Cop cleared of fatal shooting. This is a really good read about an incident that occurred 30 miles North of where I live. Essentially, a police officer illegally broke into a guy's mobile home to arrest him for a misdemeanor. Lead flies, officer is wounded, suspect is dead. Seriously folks, this is long but worth reading.
- Thread starter Ankeny
- Start date
What a crock of shit. this cop wanted to be a big shot, went kicked the man's door in and murdered him. Got away with it.
They are all bad apples at this point. No decent man would willingly represent this criminal organization known as gov’t much less commit violence to empower it against the people. If they wear the uniform today, they are across from us on the front line protecting, serving, and forcing the will of murderous thieving tyrants.
Last edited:
Sooooo.....the cop committed murder during the commission of breaking and entering....which is (under most state law) 1st Degree Murder. How can he claim a self defense shooting if we was committing a crime....seriously wtf
Because the "law" in Wyoming doesn't specifically say his actions had to be "lawful." In other words, a cop can do as he pleases and if you resist you die or go to prison. He may suffer the consequences later, but you still lose for not recognizing his authority.
I am not even sure how to respond to that level of insanitt
The government is not here to help. Even in Wyoming.
YAHTZEE!!!
Can’t let breaking and entering and murder get in the way of a well earned pension.
It's good to be one of the King's men...
I'd be happy to see the cop dealt with and the AG that didn't prosecute dealt with in the same manner. Laws don't just protect those with fake immunity. But until the people get serious, this will always be the outcome.
That’s not exactly right. That’s why the deceased wasn’t allowed to shoot the cop. The cop also wasn’t allowed to shoot the dead guy, because he wasn’t there lawfully. How they cleared this cop is absolutely contrary to the law.
“Mascorro, wounded, was in a precarious position,” wrote Erramouspe. “The reasonable option would be to hold position and return fire if the opportunity presented itself.”
Reasonable? That’s just like your opinion, man.
Right @EddieNFL but what does the legality for the homeowner to shoot the cop have to do with the legality of the cop to shoot the homeowner back? The point is the cop wasn’t covered under the state’s stand your ground laws (self defense), because he wasn’t there lawfully.
The homeowner, if he had survived, could be facing charges based on the omission of the word lawfully in the state’s castle doctrine concerning LE. I personally think the legislature assumed that official duties of LE would also be lawful and that eventually some court would back that up. But none of this matters. This legal technicality pertains to the homeowner shooting and he’s dead. Completely irrelevant.
The cop, however, isn’t protected by the state’s self defense laws, because he wasn’t there lawfully. At the point, he returned fire, he was outside the law. Like a bank robber returning fire, he didn’t have the right to shoot back, even if hit.
The article speaks to some “contradiction” in the law, but I really don’t see it. The contradiction or confusion is on the homeowner’s side. It’s a sleight of hand trick to pretend that confuses the issue of applying the law to the police officer. The law as it applies to the cop is really simple:
“The final determination of whether Mascorro committed criminal homicide or acted in a criminal manner when firing the shot that killed Laramore ultimately resides in self-defense,” reads the decision.
And how does that apply to the cop?:
Wyoming’s Stand-Your-Ground law says that people don’t have a duty to retreat from an attack if they were at the site “lawfully.”
The homeowner, if he had survived, could be facing charges based on the omission of the word lawfully in the state’s castle doctrine concerning LE. I personally think the legislature assumed that official duties of LE would also be lawful and that eventually some court would back that up. But none of this matters. This legal technicality pertains to the homeowner shooting and he’s dead. Completely irrelevant.
The cop, however, isn’t protected by the state’s self defense laws, because he wasn’t there lawfully. At the point, he returned fire, he was outside the law. Like a bank robber returning fire, he didn’t have the right to shoot back, even if hit.
The article speaks to some “contradiction” in the law, but I really don’t see it. The contradiction or confusion is on the homeowner’s side. It’s a sleight of hand trick to pretend that confuses the issue of applying the law to the police officer. The law as it applies to the cop is really simple:
“The final determination of whether Mascorro committed criminal homicide or acted in a criminal manner when firing the shot that killed Laramore ultimately resides in self-defense,” reads the decision.
And how does that apply to the cop?:
Wyoming’s Stand-Your-Ground law says that people don’t have a duty to retreat from an attack if they were at the site “lawfully.”
Doesn't mean much if he's not prosecuted based on the law as written.
And, yes, I'm confident the suspected criminal would have been charged if he had survived the unlawful lawful shooting.
If charged and tried, do you believe a jury would find the cop not guilty?
I’m thinking what you’re thinking with regards to this, but clearly someone somewhere was concerned the jury would convict the cop, because they didn’t let it get there. I’m just pointing out that they’re not prosecuting based on something other than law.
Last edited:
I think they used the law as is (not) written to justify not charging. To use a legal argument, "...a reasonable expectation the officer would have acted lawfully."
That’s what I meant with my Lebowski reference.
What does that statement even mean? Is he basically saying don’t say whoa in a mud hole. He outlawed his way into this situation and he had to shoot his way out.
There is a petition going around to remove the officer. Please sign and share!
Wyoming State Legislature is taking a look at this mess. First of all, they realize that the Special Prosecutor is just one opinion/interpretation of the law. Some legislators believe the cop gave up qualified immunity the second he broke in, others want to leave everything unchanged and leave it up to civil suits to award punitive damages, etc. What a cluster.
Similar threads
