The Castle Doctrine says a person can use defensive force if he believes someone is entering his home unlawfully and forcibly, because there’s a presumption that the person breaking in by force is there to commit violence.

At first glance, it looked like Laramore was justified to shoot Mascorro under the Castle Doctrine.

But then another statute, 6-2-602c, says that presumption of violence doesn’t apply to police who are performing their official duties.

Erramouspe hit a quandary here.

The statute exempts police who are performing their official duties, but it doesn’t stipulate that those duties must be lawful.

Erramouspe hinted that lawmakers can fix this discrepancy.

“By leaving the term lawful out of this statute, the Legislature has decreed that the officer does not have to be acting lawfully, but only in the performance of his ‘official duties,’” he wrote. “Mascorro was not acting lawfully by forcing his way into Laramore’s habitation; however, he was indeed in the performance of his official duties.”

If Laramore had survived, that portion of Wyoming’s self-defense laws wouldn’t have justified him to shoot Mascorro, Erramouspe added.

What a batshit crazy legal justification. They’ve literally said here that it doesn’t matter if the cop is breaking the law or not. If he’s in uniform he can kill you and be justified in it. That is insane.