Question about self defense (delicate topic, please play nice)

So I have a question about self defense and law enforcement.  If someone is exercising their first amendment right to protest and are peacefully doing so: if shot (no matter what sort of munition you're shot with) what is your legal recourse?  

I saw an article yesterday in which a medic was shot in the chest with a tear gas canister.  As a combat medic I'd be returning fire at that point, but legally what does the law say about what "civilians" may or may not do when assaulted by "authorities".

(and please stay on topic without delving into the political issues surrounding the moment)

I'm going to say 5 pages before the lock and I'll put my money on the under.

My guess is that the police would be protected under the wing of qualified immunity.

wae said:

I'm going to say 5 pages before the lock and I'll put my money on the under.

My guess is that the police would be protected under the wing of qualified immunity.

I think that qualified immunity as well as the general anonymity of the situation means you have -0- recourse unless you get lucky and hire a ambulance chasing attorney and have a PD eager to settle.

This advice is worth even less than the advice I usually give out.

The same thing that happens when they kick in the wrong door and shoot you, nothing, maybe a few bucks from the govt. It would appear even if you're in the right returning fire would just bring more fire in return until you stopped threatening them. 

Legal is very different from what you'll be allowed to survive doing.  Here in Florida, at its simplest, you have to be preventing a felony to use lethal force as a civilian.  There is more nuance than that, but at a basic level you'd have to prove they were in the act of performing a felony or that you were in fear for your life.  Kind of hard to do when the authorities say how the law is applied.

I'm mildly surprised that one of these persons that don't have any badge, or any other identifying marks on them hasn't been shot in self defense.

Its qualified immunity in a lot of cases.   But not all.

  There is a movement to change it so LE doesn't just get carte blanche to get away with abuses without a door open to personally sue the LE accused of abuse of power. 

If I type any more it will get political.

If the medic also worked for a government then its an on the job injury so various economic benefits are available if not able to work short or long term because of the injury.

In reply to Mr_Asa :

My guess is the thing saving them is that they're mostly not facing armed protesters. 

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

That's kind of my thinking.  Again, I'm not one to start a conflict but I'll end one.  And getting shot with anything seems that responding to a felony/fear for my life is "appropriate".

I can't imagine there is any sort of legal ground for returning fire on an officer of the law. I suspect that in practicality any attempt to do so will end as suicide by cop.  Although I too am surprised that the unmarked "officers" currently grabbing people haven't been shot, it may just not have been reported. Assuming an "officer" is operating with no identifiable marks in rented vehicles, it's easy to believe that anyone resisting with serious force might just be executed and disappear. How would anyone know?

In reply to ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) :

There are a couple semi-recent cases where someone shot a cop in self defense and was able to survive.  One somewhere here in Florida under the Stand Your Ground law, Daytona maybe?

Couple thoughts...
I will say that a lot of the time (CERTAINLY NOT ALWAYS!!!) there are some facts missing from the victims story that wouldn't make them as much as a victim. 


(Ie. the posters baby's momma new man here that was shot in Portland by rubber bullets... who forgot to mention that he kicked a tear gas canister at the police.)

You can pretty much never shoot back at the police, no matter the circumstance. 

For sure you can always be at the wrong place at the wrong time though. 

The problem with fighting back is that even if they are the aggressor once you do you're in the wrong for assaulting an officer.  I assume it's like how they can charge someone with resisting arrest when there were no other charges to warrant arrest in the first place. 

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:

I can't imagine there is any sort of legal ground for returning fire on an officer of the law. I suspect that in practicality any attempt to do so will end as suicide by cop.  Although I too am surprised that the unmarked "officers" currently grabbing people haven't been shot, it may just not have been reported. Assuming an "officer" is operating with no identifiable marks in rented vehicles, it's easy to believe that anyone resisting with serious force might just be executed and disappear. How would anyone know?

When I was a reserve deputy we were taught its legal to resist an unlawful arrest.  

So there is legal ground to stand on. But reality is your lawful resistance to an unlawful arrest  will probably be found in your favor months after you are broke from legal fees and out of the hospital or buried.  

  It took about a year but I realized I am too libertarian to be in law enforcement.

I'd love to see some of these cases/judgements paid from the police pension fund..  hit people in the pocketbook.. always seems to change behavior real quick.

Saron81 said:

Couple thoughts...
I will say that a lot of the time (CERTAINLY NOT ALWAYS!!!) there are some facts missing from the victims story that wouldn't make them as much as a victim. 


(Ie. the posters baby's momma new man here that was shot in Portland by rubber bullets... who forgot to mention that he kicked a tear gas canister at the police.)

You can pretty much never shoot back at the police, no matter the circumstance. 

For sure you can always be at the wrong place at the wrong time though. 

Disproportionate response is the problem there.

Fueled by Caffeine said:

I'd love to see some of these cases/judgements paid from the police pension fund..  hit people in the pocketbook.. always seems to change behavior real quick.

Unfortunately they are paid from the city or state general fund which means the tax payers pay the judgement.    

Fueled by Caffeine said:

I'd love to see some of these cases/judgements paid from the police pension fund..  hit people in the pocketbook.. always seems to change behavior real quick.

That's genius!

However as soon as the lawyers find out that there isn't actually any money in the pension and that the govt has already diverted the funds to cover spending in other areas, there will be no legal help for the assulted. 

jharry3 said:

ultraclyde (Forum Supporter) said:

I can't imagine there is any sort of legal ground for returning fire on an officer of the law. I suspect that in practicality any attempt to do so will end as suicide by cop.

When I was a reserve deputy we were taught its legal to resist an unlawful arrest. 

In theory, theory and practice are the same.  In practice, they are not.

jharry3 said:

Fueled by Caffeine said:

I'd love to see some of these cases/judgements paid from the police pension fund..  hit people in the pocketbook.. always seems to change behavior real quick.

Unfortunately they are paid from the city or state general fund which means the tax payers pay the judgement.    

yup...  I hate that we have to pay for others poor behavior, in all forms and all places/ways,...  Locally, There was a teen football player who was having some mental issues.  He charged cops with an axe and was shot.  Seemed cut and dry until the police officers started bragging about it on facebook/twitter.  I don't want my tax dollars to go to bail out this kind of behavior.  I want to support the police, I have three cousins who are cops.  but.. I don't want this...

wae said:

My guess is that the police would be protected under the wing of qualified immunity.

Yup. This.

Since they can go into the wrong house without announcing themselves and shot some one in bed and nothing happen. I think they can get away with pretty much anything.

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. 

KyAllroad (Jeremy) (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to Wally (Forum Supporter) :

Again, I'm not one to start a conflict but I'll end one.

A conflict takes two sides. Nobody can singlehandedly guarantee that they can end a conflict any more than they can guarantee that they'll win a race, a game of chess, or a taco eating contest.

EDIT to hone the on-topicness; the scenario described isn't a war zone, whether or not some folks (on any side) want it to be or at least resemble one. I think it's been pretty well covered above what you nominally might be legally able to do, and what you can realistically do. IMHO, the best hope is that it was utterly clearly unwarranted and also that someone got it on film, so as to help legal pushes to make it less likely that someone else will get the same treatment. I agree with the folks who are pretty sure that no good can come of attempting any immediate reaction toward the shooter, as it will result in an escalation you can't win, and provide evidence that you posed a threat.

Mr_Asa said:

Disproportionate response is the problem there.

I suppose this argument could be made, but I'm not one to judge, especially since it is nearly impossible to have all the details.
I'll say this though, a "fair fight" is one that lasts too long. 

In reply to Jesse Ransom :

Ending and winning are not always the same thing

barefootskater said:

Mr_Asa said:

Disproportionate response is the problem there.

I suppose this argument could be made, but I'm not one to judge, especially since it is nearly impossible to have all the details.
I'll say this though, a "fair fight" is one that lasts too long. 

Cops aren't supposed to fight civilians, though.