Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I wasn't going to comment again. I was just asking a hypothetical question if a policeman was legally allowed to shoot a fleeing thief. In my question I had my thief arrested, and then fleeing. I would assume from the arrest, the policeman would know the thief was unarmed.
Fugitives in the US are generally considered to be dangerous by default. The assumption is they will do desperate things to avoid recapture. In your scenario, there is a possibility that the fugitives could have acquired a weapon after fleeing.
Still, I don't think a shoot on sight reaction would fly in most jurisdictions. But the bar would definitely be a lot lower for the police to use violence as opposed to someone who wasn't a fugitive.
The concept of the "outlaw" is interesting. It literally meant that you were considered outside the law and that people could kill you on sight.
That was SOP for guys like Bass Reeves. They couldn't afford giving the guys they were after anything close to a fair shake. Not if they wanted to live any longer anyway. It wasn't uncommon to shoot an outlaw or two or three in their bedrolls. Lol, and I can't find any fault in that manner of doing things considering the nature of the men they were shooting.
That was very interesting reading - thank you. It explains the difference in our thinking on this subject. I did know a house occupant in America is allowed to kill an intruder. In my country, only reasonable force is allowed. In other words, you can't kill a burglar unless you feel at risk to your own life.
I didn't know I was a serf....... There you go, you learn something everyday. I do notice on city-data, differing opinions on what police actually do, and what they're allowed to do by law. We don't believe in giving our police the right to take life, unless of course a criminal is endangering life himself.
Our police in internal votes, always choose to remain unarmed. We admire them for their bravery, and the vast majority of the population hold our police in the highest regard. They recognise having a weapon would ensure people would get killed. This goes without saying really. They prefer to deal with criminals in such a way as not to kill them, unless left with little or no choice.
Fleeing felons OF THE DANGEROUS KIND....
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOIT
DON'T STEAL..then you won't have to worry
Every department..even podunk pd has this policy...please show me one that doesn't
Felon or not however..if a person is deemed a threat to the officer or others deadly force can be used
Reasonable.. necessary..and fully justified by the circumstances...
I know the officer who shot the citizen in the back TRIED to justify his actions and the jury is hung on his explanation... I don't buy it..it cannot be a justified shooting from what I know...out of policy..out of law..
The he stole my Taser argument would only work if the dead citizen was egressing upon him...as far as I know he was not...he was running away... Saying he was fearful the DEAD man might carjack someone else or use the Taser on another person.. no..that doesn't work for me
I would also like to hear from the jury in this incident...why are the deadlocked...what point of law are they hung on... What did they get to hear that we as the public don't get to see or have knowledge about.
I would also like to talk to the ex officer and really find out why..what broke in his thinking...
That was very interesting reading - thank you. It explains the difference in our thinking on this subject. I did know a house occupant in America is allowed to kill an intruder. In my country, only reasonable force is allowed. In other words, you can't kill a burglar unless you feel at risk to your own life.
I didn't know I was a serf....... There you go, you learn something everyday. I do notice on city-data, differing opinions on what police actually do, and what they're allowed to do by law. We don't believe in giving our police the right to take life, unless of course a criminal is endangering life himself.
Our police in internal votes, always choose to remain unarmed. We admire them for their bravery, and the vast majority of the population hold our police in the highest regard. They recognise having a weapon would ensure people would get killed. This goes without saying really. They prefer to deal with criminals in such a way as not to kill them, unless left with little or no choice.
Fleeing felons OF THE DANGEROUS KIND....
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOIT
DON'T STEAL..then you won't have to worry
Every department..even podunk pd has this policy...please show me one that doesn't
Felon or not however..if a person is deemed a threat to the officer or others deadly force can be used
Reasonable.. necessary..and fully justified by the circumstances...
I know the officer who shot the citizen in the back TRIED to justify his actions and the jury is hung on his explanation... I don't buy it..it cannot be a justified shooting from what I know...out of policy..out of law..
The he stole my Taser argument would only work if the dead citizen was egressing upon him...as far as I know he was not...he was running away... Saying he was fearful the DEAD man might carjack someone else or use the Taser on another person.. no..that doesn't work for me
I would also like to hear from the jury in this incident...why are the deadlocked...what point of law are they hung on... What did they get to hear that we as the public don't get to see or have knowledge about.
I would also like to talk to the ex officer and really find out why..what broke in his thinking...
Fleeing persons ARE NOT deemed dangerous by default..if that was the case the hundreds of people who run everyday from police would result is hundreds of shootings a day
In the ghetto people run from police for fun....it's a pastime...and game of chance and skill
Smart police know their neighborhoods and after a couple of years on don't chase people for fun but reserve that for real bad guys... If you know who lives there you know you will see them again...who wants to get hurt..tear a 1000 dollar uniform... Lose or break your 250 dollar flashlight...tear up your body for a little piece of white rock...or a slurpee thief.
If the academy the officer attends doesn't go over this scenario many many times then the training isn't addressing real world life...and doing a disservice to new recruits
Most bad guys when given the chance to run....will...real bad ones fight...few want to go to jail voluntarily... goes with the territory
Fleeing felons OF THE DANGEROUS KIND....
YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOIT
DON'T STEAL..then you won't have to worry
Every department..even podunk pd has this policy...please show me one that doesn't
Felon or not however..if a person is deemed a threat to the officer or others deadly force can be used
Reasonable.. necessary..and fully justified by the circumstances...
I know the officer who shot the citizen in the back TRIED to justify his actions and the jury is hung on his explanation... I don't buy it..it cannot be a justified shooting from what I know...out of policy..out of law..
The he stole my Taser argument would only work if the dead citizen was egressing upon him...as far as I know he was not...he was running away... Saying he was fearful the DEAD man might carjack someone else or use the Taser on another person.. no..that doesn't work for me
I would also like to hear from the jury in this incident...why are the deadlocked...what point of law are they hung on... What did they get to hear that we as the public don't get to see or have knowledge about.
I would also like to talk to the ex officer and really find out why..what broke in his thinking...
Fleeing persons ARE NOT deemed dangerous by default..if that was the case the hundreds of people who run everyday from police would result is hundreds of shootings a day
In the ghetto people run from police for fun....it's a pastime...and game of chance and skill
Smart police know their neighborhoods and after a couple of years on don't chase people for fun but reserve that for real bad guys... If you know who lives there you know you will see them again...who wants to get hurt..tear a 1000 dollar uniform... Lose or break your 250 dollar flashlight...tear up your body for a little piece of white rock...or a slurpee thief.
If the academy the officer attends doesn't go over this scenario many many times then the training isn't addressing real world life...and doing a disservice to new recruits
Most bad guys when given the chance to run....will...real bad ones fight...few want to go to jail voluntarily... goes with the territory
I have read your posts before, and realise you are a serving police officer. I want to state clearly, I am not here criticising American police for how they carry out their duties. I just asked a specific question, which was answered, but then a few others came at me, so I answered them.
American police are very different to British police. I have spoken to a few cops in New York City years ago, and they are quite funny I found....... The sorts of crime your police deal with, are similar in many ways to ours. But, of course, many of our police never come across an armed criminal in their entire careers.
I was always curious as a kid, watching American cop shows, how they would shoot at fleeing criminals. I'm talking 60s shows here. Those guns got whipped out without much provocation, and the shooting began. I know this was only telly shows, but to me, it mirrored real life. After all, if the way telly cops behaved was different to real life, guns wise, then surely they would be called out by police organisations.
All police see the worse of people, and it must affect their view of the public in general. They meet the scum of the earth carrying out their duties. Split second decisions have to be made, and sometimes I guess, the wrong one is made. These days, everyone has a camera, and film the police at work. In the past, without such devices, the word of the police involved was probably taken as the true one. Witnesses telling a different story would I guess, be dismissed.
These days, some police are being caught out seemingly misjudging a situation, and being held to account. This is not good, because police morale must be kept high at all costs. They carry out dangerous duties, and want to go home at night back to their families.
But, many Americans want their police to be held to the highest of standards, and some seem to fail that test. Surely, if you are going to take someone's life, a good reason seems to be necessary. There are examples on you-tube were this doesn't seem to be the case.
The thin blue line in America, and my country, try to protect us from crime, and criminals. Many American citizens seem to feel safer arming themselves, especially folks who live out in lonely areas. To kill someone in the line of duty must cause distress to the police involved. Taking someone's life must be a hell of a thing, and to do so mistakenly must haunt the police officer involved.
Some folks who post in threads like this, seem to feel shooting fleeing criminals is justified, even criminals involved in quite minor crime. The attitude seems to be, 'you commit a crime, then whatever happens you deserve it.' This is a very high moral standpoint I guess. I, as an outsider find it strange, but, as I said earlier, it really has nothing to do with me, not being an American citizen.
I will now discontinue my involvement in this thread. I do not under any circumstance, want people to think I am criticising American police, and their methods. I am not. They do what they do. Our police in my country try and do things differently that's all.
Some folks who post in threads like this, seem to feel shooting fleeing criminals is justified, even criminals involved in quite minor crime. The attitude seems to be, 'you commit a crime, then whatever happens you deserve it.' This is a very high moral standpoint I guess. I, as an outsider find it strange, but, as I said earlier, it really has nothing to do with me, not being an American citizen.
It is not a high moral standard. The use of force when no ones rights have been violated is one of the most immoral things mankind can do.
I have read your posts before, and realise you are a serving police officer. I want to state clearly, I am not here criticising American police for how they carry out their duties. I just asked a specific question, which was answered, but then a few others came at me, so I answered them.
American police are very different to British police. I have spoken to a few cops in New York City years ago, and they are quite funny I found....... The sorts of crime your police deal with, are similar in many ways to ours. But, of course, many of our police never come across an armed criminal in their entire careers.
I was always curious as a kid, watching American cop shows, how they would shoot at fleeing criminals. I'm talking 60s shows here. Those guns got whipped out without much provocation, and the shooting began. I know this was only telly shows, but to me, it mirrored real life. After all, if the way telly cops behaved was different to real life, guns wise, then surely they would be called out by police organisations.
All police see the worse of people, and it must affect their view of the public in general. They meet the scum of the earth carrying out their duties. Split second decisions have to be made, and sometimes I guess, the wrong one is made. These days, everyone has a camera, and film the police at work. In the past, without such devices, the word of the police involved was probably taken as the true one. Witnesses telling a different story would I guess, be dismissed.
These days, some police are being caught out seemingly misjudging a situation, and being held to account. This is not good, because police morale must be kept high at all costs. They carry out dangerous duties, and want to go home at night back to their families.
But, many Americans want their police to be held to the highest of standards, and some seem to fail that test. Surely, if you are going to take someone's life, a good reason seems to be necessary. There are examples on you-tube were this doesn't seem to be the case.
The thin blue line in America, and my country, try to protect us from crime, and criminals. Many American citizens seem to feel safer arming themselves, especially folks who live out in lonely areas. To kill someone in the line of duty must cause distress to the police involved. Taking someone's life must be a hell of a thing, and to do so mistakenly must haunt the police officer involved.
Some folks who post in threads like this, seem to feel shooting fleeing criminals is justified, even criminals involved in quite minor crime. The attitude seems to be, 'you commit a crime, then whatever happens you deserve it.' This is a very high moral standpoint I guess. I, as an outsider find it strange, but, as I said earlier, it really has nothing to do with me, not being an American citizen.
I will now discontinue my involvement in this thread. I do not under any circumstance, want people to think I am criticising American police, and their methods. I am not. They do what they do. Our police in my country try and do things differently that's all.
Ours should try and not shoot people, and most don't.
In fact as pointed out it's an unconstitutional seizure, and will subject the department to paying monetary fines and he will probably lose his job.
This case requires us to determine the constitutionality of the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of an apparently unarmed suspected felon. We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is 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 the public.
A known unarmed suspect being allowed to be shot is not the law
and the issue comes down to the "posing a significant threat" judgment.
The most important thing someone can do when a police offer points a gun at them is to SLOWLY put your hands in the air.
SLOWLY do EVERYTHING they say.
But some people don't do that, and then they get shot, and in our culture the POLICE OFFICER becomes the person people blame.
It happens with a couple people that happen to be black for example, and you have a riot. The issue is not race but they make it the central reason. The vast minority of cases are racial, and those should be dealt with on an individual basis.
Parents (all colors) teach your children to be smart and do exactly what the police officer says. Don't reach into your glove box when they don't ask you to. Don't run away.
Bring your children up so they understand what common sense is. With some of these shootings of these "black" people, because that has been the issue recently, the people being shot were just not that smart.
There was one case in Oklahoma where the police officer shot a man that was clearly unarmed. That is another story. Those do need to be dealt with, and it was.
The guy in Ohio state got shot three times for running people over with a car and stabbing them. The police officer did what he had to do by putting 3 bullets into the guy, and thankfully the young cop's career is not on the line for making the decision to pull the trigger.
That was very interesting reading - thank you. It explains the difference in our thinking on this subject. I did know a house occupant in America is allowed to kill an intruder. In my country, only reasonable force is allowed. In other words, you can't kill a burglar unless you feel at risk to your own life.
I didn't know I was a serf.......[Actually, I was referring to the Americans who volunteered into FICA and became socialist serfs.]
There you go, you learn something everyday. I do notice on city-data, differing opinions on what police actually do, and what they're allowed to do by law. We don't believe in giving our police the right to take life, unless of course a criminal is endangering life himself.
Our police in internal votes, always choose to remain unarmed. We admire them for their bravery, and the vast majority of the population hold our police in the highest regard. They recognise having a weapon would ensure people would get killed. This goes without saying really. They prefer to deal with criminals in such a way as not to kill them, unless left with little or no choice.
What would think of this scenario:
Someone sneaks into Buckingham palace, burgles the place, and escapes - while the Queen is asleep.
An armed palace security guard, spots the trespasser and thief, demands him to halt, but shoots him as he attempts to escape the palace grounds.
Would that not be justified, in that national security and of the monarch may have been compromised?
Now, if that is justified, consider that ALL AMERICANS are the social equal of the Queen, and when our government servants are charged with apprehending fugitives, they may use whatever force is necessary - for we are not subjects (unless we consent to be governed - and thus become persons subject to or object of other restrictions).
The republican form of government reduced to the bare minimum : "What's yours is yours, what's mine is mine, do not trespass - or else my servant and I will smite thee verily upon the head and shoulders!"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There you go, you learn something everyday. I do notice on city-data, differing opinions on what police actually do, and what they're allowed to do by law. We don't believe in giving our police the right to take life, unless of course a criminal is endangering life himself.
