Posted on 08/15/2014 11:56:54 AM PDT by Cubs Fan
When can an officer shoot?
While there is no national statute outlining police use of deadly force, there are national standards, established by a pair of 1980s US supreme court decisions.
David Klinger, an associate professor in the department of criminology and criminal justice at the University of Missouri–St Louis and a former officer with the Los Angeles police department, said there are two permissible circumstances in which an officer can use lethal force.
Constitutionally, a police officer can shoot a suspect who is threatening the life of the officer, a fellow officer or a member of the public, said Klinger, a use-of-force expert. This is known as the “defence of life” standard. An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat, he said. The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety.
This was determined in a 1985 supreme court case, Garner v Tennessee. The justices ruled that deadly force “may not be used unless necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious bodily harm to the officer or others”.
The decision limited the long-standing “fleeing felon” rule that permitted officers to use deadly force against a suspect who was trying to escape, even if the person in flight was not a threat to the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Thanks.
I have not seen any photos as of yet.
Well that was not the case. at the very least this was an 18 year old giant who just robbed someone and beat them and then fought with a cop.
Perhaps there is a problem with this court ruling re fleeing, but it is currently the rule that this cop was operating under.
The photos of brown dead in the street clearly show no wounds or blood on the back of his shirt. So much for the fleeing.
Photographs of him from two different angles (on another thread). No entrance or exit wounds on the back.
Further, I’ll bet they find he was only shot one time.
Yes, I did read it and the law is established in every hornbook on criminal law. Go read it yourself before making snarky comments. Subsequent cases in California have adopted and confirmed this point of view.
Objective reasonableness is whether a reasonable police officer who is aware that a fleeing felon is unarmed would fire 8 bullets into such a person? To begin with, the officer admits to not having known of the prior burglary.
The is a serious legal issue not the foolish black and white (no pun intended) that some here try to make it out.
If the response to you came across as snide then I am sorry , however I gave you the FL Statues and you have to read case law
Like I said it takes more than 10 mimutes to look up, and google all the case laws in my state.
Now it might be different in CA and it probably is but we were talking about FL law when I corrected you and nothing has changed.
Also objective reasonableness will be discussed and important by what is said by the state attorney etc not what you think as will the totality of circumstances.
Forgot to address what youstated too about the officer did not know the guy had dpne the robbery.
If you know about protocol then you would know that when an officer approaches the scene and a BOLO has been given out then the officer looks for potential witnesses and suspects.
This I believe is what the officer did and when you are as big as this guy then it is hard to blend in.
The officer spotted him, he fitted the description, and he did a Terry stop and was well within the law to do so.
I’ll let you look up that case too
When you are that big then it is hard to just blend in.
Not many guys are 300 pound and 6 foot 4.
Can not wait till someone FOIAs the police reports for both incidents.
“An officer can also shoot a fleeing suspect if the officer believes the suspect has committed a violent felony and his or her escape would pose a significant and serious threat,”
There’s still more to discover and investigate in this case. That said, if the officer had just been attacked by Brown, Brown had just committed a violent felony, with the officer having direct and pretty absolute knowledge.
“The US constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot an unarmed, non-violent suspect in flight who does not pose a serious risk to public safety. …”
That’s correct...also possibly inapplicable to the case at hand.
The use of deadly force against a fleeing felon, if unarmed, is a violation of due process. This is an incomlete and distorted description of well established rule of law.
“According to the law if the guys committed strong armed robbery and beat the crap out of a cop, the cop could shoot him to keep him from doing it to someone else.”
If the officer KNOWS he committed it, and he’s not just a suspect. It’s usually fairly easy to tell if he’s been hitting you though.
I read the police statement released today. I will leave it to you to do the same. I’ve also posted the info in response to someone else. I’m not going to hold your hand or beg you to accept truth.
I know, right?! But that’s the least of my worries. Can’t anyone see that we can’t just assume that the police have our best interests at heart anymore??? Not every cop, but too darn many!!
I think every side in this ugly mess is probably wrong.
charlestonthuglife.net
HUH sounds good but no cigar .
Which state as that is not the law here in FL and I have posted the statues which state so.?
Over the years the race baiters have used these situations to keep the black communities hostile. Jesse Jackson and his rent a mob, Al Sharpton, and NAACP use these sad events to get more grant money ...using U S taxpayer dollars to keep the country stirred up.
Now I agreed with the civil rights movement, however it was the Republicans who were on the side of the blacks, but the Democrats hijacked the cause, once it was legalized integration in schools to keep trouble on the front burner for personal and political gain. SAD because the poor don’t even realize due to lack of historical education who their friends and enemies really were during the movement!
Yes, but US Supreme Court case in Garner v. Tennessee make it a violation of federal law for an officer to kill an unarmed felon absent an objective basis that such a person is an imminent threat to the others. Federal law here trumps stat law. From what we know of the facts, this would be a difficult hurdle for the officer to surmount
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.