[jeiber]

I'm curious to know how this plays out. Off duty police officer, with his wife and young children, is hit in the head with a (beer?) bottle after a baseball game.

He turns and shoots the assailant(s). I know it's not Florida, but still curious to know how it plays out.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529054,00.html

ANAHEIM, Calif. — An off-duty police officer shot and wounded two men who had assaulted him in the crowded Angel Stadium parking lot after Wednesday night's Colorado Rockies-Los Angeles Angels game, authorities said.

The officer, who was walking to his car with his wife and two small children about 25 minutes after the game, was hit in the head with a bottle or club, police Sgt. Tim Schmidt said.

"We think he was the victim of a crime," Schmidt said.

The off-duty officer then shot the men with his duty weapon, Schmidt said. Police did not immediately identify the officer or the shooting victims.

One man was shot in the head and was in critical condition, the other was shot in the upper arm and in serious but stable condition. The officer also had a serious head wound. All three were taken to hospitals.

No one else in the parking lot was hurt, Schmidt said.

The Orange County District Attorney's office joined the Anaheim Police department in investigating the incident, which is required in officer-involved shootings.

The Angels had beaten the Rockies 11-3 earlier in the evening.

Rachel Cordova was among the startled and confused fans in the parking lot.

"We heard three shots and turned around and I thought, 'Those are gun shots,"' Cordova told KNX radio. "One of the guys I was with said 'No, it's not' but then we heard sirens."

Cordova said she then walked toward the scene.

"I left there and saw a young, maybe 20-year-old male laying on the ground without his shirt, and they were attending to him," she said.

Jeff

 

[mikesid]

I don't think that would justify shooting. not 100% sure though.

 

[jeiber]

At first, I didn't think so either, but without the details, it's hard to tell. If this was a random 'throw a bottle into the crowd', and someone retaliates with gunfire... I think the officer might be in a bit of hot water.

But, putting myself in that situation.... what if the two assailants were instigating a fight with the officer, who walked away with his family. He was then followed and harassed all the way back to their parked car, at which point one of the attackers throws a beer bottle (which are VERY hard, if you've never been hit by one) from ~ 5' away, striking the officer in the back of the head. Dazed and stunned, he sees these individuals approaching him and his family. Unable to defend himself from two attackers, let alone defend his wife and small children, he draws and fires.

If I were on a jury, I'd be looking at this as self defense.

Jeff

 

[PaulJ]

I believe an attack with a bottle is "aggravated assault", which is listed as a forcible felony that allows use of deadly force.

Also, the law allows deadly force if

1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

I would argue that an attack with the bottle will cause great bodily harm. I don't know how "great bodily harm" is defined, but loosing an eye probably qualifies.

 

[Paladin]

There has to be more to it than that to keep him out of trouble.

After all, a bottle is a one shot weapon. After you have thrown it you are out of ammo.

Also after the earlier transit cop shooting of an unarmed man this will be closely scrutinized.

 

[airhead]

Hard to tell from that sketchy story. But it sounds like a good shoot.

Cop (or anyone) gets clubbed in the head by at least 2 BG's. Wife & kids with him.

I'd have shot. They tried to incapacitate him (knock out or kill) so they could do what with the wife & kids?

 

[Moylan1850]

???

My first reaction was: No- does not justify lethal force .... but

The outstanding factors are:
Was there still a threat after the bottle was thrown?
Does there need to still be a treat? (I think yes)
I'm sure there a scores of people who may have been charged with "assault with a dealy weapon" for throwing a bottle, so maybe that weighs in here.

Like so many scenarios the danger lies in "legally could you" and "should you" but the rest of your life will be determined by others opinions, be it a judge or jury.

I guess pulling the trigger will always open yourself up to the roll of the dice. All the more reason to be : censored sure your right.

Another question one might weigh is: Is being alive more important than keeping your freedom and living with a felony over your head?

I know my answer, but in my line of work I would lose my job and never be able to work in my field again. Down what path would this send a person after spending an undeserved amount of time incarcerated among the scum of the earth. How you emerge from that experience: Who would you be then?

 

[jeiber]

Three Steps is right, I misposted the 'throwing' part. Not sure where I got that... too many Jaguars football games I guess!

There is certainly alot to be left to the imagination, but I'm guessing these were not upstanding citizens that attacked a guy while with his family. Possible, yes. Likely, no.

IF...
they pursued him while he tried to avoid conflict,
they continued with an aggressive posture after hitting him with the bottle (thrown or not)
he had no other way to protect his family from two assailants

THEN I say clean shoot... except for hitting the guy in the shoulder.

J

 

[Old Guy]

Here's a little more info;

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090625/BBA.Angels.Stadium.Shooting/

In California though, the odds are pretty good WE wouldn't have a CCW and would thus be left to the mercy of these two BG's.

 

[mikesid]

Here's a little more info;

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090625/BBA.Angels.Stadium.Shooting/

In California though, the odds are pretty good WE wouldn't have a CCW and would thus be left to the mercy of these two BG's.

After reading this article I would say he did what he had to do. At first I thought perhaps he was in the stands and someone threw a bottle at him. But if he was walking to the car and was harassed and choked he has the right to defend himself.

And after reading the last paragraph i'm glad i don't live in california. or if i did i wouldnt be going to any games, especially since they dont have a CWL.

 

[airhead]

The Angels had beaten the Rockies 11-3 earlier in the evening.

And just why is this in the story?

 

[SGB]

I hope the Officer recovers fully and the perps contract staph.

 

[T.S.]

An off-duty police officer shot and wounded two men who had assaulted him in the crowded Angel Stadium parking lot after Wednesday night's Colorado Rockies-Los Angeles Angels game, authorities said.

The officer, who was walking to his car with his wife and two small children about 25 minutes after the game, was hit in the head with beer bottles, police Sgt. Tim Schmidt said.

"We think he was the victim of a crime," Schmidt said.

The officer called a dispatcher at his department and asked for help, saying two men had choked him and asked him to get away from his car, Sgt. Rick Martinez said.

The off-duty officer then shot the men with his duty weapon, Martinez said. Police did not immediately identify the officer or the shooting victims.

One man was shot in the chin and was in critical condition, the other was shot in the upper arm and in serious but stable condition.

The officer also was taken to a hospital with a head wound, but was released early Thursday, Martinez said.

If this situation had happened in Florida, and even if this wasn't a LEO but a civilian with a CWFL, the fact that TWO men attacked the male by hitting him with a bottle(s) and choking him, and his wife and two children are nearby and possible to be victims as well, this would be covered by:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

and

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

 

[Buckley]

I'm unable to reach any conclusion from the information published so far.

 

[Steve48]

We're certainly short on information, but it sounds like a good shoot.

 

[Old Guy]

I'm unable to reach any conclusion from the information published so far.

But we know the Angels won 11-3.

 

[Steve48]

:rolf

 

[SASS20485]

Need ALL the details, not merely the few from a news report, which is sketchy at best and as we know , the news media frequently does not get all the details accurately. But, being attacked by two men, one with a bottle,who has already struck the first blow to the victim's head, sounds like it meets the requirements for responding with deadly force by the victim to protect their life or safe them from great bodily harm, as well as their family who was with them at the time of the attack. Sounds like a couple of drunk a--holes got more than they expected, but everything they deserved. They made a serious error in victim selection. Nice shooting by the officer.

 

[jerm09]

A bottle or a club is a deadly weapon in the right (or wrong) hands.

If I were attacked by two men with any weapon or none, considering my age, I would truly fear for my life. I firmly believe the shooting would be justified. It would also add to the justification that the wife and kids were along. I will be surprised if he is indicted.

It goes to the fact that if you can reasonable fear for your life or great bodily harm you are justified to use deadly. He could reasonably have had that fear not only for himself but also for his wife and kids, and was, therefore, justified.

Glad he was carrying off duty. I know several LEOs well and only one that I know carrys off duty. Considering the people who might hold a grudge or just dislike LEOs I think all should carry all the time.

Glad he is OK and his family not injured.

Regards,
Jerry

 

[manfellow]

Also, when somebody bashes you in the head with something, unless your facing them to see them actually swing or throw the object, you don't really know what just happened. You probably aren't going to be able to tell whether it was a bottle, rock, pipe, bullet, the old fight or flight just kicks in and as Buckley's signature says:

"You won't rise to the occasion--you'll default to your level of training." - Barrett Tillman