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.”