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 ...
The education in our public school system is no longer truth or history....so they have no decent education controlled by National Education Unions...that was he point. This group is trained to be the way they are in the public school system and even entitlement is taught from K-12.
I know where you are going with this, but case law also interprets and here in FL it is legal to use deadly force.
Add the totally of circumstances when it is presented to the court and I guarantee it will be as Holder and his folks will and are on a witch hunt.
Honestly though what gets me is that tonight blacks will kill blacks and not a peep from the left about this.
It pisses me off the double standard and propaganda they put out.
The ever so caring left wing who pushed slavery, segregation etc, and use this issue to make themselves as the honest we are looking out for blacks.
The holding in Garner is the following:
The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against, as in this case, an apparently unarmed, nondangerous fleeing suspect; such 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 physical injury to the officer or others. Pp. 497 U. S. 7-22.
Nothing about “imminent” and nothing about “objective.” So scratch “imminent” and replace “objective” with “probable cause to believe”. Just sayin...
Agree with the double standard and the Sharpton hustlers who should have been jailed years ago for what he did with Tawny Brawley.
“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.”
“For accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, a department must restrict the use of deadly force to situations where “the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life . . . or in defense of any person in immediate danger of serious physical injury.” Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc., Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies 1-2 (1983) (italics deleted)
Immediate and imminent are interchangeable terms in law and whenever there is a reference to “reasonable” means objective reasonableness.
Ah, the old “reasonableness” standards, just as fictional and subjectively used and interpreted as the “reasonable man” in many different venues in criminal and tort law. Thus, the reasonableness applied by the officer better not get trumped by the constitutional reasonableness; otherwise, he is in big trouble.
It should also be arguable that the fleeing felon would be an immediate threat to others, as reasonably determined by the officer, if the officer was actually assaulted.
“A police officer may not seize an unarmed, non-dangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”
Here comes more reasonable interpretation by the officer in the heat of the moment. Was Brown non-dangerous? I would say he was dangerous. One need not wield a weapon to be dangerous. Another interesting case seemly open for interpretation by the lower courts, agencies, etc., and yet again may require another decision by the USSC via another cert.
The cop had his face mashed up when thug reached in (from the reports I’ve seen), and how does the cop know whether the thug is armed with anything else, short of a body search?
Even then, the thug’s physical size would present a disparity of force for a goodly portion of the population.
If 21 feet/1.5 seconds is the standard, the 35 feet = ~2 seconds. Minus 3/4 second to react, after realizing he’s coming back at you. So ~ 1 second to get back in the car and roll up the window.
For the average civilian, maybe that’s a prudent, if non-feasible course of action. Not sure you or I would want cops routinely retreating like that.
Tueller drill always applies.
I have no idea what you were trying to say.
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.