Norm,
An off-duty Coronado police officer is driving down the highway in his priviate vehicle, sees a car that he suspects is a drunk driver, pulls up next to him, flashes his badge, and orders him to pull over. He also calls the CHP on his cellphone to report the incident. The car keeps going, driving north to the area of his residence. The cop follows, and confronts the vehicle again, this time branishing his gun. The occupant of the vehicle turns out to be a huge professional football player, and said something like "thats just a BB gun", and the confrontation continues. The cop fires a warning shot, and then shoots the football player three times.
Is this leagal? Can a cop use deadly force in this situation. Should he have just taken the license number and reported the incident to on-duty police? Is this not excessive use of force? I'm confused on this one. Your legal take on this please.
SWB

I asked my husband, he said that he doesn't have enough information from what you wrote.

I can understand it if the cop walks into a store and someone is robbing the place with a gun, or if he sees a felony in progress on the street, but at best the football player was guilty of reckless driving. The cop followed him for twenty miles into the area of his residence. It seems to me that the cop could have taken the license plate number and reported the incident to the highway patrol. Not only was he off duty but out of his jurisdiction in his own private vehicle, not an unmarked police vehicle. The football player was dropped from the team for this year, thus nullifying a 1.5 million dollar contract. Oh by the way, the football player is African American. I think this is a case of an over-zealous cop.

DH said that the info on the internet is too vague. Police officers have very specific criteria for some actions, and he's hesitant to weigh in on what happened without more specific information.

I found a lot of conflicting info--did the officer identify himself and light him up (use the twirly red/blue light)? Did the girlfriend drive the car towards the officer and was she cited? Was he drunk? Was he speeding? Were the circumstances of the actual shooting warranted? Hard to say, without better info.

I think drunk drivers should be off the road, and if it's an off-duty officer who does it--fine. OTOH, I don't think we should get so carried away with one potential drunk driver that we endanger lots of innocent people. I just don't look at this case and see a great deal of clarity, without more info.

Dh also added...Didn't the officer have a cell phone? Can't believe he didn't call this in...

No, there was no 'light up' of the football players car. The officer was in his own priviate vehicle. The officer pulled up next to him on the freeway, flashed his badge, and motioned for him to pull over. The officer did have a cell phone, and did call the highway patrol, but continued to follow the suspect for many miles. It was reported that the suspect was speeding some of the time, but there is no info on his blood alcohol level that has been released. He is in the hospital recovering from three gun shot wounds, but has not been charged with anything yet. The girlfriend was charged and arrested, but details are vauge on that as well. I see that the story has now made it to CNN. The football player has had a run in with the police in the past, but that doesn't have any barring on this case. There seems to be a hush on the specific details of what happened.

Here's a link to the original CNN story
Here's a link to the original CNN story contains detail on the action. I'm biased against the officer because he pulled his gun twice, was 20 miles out of his jurisdiction, followed the man to his home. Without black and whites backup it's the off-duty officer's word of erratic driving vs Foley's. Not to mention fear of hijacking and stalkers, not uncommon in southern CA.

Thanks for the link. The only thing wrong is that Foley was shot three times. Once in the leg, once in the arm and once in the chest. So far he hasn't been charged with anything. If his alcohol blood level was ok, then the cop is going to look pretty bad for shooting the guy for speeding and reckless driving, both being misdemeanors. The story also says he reached into his pants pocket, yet he was carrying no weapon.

In my post on the story I called the off-duty officer a stalker and worse a professional hitman. DWI is serious business but 20mi out of your jurisdiction to follow a weaving car doesn't pass the smell test. This guy was waiting for Foley, probably to settle some gambling debt.

The CNN article doesn't have specific enough information, either. There are really specific criteria about when it's appropriate to do what he did. Lots of questions that would be asked by people knowledgeable about pursuit and arrest rules that didn't get asked or answered in these articles, because ordinary people don't know or care about them. Most off-duty officers are expected to act as police officers if they see a crime, it depends on the department.

Reaching into your pockets when the officer tells you not to do so is never a good idea, and is likely to get you shot, *Depending on the circumstances*. Which are described too vaguely in the cited articles. Not enough information.

Jurisdiction: Some jurisdictions share with others, so that if police officer from jurisdiction A chases a suspect into jurisdiction B, there is a standing agreement that they honor each other's jurisdiction. I do not know if that applies in this case.

Is there any evidence that these two persons had any relationship at all before this incident?

Not offense but what you're describing smells line the blue line. You're looking for details beyond what's been described. Based on what has been described, the officer's action are beyond walking in on an armed robbery or assault. DWI is dangerous, high speed pursuit is dangerous but to me I'd rather the officer call the black and whites for video and back up. After being shot I think Foley going to his home and ignoring the officers was the correct decision but unfortunately he did not make it inside.

If you want to P&M about the police, have at it, you don't need this story to do so. If you want actual information about what gets done and why, it's going to take more looking than the information given in the articles I've seen. That's just the facts of the matter, there are decision-making criteria that just are not expressed in those sources. Presumably they're available somewhere, just nowhere available to me.

Sometimes--we look for what we want to see, rather than trying to figure out what happened and why. Example: I was arrested in 1984. I could say I ran into a burning building to get my cat, and two officers arrested me for it. All true. Another perspective: I was arrested for failing to follow the directions of a firefighter, who directed me several times NOT to do that, because it risks the lives of people who may feel obligated to go pull me out, and decreases the personnel available to actually fight the fire. Two very different representations of the same circumstance.

There's more than one side to every story, it pays to be a little bit circumspect.

There has been some more info released. One TV station has reported that Foleys blood alcohol level was over the legal limit, but other stations are not reporting this. Also they released the officers name and the fact that he's been a cop for a year. Foley still has not been charged with anything, although his girlfriend was arrested for driving the car towards the two men at the time ( the officer shot at the car a couple of times). And the last new info was that the officer had said he was driving away from a confrontation saying that he "decided to let him go", but drove down a dead-end street and when he returned, that's when Foleys was in the street, the officer got out of his car, and the shooting happened. Lets say that 1) he was drunk, 2) he was driving recklessly (but had no accidents), 3) he was less than a block from his home, 4) he was not wearing a coat where he could have conceiled a weapon, and 5) he had no weapon. Did the officer exceed his authority by confronting the football player, and using deadly force to restrain him? What if he was killed with the shot to the chest? I'm betting that the police officer will be relieved of duty, but that's just my guess. Racial tensions between police and minorities have been a hot button in Southern California for a long time. One can't help but be reminded of the Rodney King incident.

You started it with off duty officer protocol. I am talking about this officer. Following and notifying the black and whites of a DWI is understandable, stalking then shooting an unarmed civilian is not heroic. DWI is dangerous but this officer stepped out of bounds trying to be a hero, this is like "Crash". What if he had killed Foley, what if Foley had killed the officer, what if someone else by accident killed the officer, what if the officer by accident killed someone else? I think first responders are in dangerous business but police have numbers and sophisticated equipment. They can work smart.

Apologies for posting the full article, emphasis mine. Update on the Foley shooting.
Link to map of San Diego, Ca Coronado, Ca is the south-west penisula off San Diego. Poway where Foley lives is north-northeast of Miramir Naval Air Station.
IMHO, this officer acted to intentionally disable Foley for non-law enforcement reasons.
Union Tribune story on officer Mansker

This would not be legal in Wisconsin or in many states.

In Wisconsin the officer would be considered nothing more then a citizen, and we don't have citizens arrests here. The badge would be meaningless. The "officer" would just be a man brandishing a gun in an unmarked vehicle out of his jusrisdiction. In Wisconsin all local officers are "deputized" by the county so that small departments within close vacinity can work together in high risk situations, especially when there may be one or two units on duty, and maybe two county deputies in the whole county. In some places, near county borders, officers are even sworn in as State troopers, in which case they have unlimited jurisdiction.

Many states do not allow unmarked cars to engage in traffic stops because it is too easy for a stranger to impersonate a police officer.

If the officer had legal standing in the state he was in, then this may have been a legal shoot. The officer identified himself as an officer and gave clear warning. He didn't need to "run away" as a citizen would have had to when the man came at him. He would be entitled to hold his ground and likely had no "intermediate weapon" such as a club, mace, or tazer.