In reply to RevRico :
An excellent point. I generally assume when someone says "I will end a conflict" they mean "I will end my opponent." As long as they accept that they're accelerating a conclusion that may result in their own loss, yes, they can expedite the conclusion.
Tricky because what state you are in and if its a federal or state officer.
Having said that you are outside when protesting and are not restricted from movement. So no castle doctrine applies. Unless you are getting hit multiple times from point blank range and are truly in danger of loosing your life you would not have much of a defense. At distance you have no case of identification of who shot you and achieving in active self defense. You are in a crowded space and identifying or even getting a clean shot off in hose situations is not going to happen.
It sucks but if I was protesting in Portland and I knew this was happening it would just have to go into the calculus of if I want to protest in areas that this is happening or not. Terrifying to me to say this but it is an implied risk. Or I would gear up to take a non lethal hit and would definitely wear safety glasses or a shield on the head. Though walking around in hard plate is going to get you noticed and picked on more.
wearymicrobe said:
It sucks but if I was protesting in Portland and I knew this was happening it would just have to go into the calculus of if I want to protest in areas that this is happening or not. Terrifying to me to say this but it is an implied risk.
https://www.newsweek.com/patriot-prayer-members-armed-snipers-positioned-themselves-roof-ahead-august-1171862 yeah..... my sister attends protests... lots of risk there. note this article is from 2018..
Robbie (Forum Supporter) said:Fueled by Caffeine said:Seemed cut and dry until the police officers started bragging about it on facebook/twitter.I'm not a cop, but in my industry (medical records), if you do stuff like that - breach hipaa - you will be fired and you will likely struggle to get another job because no one wants to hire a violation risk. In the corporate world, if you are sharing details of private interactions publicly, you will suffer the same fate. Imagine a bank teller bragging on facebook about who deposited what money or what account balance they saw. Or even that they opened an account for a specific person. Fired. No questions asked. Not gonna get a good recommendation for the next job either.
My point is that no matter what actually happened in the incident, the details of the incident are private to their work. If they make those details public, in any corporate industry they would lose their job (and possibly career) quite quickly. I wonder what happened to those idiots.
To be clear, I am not calling all cops idiots. I am calling those cops idiots.
Yes.
I am only acquantances with 3 police officers, 2 of whom share things on facebook. The two on facebook... well, they're not representing themselves or their PD's very well IMHO. They're not helping their cause with their posts. They claim that things that are being shared are incorrect, but use rather vulgar language and do not back it up with any proof. Their language and the way they're presenting their thoughts is such that I personally would eliminate someone from a candidate pool if I were hiring. There is a reason that statements come out of a spokesperson/media person, and not Barney Fife.
And I'm completely on the fence on these issues. I think the protesters have valid concerns to protest; I do not think that the protests are effective anymore and have become purely political. I think the police officers have been wrongly vilified overall. I also think they're incorrectly on the offensive.
But the posts that I see from police officers do nothing to sway me to their side, and are potentially having me fall over to the other side.
I think it would depend as well on where it is.
Idaho's Castle Doctrine basically says you can defend your life or property with lethal force if needed and mentions that someone breaking into your property at all is seen as just cause. I'm not sure how that would work in a breaking-down-your-door situation with police but it's food for thought.
Personally whomever is shooting at me will more than likely be shot at back. Sure maybe being arrested later would be terrible but dying is many steps above that on the suck scale.
I won't flounder the thread too much but I can say that in a state that us very gun friendly...the police are much more cautious and excerise much more self control plus there's very little gun violence.
Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:I won't flounder the thread too much but I can say that in a state that us very gun friendly...the police are much more cautious and excerise much more self control plus there's very little gun violence.
Not to flounder either... But that is a pretty sad thing. The police should be exercising the same self control and caution for EVERYONE.
So... to the original question:
Hit by tear gas canister during protest.
Some observations:
In reference to suing the cop: This is pretty much impossible with qualified immunity, if you could even determine who fired that cannister. (note: for those who are note aware, qualified immunity is only for personal lawsuits, not criminal, against a particular policeman).
In reference to suing the police, or filing charges:
- It would be VERY hard to show intent to harm (it is tear gas after all). Almost certainly not intentionally shot at the chest of the person (very hard to prove at least)
- You would also likely have to show they had no reason to use tear gas. Not knowing the exact circumstance, I can guess there is likely unlawful assembly at least, failure to disburse, and likely some minor assaults committed by the crowd, which, I am guessing, generally allow for use of tear gas.
From what little is provided, it sounds like an accident (in a situation where accidents are far more likely) or an unintended consequence, not an assault.
As far as shooting back? I am a bit surprised anyone would even ask that.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:I won't flounder the thread too much but I can say that in a state that us very gun friendly...the police are much more cautious and excerise much more self control plus there's very little gun violence.
Not to flounder either... But that is a pretty sad thing. The police should be exercising the same self control and caution for EVERYONE.
I'm not saying I disagree, but in general I am very suspicious of the first part being true and either part being "caused" by the gun friendlyness of the state. If you have data color me interested.
out of pure curiosity, I found the following article.
Of the top 10 states for lowest firearm deaths per 100,000 people, only one state does not require permits to carry handguns. And that state is Maine, which also happens to have the lowest violent crime rate in america.
And of the top 20 states for lowest firearm deaths per 100k, only 3 do not require permits. Vermont (2nd lowest violent crime rate), and New Hampshire (where a permit is not required but carrying a loaded concealed handgun is always illegal).
aircooled said:From what little is provided, it sounds like an accident (in a situation where accidents are far more likely) or an unintended consequence, not an assault.
There are numerous examples of LEOs intentionally aiming for the head and neck with "nonlethal" rounds and tear gas canisters when they are too close for these rounds to be nonlethal
wearymicrobe said:Having said that you are outside when protesting and are not restricted from movement. So no castle doctrine applies.
Castle doctrine doesn't apply, but for those states with so-called Stand Your Ground laws you have no duty to retreat from any place that you may lawfully occupy. The idea being that if you're on a public street under ordinary circumstances and (at least in my state) you believe that deadly physical force is necessary to protect yourself against death, serious injury, kidnapping, or rape you don't have to try to run away. In this case, if the cops are using tear gas, it's probably safe to assume that the gathering has been declared unlawful so you no longer meet the bar of being in a place that you may lawfully occupy. We also have an exception in that even if an arrest is unlawful, physical force isn't justifiable when you're resisting arrest even if that arrest is unlawful as long as the arrest isn't using more force than necessary. And who's to say what's "necessary", right?
RevRico said:In reply to Jesse Ransom :
Ending and winning are not always the same thing
Peace officers are supposed to be there to stop fights. Not to win fights.
Or, even worst, goading someone into a fight, basically challenging them to a duel, and then beating the crap out of them with the help of others.
In reply to jharry3 :
That used to be the case but there's definitely been an us vs them attitude more often in the last 15-20 years.
mtn (Forum Supporter) said:Antihero (Forum Supporter) said:I won't flounder the thread too much but I can say that in a state that us very gun friendly...the police are much more cautious and excerise much more self control plus there's very little gun violence.
Not to flounder either... But that is a pretty sad thing. The police should be exercising the same self control and caution for EVERYONE.
They should but clearly don't. If ever there was a case to be made for gun ownership it would be the way different populations are treated.
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
It depends on who you are. There seems to be significant variability in how having a gun affects how different people are treated. It's not always an improvement.
In reply to Jesse Ransom :
The Who you are is what I have an issue with. It's hard for the police to say the don't treat people differently when they go out and treat people differently weeks apart on camera for the world to watch.
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
Agreed a lot!
In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :
I agree 110%.
Mr_Asa said:aircooled said:From what little is provided, it sounds like an accident (in a situation where accidents are far more likely) or an unintended consequence, not an assault.
There are numerous examples of LEOs intentionally aiming for the head and neck with "nonlethal" rounds and tear gas canisters when they are too close for these rounds to be nonlethal
OK. In this case, is that what happened? Is there anyway to prove that?
A cop would certainly need to be a pretty big a-hole to intentionally shot a person in the chest with a tear gas cannister and would deserve prosecution. At the same time, someone would have to be a bit naive to think being involved in a protest that the police are trying to disperse would not but you at some risk (no mater the motives).
Are tears canisters really that accurate? Cylinders aren't very aerodynamic. Unless you were 10 feet away, I think it would be hard to prove you were bopped in the chest intentionally. More than one, however, it becomes exponentially harder to claim it was accidental.
aircooled said:Mr_Asa said:aircooled said:From what little is provided, it sounds like an accident (in a situation where accidents are far more likely) or an unintended consequence, not an assault.
There are numerous examples of LEOs intentionally aiming for the head and neck with "nonlethal" rounds and tear gas canisters when they are too close for these rounds to be nonlethal
OK. In this case, is that what happened? Is there anyway to prove that?
A cop would certainly need to be a pretty big a-hole to intentionally shot a person in the chest with a tear gas cannister and would deserve prosecution. At the same time, someone would have to be a bit naive to think being involved in a protest that the police are trying to disperse would not but you at some risk (no mater the motives).
Should be able to find numerous examples of news stories, it's been my experience that people generally don't believe it unless they dig it up, but here's a pretty damning pic.
Appleseed said:Are tears canisters really that accurate? Cylinders aren't very aerodynamic. Unless you were 10 feet away, I think it would be hard to prove you were bopped in the chest intentionally. More than one, however, it becomes exponentially harder to claim it was accidental.
Say, for the sake of argument, that they aren't aiming them. That they can't aim them. Why are they shooting objects that are heavy enough and can move fast enough to crack open a human skull that they can't aim?
Mr_Asa said:aircooled said:Mr_Asa said:aircooled said:From what little is provided, it sounds like an accident (in a situation where accidents are far more likely) or an unintended consequence, not an assault.
There are numerous examples of LEOs intentionally aiming for the head and neck with "nonlethal" rounds and tear gas canisters when they are too close for these rounds to be nonlethal
OK. In this case, is that what happened? Is there anyway to prove that?
A cop would certainly need to be a pretty big a-hole to intentionally shot a person in the chest with a tear gas cannister and would deserve prosecution. At the same time, someone would have to be a bit naive to think being involved in a protest that the police are trying to disperse would not but you at some risk (no mater the motives).
Should be able to find numerous examples of news stories, it's been my experience that people generally don't believe it unless they dig it up, but here's a pretty damning pic.
Appleseed said:Are tears canisters really that accurate? Cylinders aren't very aerodynamic. Unless you were 10 feet away, I think it would be hard to prove you were bopped in the chest intentionally. More than one, however, it becomes exponentially harder to claim it was accidental.
Say, for the sake of argument, that they aren't aiming them. That they can't aim them. Why are they shooting objects that are heavy enough and can move fast enough to crack open a human skull that they can't aim?
damning? Maybe, but not on the part of law enforcement. Pretty clearly the protestor willfully approached an armed officer. I'd say that if she had been shot she would be the only one to blame. Looks more like she wanted someone to take a picture of police aggression.
Im not going to convince you or anyone the difference between peaceable assembly and willful aggression. Time for me to check out of this one.
An obviously unarmed girl approaching 30+ cops, and they decide to point a bean bag loaded shotgun at her point blank? Yeah, that is 100% damning.
Arrest her, I agree that she's being stupid. Point a shotgun at her? Nah, man. I don't see it
barefootskater said:Pretty clearly the protestor willfully approached an armed officer. I'd say that if she had been shot she would be the only one to blame.
I'm going to flounder this hard.. but won't... but what you are stating isn't ok.. if I approach an officer I should expect to get shot? why is this ok?
I'm just going to say if LE had to keep qualifying themselves like nurses have to, there wouldn't be an issue with most cases.
As a RN, I have to maintain a yearly or bi-yearly license, that costs me money every year, on top of the continuing education credits, 12 per year plus some are required credits, if I berkeley up in one state guess what, I berkeleyed in most other states...
Sincerely,
1 registered nurse
Fueled by Caffeine said:barefootskater said:Pretty clearly the protestor willfully approached an armed officer. I'd say that if she had been shot she would be the only one to blame.I'm going to flounder this hard.. but won't... but what you are stating isn't ok.. if I approach an officer I should expect to get shot? why is this ok?
Here's the thing, we're doing it again. It's all or nothing. There's no grey. Is this protester followed by 100 others? Is it a protest or a riot? Are they breaking E36 M3 and hurting people behind her? There's never a black and white answer in cases like this. Yes, she is intentionally grandstanding and making it an issue. Yes the police may be overreacting. Then again neither of those statements are true.
As for the actual question asked, in the situation posed no that is not grounds for self defense in this state.
You'll need to log in to post.
