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 ...
1.Brown was a huge 18 year old standing at 6' 3" and probably 300 pounds 2. The officer was responding to a call that Brown was engaged in strong armed robbery (brown is 6' 4' and over 300 lbs) 3. The officer was injured during the assault 4. The "witness" who said brown's hands were up etc. was browns friend and most likely an accomplice to the robbery. 5. The shooting may well be justified under the fleeing felon rule.
Attacking an armed police officer is not a human right.
and, trying to steal his weapon is highly suspicious and indicative that further mayhem will follow.
He was trying to tuck in his shirt for him.
Everyone knows that except Racists.
Being let go to assault another store owner or assault another police office making an arrest in not warranted.
How is it known Brown was fleeing? maybe he got shot in the scuffle.
The radio description of robber would have noted his physical assault on the convenience store employee... making him sound dangerous....that would have played into the police officers information on the burglar. The fact he was assaulted also would have intensified the officer’s fear for the public.
So there is a lot going on here when the confrontation took place. Brown’s size was also a factor in policeman’s decision, the adrenaline flow, and Brown’s first resistance made the hands up seem fake to the cop. Just saying.
There’s a photo of the perp lying face down in his own blood. There are no bullet wounds to his back.
This guy was a physically big thug and a bully. He probably thought he could do a beat down on the cop and get away with it. Wrong. Good riddance.
Liberal logic: if I rob a bank, and I am escaping the scene, the police have no right to shoot at me because no one’s life is in imminent danger. At most, all they can do is request that I stop.
If for no other reason, THAT is why defense of property, of one’s livelihood justifies deadly force.
If I am mistaken, I would like to know.
After seeing the video....Clearly the store clerk is a racist criminal for attacking a gentle college bound giant. Cigars are a basic human right and shouldn’t be sold.
But one he was in retreat ... he was shot [I think] it was 35 feet from the police car.
Once he was going in the other direction, it might be debatable.
I know the family is going to litigate for excessive force.
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. …Typical ignorance of the Constitution by the radical-left Manchester Guardian, never mind the facts of the matter at hand. Maybe they ought to try to comprehend Britain's Common Law first before moving on to subjects not even under their purview?
Rush taught us today that Sweets are slit, tobacco scraped out and replaced with pot
these witnesses are highly questionable and plus Brown’s have major credibility problems. Brown was probably headed back toward the officer when he was shot. He assaults the clerk, Brown walks away, clerk comes after him, Brown TURNS AROUND to threaten another beating to the Clerk! THis is probably what happened to officer. Brown was headed back to beat officer again.
The use of deadly force against a fleeing felon, if unarmed, is a violation of due process. This is a well established rule of law.
Attacking anyone is not a human right, unless you are defending yourself (or another).
Is there a link to the photo?
The facts don’t matter. The cops already lost the info war. They blew it big time and now will pay the price.
“But one he was in retreat ... “
So says his friend. Other reports have him advancing...
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.