I don't know how true it is but I heard that the suspect has to fire his gun at the police first before the police can retaliate. If he is just waving his gun or just has it in his hand the police cannot shoot him until he fires it. Is this true information?Is It True For The Police That Killing The Suspect Is Meant To Be The Absolute Last Resort?
Police can shoot (use deadly force) on to prevent a kidnapping, rape or serious bodily harm to another person.
If a suspect has a gun and won't drop it. I'm putting 2 in his chest even if he hasn't shot at me yet. The reasoning is, by having the gun and acting like an idiot, there is a very high chance of him seriously harming or killing a person.
Another circumstance is, lets say you are chasing a convicted serial killer who escaped from prison. If he's running from you, you can use deadly force. Because if he gets away, there is very high risk to the public.
Deadly force is different in every case. For example. Guy waving a knife around in an empty field and you are 20 yards from him....probably not quite deadly force yet.
Guy waving a knife in a crowded park would be a good shoot.Is It True For The Police That Killing The Suspect Is Meant To Be The Absolute Last Resort?
In order for police to use deady force, three things must be present: 1) Ability 2) Opportunity and 3)Jeopardy.
The suspect must have the present ability to do it. Do they have a weapon? Are they close enough? Are they even capable. If you have a 91 yoa male with a knife and he states 'Im going to run over there and stab you' then Ability is lacking. Next, does the suspect have the opportunity to do it? Does he, in fact have a gun? Is he big enough etc. Then there must be jeopardy. For instance, you have a man with a gun, there is ability and opportunity there but where is the gun pointed? Is it pointed at his head? There is not Jeopardy there but if he begins to move the weapon, no matter where, then Jeopardy is present. 2nd, police can use deadly force on a fleeing felon if the threat of him getting loose out weighs actually taking his life. By that I mean, if the felon flees and is going to cause further death or serious bodily injury, deadly force can be used.
If he threatens to shoot or motions like he will shoot, they can shoot him. Unfortunately, killing him is the last thing they want to do. Too bad -- it would save a lot of time and money on trials and prison.
Tell ya what, if a suspect pulls a gun on me the last thing I am thinking about is when I am going to ';arrest him';. He points the gun at me and I unload the magazine at center mass then re-load. Self protection comes first. We also do not fire ';warning shots';.
If that is true, that is just silly. If some punk is waving a gun around threatening to use it, the police officer needs to wait until he gets shot to fire back? Give me a break. Perhaps it's good I'm not a police officer because if it came down to it I'd empty a clip and reload and do it again if some drug crazed thug was even thinking about killing me. If someone broke into your house and was heading toward the room the baby was sleeping in, would you wait to see if he just came to play peek-a-boo. I think not. You would attack like a mama bear protecting her cubs. I wouldn't hesitate, why should a cop when its about going home to his/her family in one piece. Despite popular misconception, police officers are human beings as well. With that said, use of lethal force should be used in extreme circumstances and not something like someone that is a serial j-walker or a habitual no turn on red violater or simply because the officer is cranky. I would have to guess that the officer has the ability to use lethal force but will need to be able to justify it before a grand jury if there is suspicion that the force was unnecessary.
Its probably true but a really stupid rule. If he has a gun and the police can tell its real then he get whatever. Damn tired of hearing officer shot because they were trying to determine if it was real. If they have a gun they are up to no good anyway and pointed at the officer. To me just another scumbag off the streets and a saving on taxpayers money for jail space
There is a thing called force continuum, verbal, hands on, chemicals,non lethal weapons, deadly force. Deadly force is the LAST thing that an officer can resort . and heres the catch if it is not reasonable to go thru the steps of escalated force.
I am a member of my local swat team and a sheriffs deputy. the law states that if we feel our life is in imminent danger, lethal force is justified.
about 6 months ago we served a high risk arrest warrant of a bank robbery suspect. the door was kicked in and we made entry, as i moved through a narrow hallway, the suspect leveled off on me with a .22 rifle i yelled twice to drop it and he did after the second t ime. i was completely justified to shoot him withiout warning because he had the weapon pointed at me. but instead i chose to give him a chance and he gave up.
The use of deadly force is not a last resort, it is the only option sometimes.
The rules for shooting will vary in each police department.
In my PD, the suspect does not need to fire a weapon first. He merely needs to be a deadly threat to me, then I can shoot him. He does not even need a firearm to be considered a deadly threat. I can shoot a man that's wielding a bat if I feel my life is in danger.
An officer needs to be able to articulate that he/she felt they were in fear of great bodily harm or losing their life. Or in fear for another's risk of great bodily harm or life
If he points a gun at the police he can be shot legally, just happened in my Town. Bank Robber walks out of the bank, police are there, he points the gun at them, BLAM BLAM BLAM and the perp is in the hospital.
I think that's suppose to be the rule. However, a cop got acquitted here where I live a couple years ago for shooting a guy in the back as he was running from the cop - killed him. Oh, and another cop was acquitted after he went into a woman's house and she had a pairing knife in her hand in the kitchen, he shot her and killed her too.
So, I guess rules were meant to be broken...
EDIT:
Eric: I mean no offense. I'm sure you know the cases I'm talking about. They were huge in the Vietnamese and Mexican communities. I'm just saying that sometimes it doesn't look as though the shootings are justified.
It seems as if that is true to me, but if the person has been dangerous with a firearm in the past, they may shoot at that suspect for fear of being shot before that suspect fires a shot. Police are trained to evaluate the situation.
No comments:
Post a Comment