Road Rage involving Oak Ridge officers in Knoxville

[Fallguy]

Well for all I know Mr. Estep threatened to kill the officers. That would cause me to draw my pistol on an advancing person. However, we don't have that information yet. For right now we're fairly certain that weapon(s) were pulled. There is only one reason why a weapon should be pulled, right? If he wasn't presenting a threat then it's obvious that the two officers are in the wrong. I'm not convicting them, I'm waiting to hear what he did to get a gun in his face. I just don't think that it will pan out that he was presenting a real threat (1 man vs. 2 men).

Well...in the performance of their duties there are times LEOs can threaten deadly force even though they may not be able to use it.

Now how that may or may not apply in this situation I don't know.

[JayC]

Well...in the performance of their duties there are times LEOs can threaten deadly force even though they may not be able to use it.

Now how that may or may not apply in this situation I don't know.

Fallguy, sorry but show us the law that states that. Because state law is very clear, you may only threaten deadly force when you can use deadly force. While police officers have a couple of addition situations they can use deadly force from regular citizens, it doesn't change the fact that they're still limited to only using or threatening deadly force as authorized under state law.

If a police officer threatens deadly force and is not able to use deadly force, that would be an assault by the police officer.

[Fallguy]

Fallguy, sorry but show us the law that states that. Because state law is very clear, you may only threaten deadly force when you can use deadly force. While police officers have a couple of addition situations they can use deadly force from regular citizens, it doesn't change the fact that they're still limited to only using or threatening deadly force as authorized under state law.

If a police officer threatens deadly force and is not able to use deadly force, that would be an assault by the police officer.

Here is the law I am going by

39-11-620 Use of deadly force by a law enforcement officer.

(a)

A law enforcement officer, after giving notice of the officer's identity as such, may use or threaten to use force that is reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual suspected of a criminal act who resists or flees from the arrest.

(

Notwithstanding subsection (a), the officer may use deadly force to effect an arrest only if all other reasonable means of apprehension have been exhausted or are unavailable, and where feasible, the officer has given notice of the officer's identity as such and given a warning that deadly force may be used unless resistance or flight ceases, and:

(1)

The officer has probable cause to believe the individual to be arrested has committed a felony involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious bodily injury; or

(2)

The officer has probable cause to believe that the individual to be arrested poses a threat of serious bodily injury, either to the officer or to others unless immediately apprehended.

Subsection (a) talks about the force they can threaten or use in making an arrest...it does not limit the force other than to which is reasonably necessary.

Subsection ( limits their use of deadly force.

So IMO since the use of force is limited in ( but the threat of force is not in (a) it appears they can threaten deadly force if it is reasonably necessary to accomplish an arrest, even if they may not be able to use it under (

Also if you look at 39-11-621 which talks about the use of force for a citizen making an arrest, it cleary says a citizen may not use or threaten deadly force to make an arrest. Not seperated like for LEOs.

Now do I think there are times where it is threatened and it isn't "reasonablly necessary" or the person hasn't resisited or attempted to flee....YES, but still it looks like there are times they can threaten even though not use it.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Fallguy

[DaveTN]

Fallguy, sorry but show us the law that states that. Because state law is very clear, you may only threaten deadly force when you can use deadly force. While police officers have a couple of addition situations they can use deadly force from regular citizens, it doesn't change the fact that they're still limited to only using or threatening deadly force as authorized under state law.

If a police officer threatens deadly force and is not able to use deadly force, that would be an assault by the police officer.

That’s wrong and it’s wrong whether you are a Police Officer or not. Pulling a weapon is not using deadly force and has nothing to do with the deadly force statues unless deadly force is used. If you pull a weapon and are not justified in doing so, it aggravated assault. The responding Officer, the DA, and a Judge or jury will decide if you were justified or not.... in that order.

To say a cop can’t pull a gun without the use of deadly force being justified is ridiculous. I can’t count the number of felony stops I have made where I have a removed the occupants of a vehicle at gunpoint. I couldn’t shoot them if they ran and the use of deadly force wasn’t justified unless they put my life in danger. I’ve made traffic stops where things just didn’t seem right; I’ve had my weapon upholstered in my hand. There are required elements of any offence and simply pulling a gun doesn’t mean an automatic arrest.

[JayC]

We'll have to get one of the lawyers in on this one

But, the way I read that, a says XXXX and b further limits a.

but I could very well be wrong...

Either way, since they didn't attempt arrest Estep not on point for this discussion.

Here is the law I am going by

Subsection (a) talks about the force they can threaten or use in making an arrest...it does not limit the force other than to which is reasonably necessary.

Subsection ( limits their use of deadly force.

So IMO since the use of force is limited in ( but the threat of force is not in (a) it appears they can threaten deadly force if it is reasonably necessary to accomplish an arrest, even if they may not be able to use it under (

Also if you look at 39-11-621 which talks about the use of force for a citizen making an arrest, it cleary says a citizen may not use or threaten deadly force to make an arrest. Not seperated like for LEOs.

Now do I think there are times where it is threatened and it isn't "reasonablly necessary" or the person hasn't resisited or attempted to flee....YES, but still it looks like there are times they can threaten even though not use it.

[JayC]

That’s wrong and it’s wrong whether you are a Police Officer or not. Pulling a weapon is not using deadly force and has nothing to do with the deadly force statues unless deadly force is used. If you pull a weapon and are not justified in doing so, it aggravated assault. The responding Officer, the DA, and a Judge or jury will decide if you were justified or not.... in that order.

To say a cop can’t pull a gun without the use of deadly force being justified is ridiculous. I can’t count the number of felony stops I have made where I have a removed the occupants of a vehicle at gunpoint. I couldn’t shoot them if they ran and the use of deadly force wasn’t justified unless they put my life in danger. I’ve made traffic stops where things just didn’t seem right; I’ve had my weapon upholstered in my hand. There are required elements of any offence and simply pulling a gun doesn’t mean an automatic arrest.

I'm sorry but that isn't correct... If I pull a firearm, point it at you, and threaten to shoot you if you don't stop... that is not assault (well it probably is assault, but it's not just assault), that is a threat of deadly force.

Now, I agree upholstering a firearm and holding it at low ready isn't a threat of deadly force... but it shouldn't be the threat of deadly force whether a HCP holder does it, or a police officer. If is considered a threat if a HCP holder does it, it's still a threat of deadly force... even reading the TN statue Fallguy has noted in the best light possible, unless you're arresting somebody an officer can't threaten deadly force legally in TN.

So, if I'm wrong, what exactly is a threat of deadly force? Because clearly unless allowed under the law we can't threaten deadly force, and neither can police officers...

[Fallguy]

We'll have to get one of the lawyers in on this one

But, the way I read that, a says XXXX and b further limits a.

but I could very well be wrong...

Either way, since they didn't attempt arrest Estep not on point for this discussion.

The first part of ( says "Notwithstanding subsection (a)" so to me that means they are not dependent upon each other. Also since there is not an "and" and they are in different subsections.

But I agree at that moment they were not trying to arrest him, but I think it shows how LEOs are used to pulling their weapon and threatening deadly force even when they can't use it. ...and forget there may be times they can't.

[JayC]

The first part of ( says "Notwithstanding subsection (a)" so to me that means they are not dependent upon each other. Also since there is not an "and" and they are in different subsections.

But I agree at that moment they were not trying to arrest him, but I think it shows how LEOs are used to pulling their weapon and threatening deadly force even when they can't use it. ...and forget there may be times they can't.

Well if you're right, but is a VERY limiting... they have to shooting at somebody who is being arrested for a serious felony... or who they are shooting at threatens serious bodily harm ot death to the officer or a 3rd person.

2. clearly would be a justified shooting... so threatening in those cases would be clearly justified... 1. a little less so... but at least you can wrap your head around trying to arrest a serious felon, and threatening deadly force.

Neither of these have any impact on threatening deadly force against a person you're not going to arrest.

And your right, I think a lot of officers forget they're allowing given powers as defined by law, not by department procedure.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Maybe when off duty it would be better if they were treated as regular citizens with no special treatment especially uniformed officers unaccustomed to plain clothes duty. Also if off duty out of jurisdiction follow same rules meaning they need a HCP & must follow same rules as anyone else since many departments have many different ways they handle things. Then they wouldn't be just threatening people during a Road Rage incident because they didn't get out when they wanted to.

I know I'm not going to just trust that someone is a real LEO because they say they are. I believe recently in Dave's part of town there was a attempted robbery or worse from a fake LEO using a emergency light to pull over someone. This has been made easier because more & more LEOs use Plain Unmarked cars instead of a Properly marked car for traffic patrol which in reality is more about revenue IMO & less about safety. As I said before these two officers could have caused a full blown shootout with their actions based on info available at this time.

[TMF]

It still hasn't been said whether or not they were on duty. I would say it's safe to assume they weren't. If that is the case they should be no different than any other citizen in regards to legalities surrounding presenting a weapon and the penalties for doing so if the situation doesn't warrant it. In either case, if two guys in civilian clothes chase me down in traffic and pull guns on me they're going to get some lead poisoning. This could have turned out a lot worse than it did and the investigation should reflect that; but it probably won't.

[DaveTN]

So, if I'm wrong, what exactly is a threat of deadly force? Because clearly unless allowed under the law we can't threaten deadly force, and neither can police officers...

Its 39-13-102 Aggravated Assault.

39-13-102. Aggravated assault.

(a) (1) A person commits aggravated assault who:

(A) Intentionally or knowingly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101, and:

(i) Causes serious bodily injury to another;

(ii) Uses or displays a deadly weapon; or

(iii) Attempts or intends to cause bodily injury to another by strangulation; or

( Recklessly commits an assault as defined in § 39-13-101(a)(1), and:

(i) Causes serious bodily injury to another; or

(ii) Uses or displays a deadly weapon.

Why are you arguing what law it is? Aggravated Assault is a serious felony offence that can send you to prison. Do think some law in the description for the use of “deadly force†carries more time? If you think so tell me what statute you think it is.

The point is whether you are a cop or not pointing a gun at someone without justification in a threatening manner is aggravated Assault. The DA is going to decide if he thinks were justified and if he charges them a Judge or jury will make the final decision.

I’m not standing up for them or saying they were acting as Police officers, but you keep claiming that the threat of deadly force for a cop is the same as it is for an HCP holder. That just isn’t true, that’s why there are two separate statutes. However, I don’t think anyone is claiming these guys were on-duty, they were in another city and they were in one of the Officers private vehicle. If they claim this guy was doing something wrong and they intervened as Police Officers they should have called KPD right then. They had to know that Officers were going to be dispatched when two guys get out of a car and guns are pulled.

I would guess the DA will make a decision by Wednesday.

[JayC]

Dave, I'm not disagreeing that the charge is aggravated assault... The point I'm making is that unless authorized under state law the threat of deadly force is unlawful for both citizens and police officers.

Its 39-13-102 Aggravated Assault.

Why are you arguing what law it is? Aggravated Assault is a serious felony offence that can send you to prison. Do think some law in the description for the use of “deadly force†carries more time? If you think so tell me what statute you think it is.

The point is whether you are a cop or not pointing a gun at someone without justification in a threatening manner is aggravated Assault. The DA is going to decide if he thinks were justified and if he charges them a Judge or jury will make the final decision.

I’m not standing up for them or saying they were acting as Police officers, but you keep claiming that the threat of deadly force for a cop is the same as it is for an HCP holder. That just isn’t true, that’s why there are two separate statutes. However, I don’t think anyone is claiming these guys were on-duty, they were in another city and they were in one of the Officers private vehicle. If they claim this guy was doing something wrong and they intervened as Police Officers they should have called KPD right then. They had to know that Officers were going to be dispatched when two guys get out of a car and guns are pulled.

I would guess the DA will make a decision by Wednesday.

[DaveTN]

Dave, I'm not disagreeing that the charge is aggravated assault... The point I'm making is that unless authorized under state law the threat of deadly force is unlawful for both citizens and police officers.

Maybe we will try using examples.

A cop stops a car on a routine speeding violation. The occupant steps out of the car and belligerently yells at the Officer “WTF do you want?†He appears to be intoxicated but does not approach the Officer. The Officer draws his weapon and orders the driver to the ground. He holds him there at gunpoint until his backup arrives. Is the Officer justified in the use of deadly force? No, not at that point. Is he going to be arrested for aggravated assault or some “use of deadly force†statute; no.

Now, you are driving down the road and get in a road rage incident. The other driver get out of his vehicle and yells, “WTF you going to do?†He appears to be intoxicated but does not approach you. Are you justified in threatening him with a gun? No.

No difference between you and the cop you say? Certainly there is. You have the option of simply driving off; he does not.

Now in the first scenario I would suspect you would claim excessive force and try to find a lawyer that would sue the Department and the Officer. That is your right. They happen all the time, they are called “nuisance suits†and we as citizens pay the bill for them all the time because the city will make a small settlement rather than having the expense of going through a trial. But you would never get anything like that past a jury.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I was speaking with our law director about the nuisance suits. He said it costs $15K-$20K just to get ready to have it dismissed in court. So in most cases they will try to settle for less so long as their is no admission of being at fault. It is fiscally responsible and it happens all the time.

Dolomite

[JayC]

Well that is a tricky situation... obviously drunk guy is probably going to be arrested for DUI, if Fallguy's interpretation of TN law is correct, an officer may threaten deadly force to arrest somebody... So it's probably legal use of force under the law. Clearly, regular citizens can't use deadly force to stop a criminal guilty of a misdemeanor under TN law, so they obviously can not threaten deadly force.

Lets go with a simpler one... You pull over a car and do a felony stop, you point your firearm at somebody who has not to your knowledge committed any criminal act, and you do not intend to arrest, but you feel 'hinkie' about the stop and want to be extra careful. That would clearly violate state law. Likely outcome? nothing... The problem is DAs aren't going to bring charges, isn't ever going to happen... but it is an unlawful act.

Maybe we will try using examples.

A cop stops a car on a routine speeding violation. The occupant steps out of the car and belligerently yells at the Officer “WTF do you want?” He appears to be intoxicated but does not approach the Officer. The Officer draws his weapon and orders the driver to the ground. He holds him there at gunpoint until his backup arrives. Is the Officer justified in the use of deadly force? No, not at that point. Is he going to be arrested for aggravated assault or some “use of deadly force” statute; no.

Now, you are driving down the road and get in a road rage incident. The other driver get out of his vehicle and yells, “WTF you going to do?” He appears to be intoxicated but does not approach you. Are you justified in threatening him with a gun? No.

No difference between you and the cop you say? Certainly there is. You have the option of simply driving off; he does not.

Now in the first scenario I would suspect you would claim excessive force and try to find a lawyer that would sue the Department and the Officer. That is your right. They happen all the time, they are called “nuisance suits” and we as citizens pay the bill for them all the time because the city will make a small settlement rather than having the expense of going through a trial. But you would never get anything like that past a jury.

[Guest mcgyver210]

Maybe we will try using examples.

Now, you are driving down the road and get in a road rage incident. The other driver get out of his vehicle and yells, “WTF you going to do?†He appears to be intoxicated but does not approach you. Are you justified in threatening him with a gun? No.

No difference between you and the cop you say? Certainly there is. You have the option of simply driving off; he does not.

Now you just explained the only logical scenario for what we have been discussing based on info available. Which also means if Justice is dispensed equally which it wont be at least one LEO shouldn't be a LEO & should be charged with Aggravated Assault at minimum. There are a few undisputed facts one being they were not in their jurisdiction & it appears they were Off Duty Plain Clothes-ed in a personal vehicle. Also at least one of them pulled a weapon & pointed it in the direction of the victim.

Again I will give some benefit of the doubt but we all know the two LEOs involved are not being treated as two lowly citizens would have been based on same accusations & there is the real problem. They get special treatment even when not on official duty which makes it seem as though LEOs are really treated as they are ABOVE the LAWS we must follow.

I still say they are waiting for the public to forget this so they can make it quietly go away & go back to status qua.

[DaveTN]

Lets go with a simpler one... You pull over a car and do a felony stop, you point your firearm at somebody who has not to your knowledge committed any criminal act, and you do not intend to arrest, but you feel 'hinkie' about the stop and want to be extra careful. That would clearly violate state law. Likely outcome? nothing... The problem is DAs aren't going to bring charges, isn't ever going to happen... but it is an unlawful act.

I pull a car over for speeding I walk up and point a gun at a driver that has committed no crime and is cooperating? Is that what you are asking… Seriously? That is aggravated Assault and it is a crime. Why would I do that? What did I give for a reason? Why am I doing a "Felony Stop"?

[Guest mcgyver210]

Ok how about some of us HCP holders answering this?

1. Based on what facts we have the LEOs identified themselves verbally but not with actual identification. So if this scenario had been played out on one of you with two armed guys claiming to be LEOs acting in a un-LEO way based on this being Road Rage over not letting them out when they wanted with one drawing a weapon on you. What might you have done hypothetically since only way to truly know is for it to actually happen to you?

Im would bet if a shootout & happen the blame wouldn't have been on the two LEOs in this situation but instead would have been on the non LEO defending his self.

Disclaimer: Before it is brought up the LEOs haven't said their side (which also is a common tactic to draw attention away from their possible wrong doing) I am basing this hypothetical on info at hand now not on info that will most likely never be available unless it clears the accused that is.

Now this is no different than the many hypothetical situations we talk about when LEOs commit a home invasion based on incorrect or falsified info & you defend your self. They can & have Murdered innocent people & gotten away with it. also there have been cases where people just defending them selves have been charged with a crime when in this same scenario they dare defend themselves with any success against the Government sanctioned Invasion.

The one thing I see is that this could have been a very tragic outcome based on the info available since it seems there was witnesses & other motorist in close proximity. If this happen as the victim says there should be more than a slap on the wrist because this is a disgrace to the many hard working Honorable LEOs out there.

Edited December 26, 2011 by mcgyver210

[DaveTN]

Ok how about some of us HCP holders answering this?

1. Based on what facts we have the LEOs identified themselves verbally but not with actual identification. So if this scenario had been played out on one of you with two armed guys claiming to be LEOs acting in a un-LEO way based on this being Road Rage over not letting them out when they wanted with one drawing a weapon on you. What might you have done hypothetically since only way to truly know is for it to actually happen to you?

Im would bet if a shootout & happen the blame wouldn't have been on the two LEOs in this situation but instead would have been on the non LEO defending his self.

Disclaimer: Before it is brought up the LEOs haven't said their side (which also is a common tactic to draw attention away from their possible wrong doing) I am basing this hypothetical on info at hand now not on info that will most likely never be available unless it clears the accused that is.

Now this is no different than the many hypothetical situations we talk about when LEOs commit a home invasion based on incorrect or falsified info & you defend your self. They can & have Murdered innocent people & gotten away with it. also there have been cases where people just defending them selves have been charged with a crime when in this same scenario they dare defend themselves with any success against the Government sanctioned Invasion.

The one thing I see is that this could have been a very tragic outcome based on the info available since it seems there was witnesses & other motorist in close proximity. If this happen as the victim says there should be more than a slap on the wrist because this is a disgrace to the many hard working Honorable LEOs out there.

If it happened the way the victim said it happened, the Officer that pulled a gun committed aggravated assault and should be charged.

If it happened the way the victim said it happened these Officers jumped out first and attacked a citizen that had done nothing more than flipped them off.

If it happened the way the victim said it happened I think everyone on this forum is in agreement.

If it happened the way the victim said it happened the DA needs to give them the same consideration he would give you if it were presented to him. If this happened in the middle of the day in traffic; he needs evidence to get a criminal conviction.

However. The Chief doesn’t need “Beyond reasonable doubtâ€; even if no criminal charges are filed he can take any action up to including firing them both. One Officer is on modified duty and the other Officer isn’t. That tells me one of two things may be going on. Either they both gave statements that cleared one Officer, but left the other Officers actions in question, or one Officer gave a statement and the other Officer has invoked the fifth.

[Fallguy]

I'd prefer this not turn into more of hypothetical discussion than already is.

Also we know all humans make mistakes whether theay are LEOs, HCP holders, Sheeple or whatever...so no sense in blaming the whole lot for the actions of some.

[Guest mcgyver210]

I'd prefer this not turn into more of hypothetical discussion than already is.

Also we know all humans make mistakes whether theay are LEOs, HCP holders, Sheeple or whatever...so no sense in blaming the whole lot for the actions of some.

I haven't really seen that this has been a Hypothetical discussion although it is a discussion we will most likely never know what really happened since I am sure both sides have some blame but pulling a Gun on an unarmed person over an incident that really was over when you didn't get in front of him.

It does remind me of a time when something similar happen to me when a guy in a truck tried to get in front of my company truck & didn't quite make it so he chased us & I really thought I would be forced to defend my self. Ended up finding a marked patrol car but the Officer was off duty & didn't want to get involved when I flagged him down although when the other driver saw me stop him he fled the area. I have been carrying a gun since the Sheriff issued the permits & even with the handful of incidence I have encountered I have never even pulled it from the holster because I was originally taught just brandishing the weapon could be very bad since I'm not protected same as a LEO is so don't pull it unless I intend on pulling the trigger. I do understand it is different for LEOs though & rightfully so but in some instances I think they are wrong which is just my opinion.

Edited December 27, 2011 by mcgyver210

[Patton]

I'm wondering something here, and this may have allready been covered. I know police can't arrest a police officer on duty even if they commit a felony in there presence but what about when there on there way to work? I'm asking this because it was brought up where I worked years ago. Same kind of holds true for some elected officials. All this may be irrelevant but it was one of the first things to come to my mind. I'm not saying the LEO's were in the right.

Edited December 27, 2011 by Patton

[Dolomite_supafly]

I'm wondering something here, and this may have allready been covered. I know police can't arrest a police officer on duty even if they commit a felony in there presence but what about when there on there way to work? I'm asking this because it was brought up where I worked years ago. Same kind of holds true for some elected officials. All this may be irrelevant but it was one of the first things to come to my mind. I'm not saying the LEO's were in the right.

Where do you get this information?

Dolomite

[TMF]

I'm pretty sure if a police officer commits a felony he'll get the bracelets put on him if it's witnessed. I'm going to an extreme to prove my point, but if an officer rapes someone in the middle of the shift they're not going to wait until he clocks out to arrest him.

[DaveTN]

I'm wondering something here, and this may have allready been covered. I know police can't arrest a police officer on duty even if they commit a felony in there presence but what about when there on there way to work? I'm asking this because it was brought up where I worked years ago. Same kind of holds true for some elected officials. All this may be irrelevant but it was one of the first things to come to my mind. I'm not saying the LEO's were in the right.

Is this a Tennessee law?

Departmentments may have Department Policies on handling the arrest or ticketing of Officers on duty, but we didn’t have any law prohibiting it, especially if they were committing a felony.

We couldn’t detain Officers for minor violations like traffic offenses without the approval of a Command Officer. But that was a Department Policy; not state law.

I have seen on-duty Officers arrested for criminal offenses and I have had to ticket an on-duty officer in a traffic accident. I just handled the accident and had a Command Officer co-sign the ticket.

Our Chief was in a traffic accident and co-signed his own ticket.

The only people I remember not being able to detain were members of congress going to a congressional session or people with diplomatic immunity. Never ran into either one of those though.

As far as we know these guys weren’t on-duty and were in another city. If the DA decides to charge them he will probably just ask them to turn themselves in at his office or at KPD.