843.06 directs any person so required "in the name of the state" to provided such assistance. Failure to do so is indeed a misdemeanor offense. Compliance places the assisting citizen in the same position as another LEO, in fact, as a deputized citizen under the law, for the situation at hand.

Now, that being said, there is no clear language stating exactly what assistance can be ordered, or how it should be ordered. Does the simple demand "Help me!" count and meet the requirements? Or does the officer need to make it more clear that he/she is indeed deputizing the other person and that the person being deputized is now obligated to assist? Does the law permit the officer to actually direct the assisting person's actions?

In the legal side of this, it would simply be interesting to know if the law considers the commands for the citizen to "shoot him!" to be enough to count as having directed him "in the name of the state" to provide assistance. The investigation into the shooting itself would determine if it was justified, but I doubt the command to actually shoot could be seen as an order the citizen would be required to follow. After all, a second police officer arriving on the scene would not face charges if he, instead of shooting, simply tackled the suspect.

In this case, it appears the citizen acted in the best way he could, given the incident as I understand it to have taken place.
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt there is a legal obligation to shoot someone at the request/order of a police officer. Imagine how such a law could be misused in a tyranny situation. Now is there an ethical obligation? Yes. In general, lethal force by someone carrying a firearm is to protect life from immediate danger, either to self or another person in the immediate area.

A converse question. What if the bystander didn't shoot? If a less lethal option had been employed by the bystander such as pepper spray to stop the assailant, would it be a crime of disobeying an officer even though a favorable outcome was reached? Probably not.
 
The answer is going to depend on the state law of the place where the action occurred.

California law does require an able-bodied person over the age of 18 to assist a peace officer upon demand. Please refer to California Penal Code section 150.
 
MedWheeler said:
In Florida, state law (FSS 901.18) allows LEOs/LEAs to direct any other person, whether or not also an officer, to assist in execution of civil and criminal duties, including making arrests. Florida Statute 843.06 directs any person so required "in the name of the state" to provided such assistance. Failure to do so is indeed a misdemeanor offense.
Click to expand...

RickD427 said:
California law does require an able-bodied person over the age of 18 to assist a peace officer upon demand. Please refer to California Penal Code section 150.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know of a successful prosecution of a citizen who did NOT assist an officer, when such assistance would have put that person at risk?

Alternatively, does anyone know of an instance where a citizen, when requested to assist an officer, assisted too vigorously - for example, by employing excessive or lethal force - and was then sued or prosecuted?

I know most folks would be inclined to help a good cop, but in this day and age, having non-LEOs engage in law enforcement activity seems to be legally problematic, to say the least.
 
^^ I know of neither, and cannot speak for California law. In Florida, the laws governing civilian assistance to peace officers, as well as those governing citizens' arrests of others, are intended to be pursuant to the principles of "English Common Law." In the state (and I figure in most others), citizens who do indeed assist a peace officer pursuant to a direct request or command become deputized. In a citizen's arrest, the citizen himself/herself becomes the arresting officer and remains as such throughout the judicial process.

The fact that neither you nor I can cite any cases in which "citizen assistors" or citizens who refused to assist upon direction were effectively prosecuted seems to indicate that this is not only not legally problematic, but is actually a non-issue (for now, at least.)

Maybe it's a good thing so few people actually know how much "authority" they can potentially have..
 
Last edited:
Turn the situation around. If you are being pummeled and an officer comes on the scene and you cry "shoot him" the courts have ruled that responding officer has no obligation to come to your defense.
 
"...going to depend on the state law..." Yep, but I'd almost bet a civilian will not be assisted in a civil wrongful death suit.
The link works for me but something ain't right. Cop was supposedly involved in a high speed chase when the BG stopped and dragged the cop out of his car and proceed to thump him. Cop apparently did not resist, but called for the witness(who had warned the BG to stop or else, but didn't otherwise intervene.) to shoot the BG. Who did.
 
P5 Guy said:
Turn the situation around. If you are being pummeled and an officer comes on the scene and you cry "shoot him" the courts have ruled that responding officer has no obligation to come to your defense.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that you do not understand the relevant case law.
 
P5 Guy said:
Several courts have ruled that the police are not OUR body guards. You can search google and find at least to cases on the first page.
Click to expand...
You need to understand the context of those cases. They are distinguishable from the situation you commented on in post 10. The cases in which no duty was found involve a possible threat or a failure to take action on a restraining order. A violent incident actually taking place right now in front of a police officer would be another matter.
 
Frank Ettin said:
You need to understand the context of those cases. They are distinguishable from the situation you commented on in post 10. The cases in which no duty was found involve a possible threat or a failure to take action on a restraining order. A violent incident actually taking place right now in front of a police officer would be another matter.
Click to expand...
I think, and this a layman's thought but I have discussed it with a couple of attorneys in casual conversation, that the cases cited were likely decided the basis of what police could reasonably be expected to do to protect any particular individual who was not under immediate threat without failing to perform their general law enforcement duties for the benefit of the general public,

If someone is "being pummeled and an officer comes on the scene", intervention by the officer would not detract from his or her ability to enforce the rules of order, and it would be reasonable for the victim to expect that officer to come to his or her aid at the time,

The officer would, of course, not be expected to act in accordance with a cry of "shoot him".
 
Kleanbore said:
I think, and this a layman's thought but I have discussed it with a couple of attorneys in casual conversation, that the cases cited were likely decided the basis of what police could reasonably be expected to do to protect any particular individual who was not under immediate threat without failing to perform their general law enforcement duties for the benefit of the general public,...
Click to expand...
I agree.

Kleanbore said:
....If someone is "being pummeled and an officer comes on the scene", intervention by the officer would not detract from his or her ability to enforce the rules of order, and it would be reasonable for the victim to expect that officer to come to his or her aid at the time,...
Click to expand...
And I'd suspect a basis in law or agency policy to find a duty for the officer to do so.

Kleanbore said:
.... officer would, of course, not be expected to act in accordance with a cry of "shoot him".
Click to expand...
No, he would have a duty to take reasonable steps to restore order and protect both parties. Exactly what those steps might be would depend on exactly what was happening, who it was happening, and what the officer reasonably knew. For example, if the officer could not under the circumstances reasonably be expected to know whether the guy being beaten was an innocent victim or the initial aggressor, the officer could certainly not be expect to shoot the guy doing the pummelling.
 
> Florida law
> California law

I went to school in both states and the subject was never brought up in the classes I attended.

If there's a similar law in the state I reside in now, it was never brought up in school here, either. And I've never encountered it in the 40 years since.

If the police expect help in a sticky situation - the kind of situation we were explicitly told NOT to get involved in when I took my state CHCL class - they need to do something about mixed messages here.
 
There is a law in Florida that makes it a misdemeanor to refuse to assist an officer in need. It has been court-tested. No mention of deadly force that I know of.
 
The article stated that the dead suspect was armed and the civvie shooter had a CCL. I have little problem with the civvie shooting the perp EXCEPT if he couldn't verify for himself that the perp had a weapon (knife OR gun).

If the civvie couldn't verify a weapon, then he might be on better legal ground to "bust his skull" with a billy club, baseball bat, etc.

Personally, if I couldn't see a weapon, I would probably use a tire iron on an arm or leg to disable the perp and get him off the cop. If I DID see a weapon and I didn't have a gun, I'd still go for the tire iron but to the back of the head instead of an arm or leg.

Years ago, a cop I knew fairly well was trying to separate two young men fighting in the street one night. These two were about 20, the black guy about 5'8"-10" & 175 lbs. The white guy was about the same height but at least 200 lbs. The cop was ~6' and 250 but he couldn't pull the white guy off of the black guy as the black guy (on the bottom) was slugging both the cop AND the other guy. I finally stepped in and pinned the black guy's left arm to the ground by stepping on it. That allowed the cop to pull them apart and the white guy's "friends" grabbed him and held him back. The cop then hooked up the black guy and immobilized him before he turned to the other guy. After cuffing that guy, he turned to me and nodded and said "Thanks." I was the only one of the numerous people standing around and watching that had bothered to help this cop.

I had no liking for most of the cops in this particular department for a variety of reasons but this particular officer was a decent man and had treated me fairly on more than one occasion. We also had dogs in common as he was a K9 officer for many years (I had bird dogs) and lived about 3 blocks away.

As with everything in Life, there are good and bad people everywhere. How they treat you frequently depends on how you treat them. Doesn't work in every instance but does in the majority of them.
 
JTHunter said:
If the civvie couldn't verify a weapon, then he might be on better legal ground to "bust his skull" with a billy club, baseball bat, etc.

Personally, if I couldn't see a weapon, I would probably use a tire iron on an arm or leg to disable the perp and get him off the cop. If I DID see a weapon and I didn't have a gun, I'd still go for the tire iron but to the back of the head instead of an arm or leg..
Click to expand...
Hold on a minute: Hitting someone with a billy club, baseball bat, or tire iron constitutes the use of deadly force. Same threshold for justification as firing a gun.

Understand that and commit it to memory.
 
Kleanbore said:
Hold on a minute: Hitting someone with a billy club, baseball bat, or tire iron constitutes the use of deadly force. Same threshold for justification as firing a gun.

Understand that and commit it to memory.
Click to expand...

Kleanbore,

Can you please cite some case law to back up this contention?

"Deadly Force" is not a singular level of force. It exists by degrees. It may be eminently reasonable to defend oneself against an attacker using their fists by using a billy club, but where it may not be reasonable to use a firearm.
 
RickD427 said:
It may be eminently reasonable to defend oneself against an attacker using their fists by using a billy club, but where it may not be reasonable to use a firearm.
Click to expand...
One might think it reasonable, but hitting someone with a bludgeon is using deadly force.

There is an important exception: some law enforcement devices may properly be used for striking in appropriate circumstances when deadly force is not called for, but unless the user holds a current certification in its proper use, such use is the same as using deadly force.

Case law? It's in the very definition of deadly force, as armoredman points out.
 
Kleanbore said:
Hold on a minute: Hitting someone with a billy club, baseball bat, or tire iron constitutes the use of deadly force. Same threshold for justification as firing a gun.

Understand that and commit it to memory.
Click to expand...
Same threshold for justification but if two people are fighting they are both moving around, wouldn't a person intervening by shooting be at greater risk of hitting the victim instead of the aggressor?
 
old lady new shooter said:
Same threshold for justification but if two people are fighting they are both moving around, wouldn't a person intervening by shooting be at greater risk of hitting the victim instead of the aggressor?
Click to expand...
There may be various paractical reasons that would mitigate against the use of a firearm in a violent incident.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top