It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

404'd: Missouri Revised Statutes -- Use of force in defense of persons

page: 1
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
In trying to make sense of the Ferguson situation, I was looking for information on the self-defense laws in Missouri, and found a link to the Missouri Revised Statutes regarding "Use of force in defense of persons," which seemed exactly what I was looking for, but it was 404'd.

404'd page

So I checked for -- and found -- a Google cached version as it appeared October 20, 2014; which I believe indicates that it was removed within the last month, and not replaced -- just removed.

Google cache -- Missouri Revised Statutes

I found this curious to say the least. I'm having a little trouble understanding all the legalese, so I honestly cannot make a statement about the content of the page and how it applies to Officer Wilson and Ferguson. I would like to hear what others (especially those who speak legalese) think about it.

What say ATS?

(I'm going to have breakfast, give you folks a chance to check it out, and will check back in a while).




posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
I did a quick google search using "Chapter 563 Defense of Justification Section 563.031" and found it's available on their website HERE.

Looks like they retitled the page location within the URL, so the old version 404d. But anyway, Sect. 563.031 is on their site.

Interestingly, the cached version of the page you linked is dated August 28, 2013, but the above newer page (ie on the moga.mo.gov site) is dated August 28, 2014.

I won't offer any opinion on the legalese in this case as I'd prefer to leave that to US-based members who are more familiar with it.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:40 AM
link   
a reply to: JustMike

This law is basic common sense self-defense.

You can use deadly force in the event you are in real or imminent danger of death, seriously bodily harm, or to fend off a forcible felony, in defense of oneself or another.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
This statute covers the action of Officer Wilson. Here was physically attacked, he went for his weapon to defend himself. There was a struggle for the weapon, shot were fired, on struck Brown in the arm. At that point he turned and fled. Officer Wilson staggered from the vehicle. Raise his weapon and ordered Brown to freeze. At this point brown was 25 feet (8 yards) away. Brown turned faced Officer Wilson, raised his arms to his side, and said "What are you going to do shoot me?" or something to that effect. And then he began moving towards Officer Wilson. At this point Wilson opens fire. Killing Brown.

From the statute you can infer that when Brown turn to run he disengaged (taking deadly force off the table) which some will claim. But when Brown took a step towards Officer Wilson you can also infer that Brown was re-engaging in conflict. And considering that moments before he had just assaulted Officer Wilson with the intent of doing great bodily harm, deadly force is perfectly legal.

Also to note this law also cover vigilantes as well. So in the event of rioting does break out after the verdict from the Grand Jury there will be a lot of people getting shot. Missouri has vigilante laws on the books, these date back to the Civil War. The people will not put up with crap like some of the protesters are planning. I highly advise everyone to keep things peaceful. Because if they turn violent expect thing to go down like what the Korean Store owners did in the L.A. Riots.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Thank you. It didn't make sense that the page would just be completely removed, especially now; but I never thought to look elsewhere. Doh! Shame on me.

It is interesting that the dates changed, which might indicate a revision, or just a review before re-posting.

a reply to: JustMike



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBRiddle
I highly advise everyone to keep things peaceful. Because if they turn violent expect thing to go down like what the Korean Store owners did in the L.A. Riots.


Sadly, I expect violence no matter what the grand jury determines, because too many people want it that way. And I'm not talking about the people of Ferguson. I'm talking about the race baiters on both sides, the outsiders, the paid provocateurs, the ones with their own agenda, including the Feds/DOJ. I'm praying for everyone involved.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

in the pagelink i didn't see how to handle a retreating perpetrator...

b/c if perp retreats, whatever was imminent has passed, and is not so much the danger as was initially presumed to be life-threatening.

opinion piece is all that is...why does a sidearm need to be lethal if suspect is expected to be arraigned for his crimes? "To be proven guilty in a court of law"?

i don't practice law, i practice ethics. for free.

the ethical thing was extended when he asked to be forgiven?
if he is a human that made a human mistake ands admits it; would be the course I would take.

don't look at this with filters applied, it effects all shades and hues to be seen in the wrong light...it's not about our skin-tone, it's what we are doing with it that is at issue.

i wonder if he wished he had just tazed the guy? i'd soil every new pair of pants i got...



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

First, the topic is about how the law applies, not about a retreating perp or one that asks to be forgiven. We are to assume that your "ethics" is a type of turn-the-other-cheek (and wait to see if you get hit again because the perp said he was sorry when he hit you the first time).

You seem to fail to understand that current laws, or maybe we should say that current "old fashioned" laws, from your perspective, were introduced from a few centuries of factual knowledge of how criminals of all sort operate (for whatever reason they have broken the law). Society can not sustain social order if the human rights of the victim are ignored over some fallacious, high-minded argument that the perp's rights trump those of the victim. Humanity works on a basic precept that there is a very real and tangible right and wrong to serious acts that some individuals commit. To remove those acts from the area of "right and wrong" and place them into a philosophical plane that ignores the consequence of those bad acts is a discarding of fundamental rights to victims whether the actual victim or the entire population of that society which pays some aspect of that crime. In short, to allow those criminal acts to go unpunished or without proper redress is a general detriment to society as a whole as well as to the exact victim.

Trying to take a gun away from a police officer when you are a hulking, criminal-minded youth, is worth whatever such a misadventure costs you. I see little room in this case to rave about PC arguments that don't fit the circumstances.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: JBRiddle

Accepting your post at face value, assuming Brown did turn and run, deadly force would NOT have been off the table at any point. If Brown did in fact try to take Wilson's sidearm from him, he had already committed a forcible felony. Wilson would simply have to articulate that at that point he felt that deadly force was justified because we're Brown to escape and elude arrest, there was an unreasonable risk to the community.

This used to be called the fleeing felon law. Now it's been restricted to violent/forcible felons, and there has to be an element of risk to others involved.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

A retreating person doesn't cease to be a threat. There's any number of reasons one could have for retreating. Beyond that, just because somebody is running from YOU doesn't mean they're not still a threat to the community and other people



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

he was shot in the back while retreating unarmed by a cop using a lethal weapon. why was a taser not utilized?

applies to;

A retreating person doesn't cease to be a threat. There's any number of reasons one could have for retreating. Beyond that, just because somebody is running from YOU doesn't mean they're not still a threat to the community and other people







edit on (11/22/1414 by loveguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Short answer: wilson didn't have one. On top of that, if Brown was already 25 feet away and continuing to gain distance, he's already at the max ranger for a taser. And given that he hadn't been searched, Wilson had no way of knowing whether he was armed or not.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 12:57 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

See my last post



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 01:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: loveguy

Short answer: wilson didn't have one. On top of that, if Brown was already 25 feet away and continuing to gain distance, he's already at the max ranger for a taser. And given that he hadn't been searched, Wilson had no way of knowing whether he was armed or not.


is it browns fault wilson didn't have a less lethal means of apprehension? it was all on video, just like the guy they choked to death for breaking up a fight? is that justifiable too? shame on me for forgetting his name...eric garner...


if a guy can't perform without soiling himself in the process, hes got no business in that line of work.



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: loveguy

Is it Wilsons fault his department hadn't issued him a taser? Is it his fault they hadn't trained him on the proper deployment of a taser, which he didn't have to begin with?

Somebody soiling themselves under duress? Yea that's a biological function in the brain. Kind of hard to hold something like that against somebody. All the more so comsidering there's not any way to know it'll happen until it happens.

As for the rest of what you said, I prefer to stick to the discussion at hand instead of going off on tangents about other incidents.
edit on 22-11-2014 by Shamrock6 because: Reasons



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
a reply to: Boadicea

"in the pagelink i didn't see how to handle a retreating perpetrator...

b/c if perp retreats, whatever was imminent has passed, and is not so much the danger as was initially presumed to be life-threatening."

Section 1a and b do refer to a perpetrator who has withdrawn:

"(a) He or she has withdrawn from the encounter and effectively communicated such withdrawal to such other person but the latter persists in continuing the incident by the use or threatened use of unlawful force; or (b) He or she is a law enforcement officer and as such is an aggressor pursuant to section 563.046 ;"

But if you go to Section 563.046, while it is very specific, it also says these statues do not take effect until January 2017. So I'm not sure the specific standards for LEOs right now is; or perhaps there are none now. In which case, when and how were these statutes established?

"the ethical thing was extended when he asked to be forgiven?
if he is a human that made a human mistake ands admits it; would be the course I would take."

I would agree; but I don't think our ethics count. What should count is our inalienable right to life, and the proper administration of law enforcement -- in other words, the goal of the law enforcement officer should always be to detain and arrest. Killing someone should never be the ultimate goal.

"i wonder if he wished he had just tazed the guy?"

No doubt. My heart goes out to Officer Wilson. Unless he's a completely sociopathic monster, the coulda-woulda-shouldas have already begun to torment him. Even if he did everything by the book, man's law will never trump natural law, and under natural law, killing is wrong.

There are no winners here.


edit on 22-11-2014 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)


(I'm sorry -- I'm having trouble formatting correctly. I put your words in quotes, and my response follows. I hope it makes sense.)
edit on 22-11-2014 by Boadicea because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2014 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: loveguy

You seem to fail to understand that current laws, or maybe we should say that current "old fashioned" laws, from your perspective, were introduced from a few centuries of factual knowledge of how criminals of all sort operate (for whatever reason they have broken the law). Society can not sustain social order if the human rights of the victim are ignored over some fallacious, high-minded argument that the perp's rights trump those of the victim. Humanity works on a basic precept that there is a very real and tangible right and wrong to serious acts that some individuals commit. To remove those acts from the area of "right and wrong" and place them into a philosophical plane that ignores the consequence of those bad acts is a discarding of fundamental rights to victims whether the actual victim or the entire population of that society which pays some aspect of that crime. In short, to allow those criminal acts to go unpunished or without proper redress is a general detriment to society as a whole as well as to the exact victim.


I agree, but that's a two-way street. We have a natural right to life endowed by our Creator. All of us. Just as civilians must be held to account for their bad behavior, so must law enforcement -- especially when they are following standard operating procedures. As the one who initiated contact, the one with the training and the weapons, the one with the badge, the LEO must be held to the highest standards. Not create unnecessary conflict and escalate already dangerous situations.



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 01:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea
I am a police officer in Missouri.

You have any questions I can try and answer for you?



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Boadicea
I am a police officer in Missouri.

You have any questions I can try and answer for you?



Thank you! Yes! I'd actually love to sit you down in my kitchen with some hot tea and really pick your brain about every angle of this just so I can better understand... but I'll leave it at these two questions:

1. What services are provided for mental/emotional health for LEOs; particularly PTSD after an officer-involved shooting? Is there a uniform state-wide policy? Or is it department by department? This has been an issue in our neck of the woods the last few days after an officer with PTSD committed suicide a year after having to shoot an attacker in a park. (This is a little personal to me. I did not know this LEO, but I did know one in the same position.)

2. What the heck is a pedestrian check??? In my world, if someone is walking on their own two feet, they're a pedestrian! Is this common? Only for peds acting suspicious? When I heard about pedestrian checks, that really threw me for a loop.

Okay, maybe one more...

3. While I was trying to make sense of the lethal force statutes, I noted that the vehicle is included with home and businesses as defensible. This makes sense, especially for LEOs who would most likely be defending themselves from their vehicle rather than a home or business. Would I be correct in assuming that this position of vulnerability is something LEOs are constantly aware of and protective of? Is this something stressed to beware of within departments?

Thank you again!



posted on Nov, 23 2014 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

#1 - There is no uniform policy. It will vary from agency to agency. Anytime an officer is involved in an incident where there is loss of life the officer is placed on administrative leave or they are moved to a support role that requires no citizen contact (like crime stat analysis). Again it will vary from agency to agency.

Officers are able to speak to councilors / doctors / trauma specialists / officers whom have been in a similar situation. These services are usually covered by the agency or government entity the agency is attached to (city, county, state government). Usually a return to duty is dependent on the conclusion of medical staff coupled with command staff review.

There are very real concerns of an officer who is involved in a shooting being quick to use deadly force in another incident as well as the officer freezing up and failing to engage when deadly force is required. A decision to use deadly force almost never occurs with a warning. Those encounters are often times chaotic and are split decisions.

Its one of the main reasons the us supreme court ruled that 20/20 hindsight cannot be used to analyze the officers actions. The standard is what did the officer perceive the moment force was used.


#2 - A pedestrian check is where an officer makes contact with a citizen. An officer can make voluntary contact with citizens for many reasons. It does not require a crime to take place. Walking down the street and obstructing the flow of traffic can be a pedestrian check. Patrolling a high crime area at 2am and coming across people walking around can be a pedestrian check. Don't get hung up on the term pedestrian. Terminology used can differ from agency to agency and usually revolves around how a call is logged. It goes towards departmental stats so they have a more detailed idea of where resources should be allocated. Those same stats also affect grants. If an agency shows a high number of dui /dwi accidents and arrests those stats can be used to apply for state or federal grants. Those funds are then used for targeted enforcement of dui / dui via overtime shifts.

An officer checking on a pedestrian can range from the officer just wanting to be friendly and speak to citizens to making contact in a high crime area to let people know the police are around to deter crime.

There is a saying for officers -
You may know where you are and what you are doing and God may know where you are and what you are doing but if your dispatch does not know where you are and what you are doing you better be on good terms with God.

Telling dispatch you are checking on pedestrians lets dispatch know what you are doing. It would be no different than me seeing a motorist on the side of the highway with the hood up. I would advise dispatch I will be checking on a stranded motorist.


#3 - Missouri's castle doctrine does include a motor vehicle. If someone tries to car jack you Missouri law allows the use of deadly force to end the threat. The castle doctrine is separate from self defense / defense of a third party. In terms of the castle doctrine once an element of that statute is met/violated the use of deadly force is pretty much immediately justified.

In a situation outside the home or car a person using deadly force to defend themselves or a third party will be required to justify their actions.

While the laws apply to everyone, LEO's are also required to follow us supreme court rulings that do not apply to civilians.

As a civilian -
If a civilian shoots and kills a person its a criminal investigation. Did the civilians actions fall within the scope of the law. Miranda warning applies.

As an officer -
If an officer shoots and kills a person it goes beyond criminal. There will be an internal affairs investigation to determine if the officer violated departmental policy. Because we use a quasi military command structure we can be ordered to answer guilt seeking questions. We are read what's called garrity rights. Essentially it states as an officer we are held to a higher standard so failing to answers questions / cooperate with the IA investigation will result in the presumption of guilt for the IA portion. Participation by the officer generally prohibits that information from being used against him in criminal proceedings.

There will be a criminal investigation that is usually led by another agency. In addition some prosecuting attorneys have their own investigators and can be used as well.

There will be a civil rights investigation. When an officer uses deadly force the person it was used on is considered seized under the 4th amendment (LEOs are acting under color of law and as such are accountable if we violate a persons civil rights). This investigation is half civil half criminal and is what we are seeing with the feds in Ferguson mo.

Some things to consider -
* - in Missouri citizens do not have a duty to retreat.
* - a concealed carry permit is not required on your private property, on commercial property by consent of the property owner, or in your own car.
* - use of deadly force is based on the perceived threat the moment force was used and not based as much on a crime. As an example brown was not shot and killed because he committed a strong arm robbery. He was shot and killed because he went for the officers gun. That made the situation a deadly force encounter.
* - under Missouri law an officer is allowed to escalate force in order to overcome resistance.
* - there is no such thing as a warning shot. Use of a firearm by law enforcement is reserved to deadly force encounters. A person cannot be considered a deadly threat if a warning shot is used.
* - Tasers are not used in a deadly force encounter when only 1 officer is present. Like bullets, Tasers can fail. Some agencies actually prohibit use of Tasers in certain situations unless another officer is present with deadly force ability.
* - any action taken by a civilian in an effort to incapacitate an officer is a deadly force encounter because of the items we carry on our duty belt, concealed on our persons and in our vehicles.

The issue people run into is, essentially, the law requires a person to submit to law enforcement authority, even if they think the cop is wrong or even if the cop is wrong. The arena to determine right or wrong is in a courtroom and not roadside with the officer.

Sorry form the long responses.. if I missed something or failed to answer, or if you have other questions, let me know.




top topics



 
8
<<   2 >>

log in

join