Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Cop Talk' started by TBO, Oct 7, 2008.
Wow, i did not know that.......interesting.
TBO.....you always post the coolest stuff!! thanks again!!
You are most welcome.
Wanted to get this clip into the thread.
MN's differences on Use of Force/Deadly Force between Peace Officers and non-Peace Officers:
Items in red are Peace Officer only.
Non-Peace Officer specific language in green.
609.06 AUTHORIZED USE OF FORCE.
Subdivision 1.When authorized.
Except as otherwise provided in subdivision 2, reasonable force may be used upon or toward the person of another without the other's consent when the following circumstances exist or the actor reasonably believes them to exist:
(1) when used by a public officer or one assisting a public officer under the public officer's direction:
(a) in effecting a lawful arrest; or
(b) in the execution of legal process; or
(c) in enforcing an order of the court; or
(d) in executing any other duty imposed upon the public officer by law; or
(2) when used by a person not a public officer in arresting another in the cases and in the manner provided by law and delivering the other to an officer competent to receive the other into custody; or
(3) when used by any person in resisting or aiding another to resist an offense against the person; or
(4) when used by any person in lawful possession of real or personal property, or by another assisting the person in lawful possession, in resisting a trespass upon or other unlawful interference with such property; or
(5)when used by any person to prevent the escape, or to retake following the escape, of a person lawfully held on a charge or conviction of a crime; or
(6) when used by a parent, guardian, teacher, or other lawful custodian of a child or pupil, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain or correct such child or pupil; or
(7) when used by a school employee or school bus driver, in the exercise of lawful authority, to restrain a child or pupil, or to prevent bodily harm or death to another; or
(8) when used by a common carrier in expelling a passenger who refuses to obey a lawful requirement for the conduct of passengers and reasonable care is exercised with regard to the passenger's personal safety; or
(9) when used to restrain a person who is mentally ill or mentally defective from self-injury or injury to another or when used by one with authority to do so to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the person's control, conduct, or treatment; or
(10) when used by a public or private institution providing custody or treatment against one lawfully committed to it to compel compliance with reasonable requirements for the control, conduct, or treatment of the committed person.
Subd. 2.Deadly force used against peace officers.
Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.
As you can see above, there are significant differences (as you'd expect) in the language of the law on how/when Peace Officers can use Force against a person, and what/when non-Peace Officers can use force against a person.
Now we'll look at the difference between "Deadly Force" for Cops/non-Cops.
First, for the non-Cop:
609.065 JUSTIFIABLE TAKING OF LIFE.
The intentional taking of the life of another is not authorized by section 609.06, except when necessary in resisting or preventing an offense which the actor reasonably believes exposes the actor or another to great bodily harm or death, or preventing the commission of a felony in the actor's place of abode.
One very interesting niche topic of the above is "abode". MN doesn't have much case law defining what exactly an abode is. What there is suggests it's your primary place of living, meaning actual home. Cabin doesn't count, motor-home in transport doesn't count, etc. Fascinating area of law yet to be explored (tested) in MN courts.
Now for the difference in Deadly Force law/powers for Cops:
609.066 AUTHORIZED USE OF DEADLY FORCE BY PEACE OFFICERS.
Subdivision 1.Deadly force defined.
For the purposes of this section, "deadly force" means force which the actor uses with the purpose of causing, or which the actor should reasonably know creates a substantial risk of causing, death or great bodily harm. The intentional discharge of a firearm, other than a firearm loaded with less lethal munitions and used by a peace officer within the scope of official duties, in the direction of another person, or at a vehicle in which another person is believed to be, constitutes deadly force. "Less lethal munitions" means projectiles which are designed to stun, temporarily incapacitate, or cause temporary discomfort to a person. "Peace officer" has the meaning given in section 626.84, subdivision 1.
Subd. 2.Use of deadly force.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 609.06 or 609.065, the use of deadly force by a peace officer in the line of duty is justified only when necessary:
(1) to protect the peace officer or another from apparent death or great bodily harm;
(2) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the peace officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony involving the use or threatened use of deadly force; or
(3) to effect the arrest or capture, or prevent the escape, of a person whom the officer knows or has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or attempted to commit a felony if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or great bodily harm if the person's apprehension is delayed.
Subd. 3.No defense.
This section and sections 609.06, 609.065 and 629.33 may not be used as a defense in a civil action brought by an innocent third party.
As you can see, there are significant differences.
An important factor to keep in mind is that non-Cops aren't indemnified when using force/deadly force, meaning you can be sued by the person you touch (or their family). That is why, as such, I strongly advise against non-Cops attempting to make a "citizen arrest" by using physical force against a person. You can lose a lot in a lawsuit.
I need to get a clip library to preserve vids that disappear over time.
I guess that this was not wintertime. That rapper would have had his pants pulled up prior to his shooting.
ROCKWELL v. BROWN 12/15/2011
Just note of thanks for this thread I just passed it on to a LE noob, full academy attendance upcoming at unknown but soon date.
bump for new crop
Ferguson, Idiot Cops, and Experts Who Know Nothing At All
Why aren't cops trained to shoot to injure?
This is related, hopefully not a repost...
I assume this is a relevant link for this sticky.
It's a recent decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio that arose from the prosecution of an officer for felonious assault for shooting a motorcyclist whom he had briefly pursued and had believed was "pulling a weapon."
State v. Thomas White:
TBO, I'm not LEO but thanks for the info. I support LE but reading this brings a different perspective to this civilian.
An audio file would have been nice.
Very interesting. Thanks TBO!
I go back over 3 decades. Its really gotten insane out there.
If I had to work the streets I used to on a regular basis I simply couldnt. Now its common place for the gangs to plant their flag on a intersection, flip the bird at us as we drive by, and go about their business. We might shag em if its early enough and can get an army out there but otherwise? Why get yourself killed for a neighborhood rooting for the same ones poisoning their kids? And they will shoot at you, in a heartbeat.
For those with an aversion to reading multi-page threads, here is a compilation of other links and informational posts found later in this thread.
To fully understand these, you do need to at least read the first 3 posts.