Re: Those US Police killers again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
I actually haven't read Tennesse v. Garner and should…..
Edit: I just looked at a case synopsis. This is what I remember from criminal procedure. That under the 4th amendment, killing someone is a seizure and requires probable cause that they are a serious threat of death or serious injury. I wonder if just having a gun on one's person is enough…certainly if the person has it out, they are a threat to others.
Interestingly, the synopsis I read said that at common law officers were allowed to shoot fleeing individuals suspected of felonies. So that explains why in The Public Enemy and Little Caesar and all those movies the officers were just blasting away.
It's drummed into every armed police or peace officers head...at least I make that assumption considering it's a 1985 U.S. Supreme Court decision that's binding on all U.S law enforcement.
It states that
"Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."...that's from Wiki.
I'm sure it's taught at most police academies...especially during re-qualification.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
Makes sense that it should be. I knew the black letter rule but not where it came from. I also haven't read subsequent cases to know what set of facts it would apply to. Driving a car into a crowd? Waving a gun around while running from a cop? Seems likely. But I imagine they have to be a threat at the moment they are killed, not a pending one because of what they've done or are suspected of doing.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
I've got to admit Fred. I did not know that the standard was different for armed and unarmed persons. I would have just thought a person who is armed would be more likely to "pose a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others" but not automatically so.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
broncofan
Makes sense that it should be. I knew the black letter rule but not where it came from. I also haven't read subsequent cases to know what set of facts it would apply to. Driving a car into a crowd? Waving a gun around while running from a cop? Seems likely. But I imagine they have to be a threat at the moment they are killed, not a pending one because of what they've done or are suspected of doing.
driving a car into a crowd is a tough one...because even if the driver is shot..the car would still continue on...but 'waving' a gun around while running from a cop...I would say yes, as long as the shot wouldn't put anyone else at risk...but I think some 'pending' threats are okay too.
..they don't necessarily have to be a threat at only the moment they are killed. That's why, for example, you can use deadly physical force in cases such as Escape in the first degree and Arson.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
Look, people have to realize , just based upon some of the laws quoted, it's a really difficult decision to make under extreme circumstances....and there are some differences in the law in the various state and law enforcement jobs.
Add to that, the ridiculous assumptions people make, that I assume , based upon their statements, have NEVER fired a handgun before.
Statements such as- why don't officers fire at hands or feet first? Really? Go to the range and fire a handgun for a few rounds...then look at statistics under stress and see how often people miss even when they shoot at center mass - often at a moving target. This ain't a day at the movies with Wyatt Earp...(who probably couldn't do it either).
...but then there are some cases where you just read it and say Whaaaattttt?!!!
so far Mr. Scott's case reads like that. Even if the officer thought Mr. Scott had gotten hold of the taser...or maybe he even shot the officer with it, but he was running and...you can only shoot it once...and.....so many things seem wrong here.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
Sorry, I hadn't considered this possibility. Best not to take the risk. Being a black guy then you would absorb more electromagnetic radiation - so that's why they shot more blacks. Beginning to make sense now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
trish
If you run away at near the speed of light your gain in kinetic energy could warp space-time around you and drag innocent bystanders into your gravitational wake endangering their lives...or not. Here in the U.S. of A., we rather shoot than take the risk. It's better, not to mention more fun, to shoot and kill one innocent man (especially if he's black) than risk letting him get away and never knowing whether he was innocent or not.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
Re: Those US Police killers again!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
martin48
According to the article you quoted that happened 11/7/13, and though the shooting looks somewhat questionable from what you can tell on the video, the officer was cleared because this is what happened:
http://www.kcci.com/news/central-iow...again/22815706
it looks as if the city of Ames is negotiating a settlement according to this:http://www.kcci.com/news/family-of-m...claim/32040132
Re: Those US Police killers again!
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/new...-self-defense/
I couldn't be bothered to look for the George Zimmerman thread. I know he's not a cop no matter how much he thinks he is. But he was in another violent confrontation. It looks like he previously threatened this man and he responded by trying to kill Zimmerman. I'm guessing the guy did not shoot at Zimmerman in self-defense as the law defines it (unless Zimmerman actually did wave his gun and it wasn't based on the previous threat), but here George is in another situation involving guns and threats. Just in case someone missed it…since the Martin trial, he's been accused of threatening two women and previously threatening the guy in the above article.
Re: Those US Police killers again!
I thought this was another death by taser case, I was looking for but this another that happened February.
http://news.yahoo.com/death-florida-...200324421.html