Police officers duty/judgement

[cheygriz]

Police (and armed citizens) may not, in general, shoot an unarmed fleeing felon to effect an arrest.

In some states, if the officer can articulate probale cause why allowing this suspect to escape would constitute an "immediate and real" threat to the public, he may shoot.

I'm curious about the feelings of the pholks here.

If a police officer, or a legally armed citizen actually sees a person commit, or attempt to commit, a violent crime such as murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault etc, and the felon drops his weapon and runs, and you cannot safely apprehend him without the use of lethal force, is that force justified?

 

[rwilson452]

If and only if there is a credible immediate threat of great bodily harm or death. You had better believe if you do your going to be charged and you will be guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

 

[cheygriz]

If and only if there is a credible immediate threat of great bodily harm or death. You had better believe if you do your going to be charged and you will be guilty until you prove yourself innocent.

Absolutely corect. My question though, was not whether or not that IS the law, but rather whether or not it should be the law.

 

[Playboypenguin]

I could not vote since the poll answers are way too skewed. The answer where a person has to say it is not okay to shoot a fleeing person is too absolute.

 

[badbob]

I agree with PP on this. If sombody was kidnapping my child, for example, and if his back was the only target he offered, heck yes I'd take the shot. A bankrobber, on the other hand, could run and I wouldn't engage.

badbob

 

[tony pasley]

In the order of civil discourse I must refrain from comment, I will be interested to see other comments.

 

[mrawesome22]

This is one of those questions that gets me really riled up. If I walked in and saw someone was attacking my wife or kids and then he ran when he saw me, I'd be pulling that trigger with every once of my soul behind each pull. Then if I killed the guy, I'd probably be spending the rest of my life in prison with a guy who got a lower sentence for shooting someone over drugs or something. We have a really messed up judicial system to say the least IMO.

 

[cheygriz]

I could not vote since the poll answers are way too skewed. The answer where a person has to say it is not okay to shoot a fleeing person is too absolute.
__________________

That bothers me. I thought that I explained in the first post what the answers were about!

Sorry if it wasn't clear!

 

[kristop64089]

For me, it would be depending on the violence/severity of the crime. The laws are always jaded towards the "victim". All too often the criminal gets portryed as the "victim".

My mindset is, if he was willing to do it once he will do it again. If he was told to stop or made aware of the impending arrest/shooting and he runs, I would put him down(depending on the crime)

2 years ago my mom was dating a man (they are both hearing imaired ie: severe hearing loss) who seemed to be an allright guy. When he started to get aggressive she ended the relationship. He, did not take it well and started stalking and making violent threats. He finally showed up with a gun to end the deal for good. I was not there when it happened, we notified the police, who then told us if we felt threatened, to use "any and all force necessary to end the confilct" should he show up with these intentions again.
They went on to further say "off the record" if he things turned south and he was fleeing and shots were fired, to get him as close to the house as possible.

I know it was not the best advice,or a good legal defense, but that showed me that the local LEO's have the same thinking as many others I have encountered. Needless to say the guy moved on only to violently assault w/knife a future ex-girlfriend.

Some people won't change they won't be re-habilitated. Violence is a part of who the are. If the BG was hurting someone in such a way that it required me to shoot/kill, I can honestly say I could live with that desicison. LEO's can't be everywhere.

It is our duty as American citizens to protect those who can't defend themselves. If we pass laws giving more freedom to do this you can almost bet that BG's would think twice, knowing they could get shot by the average joe/jane ,even when they turn to flee.

 

[WeedWacker]

With my morals I know I wouldn't shoot if he were running away with my wallet. I'd just get in my car and run him down.

Edit: On a serious note if he were running away towards my house and I had a wife and kids, hell yes, as long as the house is out of the way.

 

[Gary L. Griffiths]

FWIW, the Supremes pretty well defined this option in 1985 in Tennessee V. Garner.

An officer may use deadly force to stop a fleeing felon when probable cause exists to believe that the felon represents a danger to the community. The Court goes on to define circumstances which represent a danger to the community as: The felon has used deadly force or the threat of deadly force in the commission of the crime or in his or her escape attempt.

For example, if an officer observes two persons fighting, and one pulls out a knife and stabs the other, then drops the knife, turns, and flees, the officer may use deadly force to stop the fleeing felon so long as (1) a warning is given, if practical, and (2) no other means of apprehending the felon is readily apparent.

A better question (not to hijack the thread) is, since citizens technically have the same power of arrest as LEO's, would a citizen be justified in using deadly force to stop the felon? I'd hate to be the test case!

 

[BillCA]

Deja Vu! I just researched some of this for the Kimber/2A-Threat thread.

Shooting an unarmed fleeing felon is very likely to be frowned upon in any community until all of the facts are known.

By the way, I voted "no opinion" because the wording of the poll.

It does depend on the severity and nature of the crime. Someone who's running because of a drug deal, theft, fraud scheme, etc. can run themselves silly for all I care.

If it's over a homicide and I didn't see it happen or have a very good reason to believe he did it, it's a no-shoot for me as a citizen.

But the question is that you witness the person doing or attempting the act who drops his weapon and flees, do you shoot?

In short, my trigger point is when there's excessive violence involved.

A guy taking a woman towards bushes at knife-point who flees - no shot. But the same guy beating her as he drags her towards the bushes I'd probably shoot.

Typically I would not shoot a robbery suspect who drops a weapon and flees. On the other hand, if we're talking robbery where a 6'3" physically fit man is beating down an elderly 5'1" woman, especially with a weapon, my view is that he's a dangerous psychopath and a danger to the community.

I'm not even going to comment on what to do with a violent child-molester. I'll leave that as an exercise for the alert reader.

 

[Travis Beck]

since citizens technically have the same power of arrest as LEO's

Uh, better doublecheck your state laws. You may have the power to detain someone, under specific circumstances. You most definitely do not have arrest powers, unless you are a sworn LEO.

Be very, very careful. Detaining someone at gunpoint, if done improperly, is aggravated assault and kidnapping.

 

[BillCA]

Travis brings up a good point and one I had to go back to review.

A couple of key differences -- at least here in CA -- between police and civilian powers of arrest and use-of-force;

For a "citizen's arrest";
1. The offense must have been committed in your presence, or;
2. The person arrested has (in fact) committed a felony, although not in your presence, or ;
3. A felony has been in fact committed, and you have reasonable cause for believing the person arrested to have committed it.

Unlike the police officer who can detain & arrest someone because he suspects a crime has been committed and has cause to believe the person committed it, the private citizen is more limited;
--For an offense not committed in his presence, a citizen must know that a felony has been committed and either the arrestee committed it or there is reasonable cause to believe he committed it.

 

[Trapper L]

The laws are changing in Texas come September. While this is not declaring open season on the criminal element, it's a start.
From Yahoo headlines 3-27-07

DALLAS (Reuters) - Criminals in Texas beware: if you threaten someone in their car or office, the citizens of this state where guns are ubiquitous have the right to shoot you dead.

Governor Rick Perry's office said on Tuesday that he had signed a new law that expands Texans' existing right to use deadly force to defend themselves "without retreat" in their homes, cars and workplaces.

"The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature," Perry said on his Web site.

The new law, which takes affect on September 1, extends an exception to a statute that required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception was in the case of an intruder unlawfully entering a person's home.

The law extends a person's right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force, the governor's office said.

The reasonable use of lethal force will be allowed if an intruder is:

- Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes

- Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place

- Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully slays an intruder or attacker in such situations.

Texas joins several other states including Florida that have or are considering similar laws.

Sympathy for violent offenders and criminals in general runs low in Texas, underscored by its busy death row. The state leads the United States in executions with 388 since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

A conservative political outlook and widespread fondness for hunting also means Texans are a well-armed people capable of defending themselves with deadly force.

It is easy to acquire guns over the counter in Texas and lawful to carry a concealed handgun with a permit.

Like others here, I would not want to be the test case but it will happen and soon after September 1.