Thread: LEO shoots fleeing robber - in the back

I still follow the news from my old stomping grounds in NE Ohio, and boy, has it ever turned into a sewer.

This story falls under the "must be nice to be a LEO" heading:

"According to court records, investigators now say two teens on bikes both had guns and robbed an unidentified off-duty F.B.I. agent and one of his friends. The teenage suspects put a gun to the agent's head and took his wallet, badge and more.
When the suspects took off, the agent fired shots hitting the teen in the back and in the leg."

New Details: Suspects who robbed an off-duty FBI agent were both armed - 19 Action News|Cleveland, OH|Breaking News, Weather, Exclusives

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for cops shooting armed robbers. But if I shot somebody in the back, my name would be 'TOAST.'

Wow... they got the officer's ID and badge but didn't think to look hard for a gun? These aren't the sharpest tools in the shed....

I think the cop did the right thing. Once a gun is pulled on someone then there should be no "honor" rules in self-defense.

Originally Posted by PBinWA

I think the cop did the right thing. Once a gun is pulled on someone then there should be no "honor" rules in self-defense.

+1

Originally Posted by PBinWA

I think the cop did the right thing. Once a gun is pulled on someone then there should be no "honor" rules in self-defense.

I tend to agree, seeing as the item's stolen could easily be used in another crime which could cost someone else their life. (badge) I will point out that you're point is mute though. Shooting the kid in the back while he is fleeing is not "self-defense". That's categorized as either "using deadly force to stop a fleeing criminal"........or "getting your bubblegum back, without a chase".

Often critical (actually I try to be antiseptically objective) of police behavior, I have to side with the cops on this one. An armed individual, having mortally threatened someone with a firearm is quite likely to mortally threaten another while fleeing with the weapon. In my opinion, his neutralization is absolutely imperative.

Agreeed.

If someone is moving away from me towards my family and I fear for their lives, you bet I will shoot them in the back.

Whether or not you side with the cop isn't as important to me as to the fact they hold a double standard...one for them and one for us.

Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.

Originally Posted by Decidion

Whether or not you side with the cop isn't as important to me as to the fact they hold a double standard...one for them and one for us.

Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.

Good point.

I think the term self-defense is probably not the correct term to use. Once a gun has been pulled in the commission of a crime then the criminal should be "fair game".

Is that better?

Originally Posted by toobigtofail

Wow... they got the officer's ID and badge but didn't think to look hard for a gun? These aren't the sharpest tools in the shed....

The same thought I had when I read it ... He probably shot them with his back-up gun tied at his ankle.

I don't think this case is a good example of any "double standard" at all. The Agent has a duty to protect the public from further harm and would surely have reason to believe the perps would be on their way to harm another law abiding citizen. I would be more upset if he didn't shoot them and they went and killed the next person they robbed.

Originally Posted by BigNickShooting

The same thought I had when I read it ... He probably shot them with his back-up gun tied at his ankle.

"tied"???? Wow...now THAT would be something! Grasp back of ankle in one hand...and pull trigger with the other. lol. Reminds me of when I was a kid and my older brother broke his leg in half. He had two hollow SS rods that connected into four long pins that went clear through his leg. He would tilt his foot, and light a bottle rocket. Launch it right outta the end of his brace.

Originally Posted by keystir

I don't think this case is a good example of any "double standard" at all. The Agent has a duty to protect the public from further harm and would surely have reason to believe the perps would be on their way to harm another law abiding citizen. I would be more upset if he didn't shoot them and they went and killed the next person they robbed.

I am not saying I wouldn't be more upset if he didn't shoot them, I am saying I am upset because I would not be able to. Every law abiding citizen should have a duty to prevent crime, both present and future, if they desire to. Would a law abiding citizen not have reason to think the "perps" would be on their way to repeat their crime, while a LEO would?

Aren't there even circumstances where if I know a crime is being committed, or know one is about to be committed, and do nothing about it, can I not be prosecuted as an accomplice? Or at the very least come under intense scrutiny?

I firmly believe this is a double standard.

Aren't federal agent's credentials considered federal property and defended as such? I seem to recall information like that. If that is the case then I support the guy popping them in the back. Otherwise it's call back-up time.

Originally Posted by Decidion

Whether or not you side with the cop isn't as important to me as to the fact they hold a double standard...one for them and one for us.

Face it, if anyone on this board (who isn't LEO) did this, we would be rotting in jail for a *long* time.

I agree with you Decidion 100%.

I also think that nothing will happen to the F.B.I. agent for doing what he did. We on the other hand would probably be doing prison time, charged with a felony and would no longer be able to own a firearm. Double standard? You bet'cha!

Originally Posted by Decidion

I am not saying I wouldn't be more upset if he didn't shoot them, I am saying I am upset because I would not be able to. Every law abiding citizen should have a duty to prevent crime, both present and future, if they desire to. Would a law abiding citizen not have reason to think the "perps" would be on their way to repeat their crime, while a LEO would?

Aren't there even circumstances where if I know a crime is being committed, or know one is about to be committed, and do nothing about it, can I not be prosecuted as an accomplice? Or at the very least come under intense scrutiny?

I firmly believe this is a double standard.

Agreed.

Yeah, it's a double-standard of course.
And it would suit me just fine if it were legal for citizen-victims to back-shoot a violent felon - or at least not automatically fry for doing so.

How many of us can truly imagine the spike in adrenaline, the terror, your life flashing before your eyes, as you stare down imminent death at the hands of some random street thug who just doesn't care? Personally, I think it's unfair and unreasonable to demand that I switch off all my survival instincts the instant that my attacker turns away.

The question remains, though: Should LEO's get a free pass, even when off duty, for actions that are forbidden for the rest of us?

I say yes. Call it a thank-you for their service, an unwillingness to second-guess their actions, or, more coldly, "professional courtesy," but I truly believe that career LEO's are better equipped than most of us to be trusted with a snap life & death decision.

Call me naive, but I think that our long history of honest, professional policing in this country will turn out to be a saving grace as our world continues its accelerating downward spiral.

Originally Posted by chemist

Yeah, it's a double-standard of course.
And it would suit me just fine if it were legal for citizen-victims to back-shoot a violent felon - or at least not automatically fry for doing so.

How many of us can truly imagine the spike in adrenaline, the terror, your life flashing before your eyes, as you stare down imminent death at the hands of some random street thug who just doesn't care? Personally, I think it's unfair and unreasonable to demand that I switch off all my survival instincts the instant that my attacker turns away.

The question remains, though: Should LEO's get a free pass, even when off duty, for actions that are forbidden for the rest of us?

I say yes. Call it a thank-you for their service, an unwillingness to second-guess their actions, or, more coldly, "professional courtesy," but I truly believe that career LEO's are better equipped than most of us to be trusted with a snap life & death decision.

Call me naive, but I think that our long history of honest, professional policing in this country will turn out to be a saving grace as our world continues its accelerating downward spiral.

Absolutely not.

I think he was totally justified. Trash needs to be taken out. The kid put a gun to his head, it's a shame he didn't call out to them so they would turn around before he pulled the trigger.

Originally Posted by chemist

Yeah, it's a double-standard of course.
And it would suit me just fine if it were legal for citizen-victims to back-shoot a violent felon - or at least not automatically fry for doing so.

How many of us can truly imagine the spike in adrenaline, the terror, your life flashing before your eyes, as you stare down imminent death at the hands of some random street thug who just doesn't care? Personally, I think it's unfair and unreasonable to demand that I switch off all my survival instincts the instant that my attacker turns away.

The question remains, though: Should LEO's get a free pass, even when off duty, for actions that are forbidden for the rest of us?

I say yes. Call it a thank-you for their service, an unwillingness to second-guess their actions, or, more coldly, "professional courtesy," but I truly believe that career LEO's are better equipped than most of us to be trusted with a snap life & death decision.

Call me naive, but I think that our long history of honest, professional policing in this country will turn out to be a saving grace as our world continues its accelerating downward spiral.

Great. Another person who thinks LEO are above the rest and "get a free pass" in addition to tax payer funded early retirement.