|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 4, 2014 10:38:19 GMT -6
As I understand it, the rules that must be followed by an officer concerning the use of deadly force against a fleeing suspect vary considerably from state to state, and even from department to department. I was just wondering if there is any sort of basic rule that is more or less followed everywhere in the US. It's easy to see how situations like that could get complicated very quickly, and justifying the action afterward could easily prove difficult. Yet, on the other hand, it would seem there are some cases where stopping the suspect by whatever means would be paramount. How might an officer on the spot make such a decision?
|
|
|
Post by SaddleLT on Jul 4, 2014 17:39:36 GMT -6
Hopefully, that officer is very familiar with Tennessee vs Garner, first of all. The use of deadly force is the ultimate taking away of one's 4th amendment right. To very briefly sum up, what is the threat to the officer or others? Department Policy can be more restrictive than the law, but not less. Department policies vary, as you state, from department to department. Key words the officer has to be aware of are words like: 'should', 'will', and 'shall'. In any action or inaction, the basis that the court also looks at, whether LEO or citizen is, "What would a reasonable person do under the same set of circumstances?" Now in this day and age, what is a 'reasonable person'? Pretty scary depending upon who the 12 are that are sitting in the box. Of course, the officer or a citizen, may have to make that decision in seconds or less while the courts can critique the action for years. The difference between an officer or citizen however, and this is where what is a reasonable person falls in, the officer is held to a higher standard due to his training and experience and above that of a non-LEO. In all cases, what did the person know or should have known, is part of that reasonable test. I should also note that department policy can be violated and an officer not be in violation of constitutional law. He/She may lose their job, but not criminaly held liable. (Edit): This is not legal advice. Had to put the disclaimer in! (rofl)
|
|
|
Post by Pistolenschutzen on Jul 4, 2014 22:53:59 GMT -6
Do the criteria change if, for example, the accused individual involved is an escaped felon or something similar? Under those circumstances, it would seem there is a credible threat to public safety clearly evident and it would not be unreasonable to stop that threat by whatever means necessary, up to and including deadly force.
|
|
|
Post by blackcat on Jul 5, 2014 1:12:24 GMT -6
Hopefully, that officer is very familiar with Tennessee vs Garner, first of all. The use of deadly force is the ultimate taking away of one's 4th amendment right. To very briefly sum up, what is the threat to the officer or others? Department Policy can be more restrictive than the law, but not less. Department policies vary, as you state, from department to department. Key words the officer has to be aware of are words like: 'should', 'will', and 'shall'. In any action or inaction, the basis that the court also looks at, whether LEO or citizen is, "What would a reasonable person do under the same set of circumstances?" Now in this day and age, what is a 'reasonable person'? Pretty scary depending upon who the 12 are that are sitting in the box. Of course, the officer or a citizen, may have to make that decision in seconds or less while the courts can critique the action for years. The difference between an officer or citizen however, and this is where what is a reasonable person falls in, the officer is held to a higher standard due to his training and experience and above that of a non-LEO. In all cases, what did the person know or should have known, is part of that reasonable test. I should also note that department policy can be violated and an officer not be in violation of constitutional law. He/She may lose their job, but not criminaly held liable. (Edit): This is not legal advice. Had to put the disclaimer in! (rofl) [...omissis...] Key words the officer has to be aware of are words like: 'should', 'will', and 'shall'. In any action or inaction, the basis that the court also looks at, whether LEO or citizen is, "What would a reasonable person do under the same set of circumstances?" Now in this day and age, what is a 'reasonable person'? Pretty scary depending upon who the 12 are that are sitting in the box. Of course, the officer or a citizen, may have to make that decision in seconds or less while the courts can critique the action for years. [...omissis...]
Well, I live and work across the Pond but these words are "the focus". Often... better say daily, especially here in Italy, we must operate among thousands 'should', 'will', 'shall' and 'maybe' while we have to decide in few seconds... Easy to be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by SaddleLT on Jul 5, 2014 8:52:01 GMT -6
Do the criteria change if, for example, the accused individual involved is an escaped felon or something similar? Under those circumstances, it would seem there is a credible threat to public safety clearly evident and it would not be unreasonable to stop that threat by whatever means necessary, up to and including deadly force. Depends what the felony is (escaped murderer or escaped forgerer). "'Cause they needed kill'n," generally doesn't satisfy the standard. wink
|
|