Is Self-defense from Cop Abuse Allowed?

First, this isn't about the details of the Hubbard case.

https://reason.com/archives/2018/12/07/when-nonviolence-isnt-enough

In August 2017, Richard Hubbard III stopped at a red light in Euclid, Ohio, but his front bumper went a few feet past the white line. The cops pulled him over. ........


The police demanded Hubbard—a black man—step out of his vehicle. Dashcam footage shows that he calmly complied. Yet one officer immediately spun Hubbard around, bent his arm, and slammed him against his Hyundai. He flipped Hubbard again, punched him in the face, and kicked his groin. Hubbard screamed and put his arms up to protect himself. The other officer joined in.


They threw Hubbard to the ground but continued to punch, hammer, and kick him. When he tried to protect his face, they chanted the informal motto of American police, "Stop resisting!" Even when Hubbard was subdued, prostrate with his hands behind his back and two large officers pinning him down, one officer continued to pummel his skull.


Imagine you witness the whole thing. A thought occurs to you: You're armed. You could shoot the officers, perhaps saving Hubbard's life or preventing him from being maimed and disabled. May you do so?​

And further, do you have an obligation to save someone who is being severely physically abused by police?

Or must you stand by and let a cop choke to death a handcuffed helpless man?

You may kill a violent attacker when you reasonably fear for your life. Does it make a difference if the murderer at the door is a lawfully appointed member of the U.S. government?

 

Every CCW instructor worth his salt will tell you to not get involved in a situation where you did not see the whole thing - and you almost never see the whole thing. This applies 10 orders of magnitude more when the police are involved.

 

I'm so tired of these mis-representations of the truth. Making thugs that never learned about authority or following directions out to be innocent.

The first line if the story says his "bumper" barely crossed the white stop line.

BS. His car crossed the stop line at a red light up to the back tires. Then he didnt even make a complete stop before turning right on red.

Getting out of the car, he was asked to face the vehicle, and the poor little thug struggled.

So much false narrative, and to think this is actually on film.

 

I say yes. Of course after you do so, you would still have to prove your actions were justified in a court of law and any police sent to arrest you would probably execute you while claiming you had a gun and “were resisting arrest”.

 

Remember how the 1st Amendment says you have freedom of speech unless you use that speech to be disrespectful to government officials, then they physically assault you at their own arbitrary discretion?

 

Is Self-defense from Cop Abuse Allowed?
It's a good question, but a difficult one. Perhaps a forum member who is a lawyer could answer it. I don't know the answer, but I've often wondered. I am convinced any court would be inclined against anyone physically assaulting a cop, even in self-defense. Yet, videos demonstrate instances where cops ignore the law along with the rights of citizens, and commit abuse or even murder and get by with it. I personally worked in a municipal jail for 18 months (worst job I ever had), and left feeling the only difference between the prisoners and the guards was the side of the bars they were on. Not all cops are good people. Not all cops honor or follow the law. And that makes for a difficult problem when cops abuse their authority. Victims have reduced, limited or no rights at all in response. That's not a good reality--for any of us.

 

Wow, you just missed teh entire point.

You even missed the first line of my post:

First, this isn't about the details of the Hubbard case.


Does you right to self-defense end when it comes to the govt?

 

So you are walking along, you see cops beating and kicking a handcuffed man who is face down on the ground. Your arguement says that you let them beat a helpless man, even kill him, because you did not see the start of the event. Then man is in custody, compliant, not resisting - maybe even unconscious. And you just look the other way?

And what if you see the full event?

Actually, what if you are the victim and you know you are innocent, have done nothing wrong, and you honestly believe the cops are beating you to death? You fight for your life or commit suicide by cop?

 

One of the every best ways to be killed, or spend the rest of your life in prison, is shoot a police officer while in discharge of his duties.

 

Thats the problem - the system is stacked against you. Generally, the only time cops are held accountable is when there is abundant video evidence and many witnesses, and all of it comes into the public view. Even then that's not a guarantee you will be ultimately exonerated. And if you are exonerated, it will most likely be after a long and expensive process.

The personal question is if you encounter a situation in which cops were abusing someone, could you live with yourself if you walked away? You walk away, you just have to deal with your conscience. You get involved, there will be serious consequences, you are going to get into a fight, may be beaten severely, may be disabled or killed.

 

I’d fight in a revolution but I won’t be one of the martyrs that kicks it off. There’s usually a lot of them before any real action comes.

 

Thats a given. Everyone knows that fact. And that also highlights the fact that cops and the legal system place cops above the law.

Note that you phrase your statement in terms of the cop discharging his duties, not in terms of honesty or justice or right/wrong. The OP linked article explains it as special immunity.

Some people think it's obvious why the government and its agents enjoy special immunity. They say that governments, or at least democratic governments, have a special moral power called authority. Authority means that when the government issues certain commands, edicts, regulations, or laws, it thereby creates in the rest of us a moral duty to obey.​

Basically, your rights stop where a government person is executing his duties. Since the govt can create any law or duty it desires, thats a bad road to go down.

 

I would take the beating and then take the lawsuit money

 

Hardly. It does give the police the benefit of the doubt, but they are not above the law.

 

Usually the martyrs don't choose to be, they just get pushed too far and then they snap. Rosa Parks by her own admission says she did not plan her civil disobedience, it was a spur of the moment decision. She had been pushed and pushed and one day she was tired and just said "no". And that one spontaneous act by a previously unknown average person was a key element in the civil rights revolution.

 

Except that’s not true. We know that the local chapters of the NAACP had been trying to organize a major protest against segregation in Montegomery for years.

Claudette Colvin did the same thing as Rosa Parks months before. There was a concerted effort to make bus segregation a landmark civil rights issue.

 

We have had several discussions about this on threads dealing with the 2d Amendment and federal government tyranny. The consensus among the far right being that the Amendment was designed to protect against government tyranny. Strangely, for the most part with one or two exceptions, most far right posters say it is ok to do so against the feds but not against the cops. When challenged on this most go silent or they defend the cops. No rational reason given by them, as usual.

 

I would not get violent with the police because they could just kill me. BUT I will make it clear that I will testify to their actions and that I am recording everything online at that moment. You have to balance justice with the cost to your family. Could my family survive if I was killed over this man? That is a question every father has to balance with "what would I want if it was my son."

 

I've posted on this many times before, but there are many instances where cops were 100% wrong, they killed innocent people, and were not punished. In some like the John Crawford case, the state attorney reviewing declares the victim completely innocent and also declares the cop innocent of all misdeed.

And in the Aiyana Jones case (sleeping 7 year old girl shot in the head and killed by a no-knock raid to the wrong house, the cop blamed the grandmother at first, a truly despicable case) a tv film crew was there and eventually exposed the true events (and the producer who exposed the lies was charged with interference and withholding evidence). And the cop was never punished.

Because of the public outcry over many years (really its because everyone has a phone/camera and the cops cant hide anymore), its starting to change, but its a slow change.

 

I have noticed that as well but its not universal.

The bias to side with the cops is strong in conservative communities because people in those communities typically are law abiding and have no real interaction with cops. There are exceptions, for example the Albuquerque Police Department (the APD locally understood to stand for "Another Person Dead") committed so many abuses that a few years ago the entire community protested and marched on the police building.

 

Shooting cops isn't usually a great idea.

Let's say a police officer was an active shooter walking around shooting dead men, women, and children by the dozens. You would absolutely be justified in shooting him.

Furthermore, no jury will convict you of murder or manslaughter for shooting him.

I imagine the same would apply in your case, but the prosecution would be attempted, whereas it wouldn't in mine.

It's also worth considering that in many cases it's not legal to engage when you are able to flee, irrespective of if the perp is a cop or a regular citizen. That's what stand your ground corrects.

 

I will look into the Albuquerque incident - thanks for that note.

It shouldn't come as a surprise since we had that incident in Minneapolis where a black cop shot and killed a white woman from Australia after she called for help because she thought a sexual assault was taking place. Right wingers always supported the cops so long as the cop was white and the victim black. But in this case it's a reversal of roles. Thus, no surprise that many right wingers have now suddenly started to worry about whether they, too, will be the next cop's victim.

 

Its not often Im presented with a scenario that Im unable to pick a side. But you found one.

Ultimately, you gotta do what you can live with. A long life suffered of guilt may not be worth living. A life in prison or even an early death may be more pleasant in the knowing that you tried to help.

Theres no telling til its right in front of you.

 

I have checked into Battle's comment about APD and found this:

https://freedomoutpost.com/albuquerque-police-kill-another-person-shortly-apd-shootings-protest/


Note that the source is conservative so that forum members from the right wing should give it great credibility.

My thanks to Battle for his input.

 

Its partly media driven. Black guy being beat/shot by white cops is standard fare for the news and has been for decades. Now with the internet, all the other victims of police abuse are getting visibility and its occasionally making it into the main media. Its a process of educating people.

Its also political. Pre-obama (it started under Bush 43 but was not that visible), conservatives were concerned about govt overreach but felt personally secure and thought of cops as "keeping the peace" and as part of the community, and not as "law enforcement". Now conservatives have justified concern and fear that the government is targeting them personally.