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 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. …”
The Constitution does not allow a police officer to shoot a tricked out ‘57 Chevy either, but just because I happen to mention one of a million things that a cop cannot shoot does not make this silly, irrelevant straw man argument apply to the original topic matter.
It is just as likely Brown was shot during the struggle in the car and wandered off 35 feet before collapsing.
What if a felon deliberately hits someone with is car causing serious injury, and then tries to flee?
Sorry for ya, but the officer who killed him didn’t even know he’d robbed the store. And you had such a convenient little scenario going there too. Too bad.
So says his buddy that was with him while robbing a store...
He could well have been shot during the struggle in the car and wandered off 35 feet before collapsing.
Also not a very bright idea no matter how big you are.
Beating the crap out of a cop is a felony.
With that said, I have a problem with the law that says “if the cop BELIEVES the perp has committed a felony”. A cop gets disrespected by a guy who walks away and the cop shoots him in the back. “I thought he looked like a person I saw on a wanted poster.”
The cops get radio d immediately with info, a description of person, clothes, and way they headed, if known. The cop knew all of it before he reached the destination, and this isn’t Brown’s first rodeo with the cops, if I read one article right.
“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.”
If he had been going the other direction, how was there no blood on the back of his shirt, no holes in the back of his shirt?
He died face down with his arms by his side.
That's even worse than being shot in the fracas!
The reports I’ve read said the officer was responding to a robbery - a robbery where this guy fit the description.
The cops were called to the scene because of the robbery. Graffiti was painted on the store (which was looted and destroyed) about “snitchers get stitches”.
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 that APB was out the POlice should be able to provide recordings/transcripts.
They will have to close this "Suspect in Strong-Armed Robery" loop with evidence. I suspect they would not make the assertion if they cannot.
They will have to show this officer was aware of the robbery, it happened before the deadly confrontation AND the officer was aware of the description.
Absent that, they will have to show the officer was under imminent threat. INITIAL reports says they can't do that.
a reasonable person can believe that a person trying to forcibly take another person’s gun, disarming them, has intent to use that gun on that person.
Maybe he was trying to pull up his pants above his thighs?
He may, in fact, needed killin'.
But that doesn't mean the cop had a legal shoot.
If he was fleeing why weren’t there any bullets in his back?
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.