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.
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
"We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escapeandthe 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."
This reads, to me, differently then what you are claiming. "A known unarmed suspect being allowed to be shot is not the law.
The words "UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY to prevent the escape and ...."
Under the common law, a fugitive from justice is not innocent. He is an excepted class, and not protected as are those who surrender when arrested.
There is no controversy when an officer shoots an unarmed fugitive - even if he is running away.
I REPEAT - once one is a fugitive, they CEASE being innocent.
...
Read the law. Don't fall for the demagogues who agitate for no cause...
Okay, but the penalty for being a fugitive is not death. So the use of lethal force is disproportional to the offense.
I cannot shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect unless I have knowledge that the suspect is fleeing for the purpose of obtaining a weapon (Ruby Ridge).
If one of my people shot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back following a traffic stop I'd have done the exact same thing that the South Carolina department did - fire him and charge him.
This is confusing me........ be patient, I'm not American. Say, for instance I have stolen something from a shop, and I run away from a policeman who has arrested me for said crime. Can he legally shoot me? I am unarmed of course, and not threatening people around me.
This is confusing me........ be patient, I'm not American. Say, for instance I have stolen something from a shop, and I run away from a policeman who has arrested me for said crime. Can he legally shoot me? I am unarmed of course, and not threatening people around me.
Legally? No but it happens and you'll find many that will excuse it.
But that case was for CIVIL DAMAGES, not a criminal case. (Title 18 is for crimes and criminal procedure. Title 42 is not. Title 42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights)
Prior to 1984, it was common for the police to be authorized to use deadly force on fugitives from justice (or resisting arrest).
... According to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."
. . .
At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon.
. . .
Garner's father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ... The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.
. . .
In other words, they can't be criminally prosecuted for shooting a fugitive, but they will have to deal with civil penalties for failure to specially treat U.S. citizens residing in their state. Such are the changes due to the State of Emergency, since 1933.
. . .
Ironically, the "seizure" via constitutional warrant has no mention of "resisting arrest" or "becoming a fugitive" to escape justice.
Methinks that the court bent the law (and old common law) to pander to a privileged minority who has since convinced itself that it is above all law.
(FWIW - I have yet to find a Title 42 USC Sec. 1983 case where the plaintiff was melanin deficient and won damages. If you do, please post the citation. Thank you.)
"The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, PAUPERS, VAGABONDS and FUGITIVES from Justice EXCEPTED, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states; ...."
[Article IV of the Articles of Confederation (1777)]
Let's think practically here. You shoot and kill the criminal. There is no criminal trial because you killed the suspect and now you are subject to significant civil damages for violating the 4A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
"We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escapeandthe 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."
This reads, to me, differently then what you are claiming. "A known unarmed suspect being allowed to be shot is not the law.
The words "UNLESS IT IS NECESSARY to prevent the escape and ...."
And is conjunctive you're reading it as if it said or. It's two parts (1) prevent the escape AND (2) they pose a significant threat of harm.
You'd be right if they said OR between 1 and 2.
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.
