Let me ask another question. Assuming Brown did not put his hands up and was fleeing the LEO after he attacked him is that justification for shooting the suspect?
zincwarrior said:If he is not a threat to the officer or others thats murder. Legally, police do not have the right to shoot a suspect who is not posing an immediate threat to them or others.
According to the more modern views, deadly force can only be used if the police officer has reason to believe that the suspect had committed a dangerous felony. If the police officer had reason to believe that the suspect committed a felony involving the risk of physical harm or death to others such as murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, rape or burglary, he could use deadly force to effectuate an arrest.
It is important to remember that a police officer is allowed to use force based on reasonable belief. Therefore, if a police officer reasonably believes that a suspect whom he is trying to arrest has committed a rape, the police officer may use deadly force, and that deadly force will be considered justified even if it turns out that the officer’s reasonable belief was wrong. See Bursack v. Davis, 225 N.W. 738 (Wis. 1929).
Where are you located? Every jurisdiction in the United States that I'm aware of allows the use of deadly force to apprehend someone who has committed a dangerous felony. No immediate threat is required.
B.Parameters for Use of Deadly Force:
1.Officers may use deadly force only when the officer reasonably believes that the action is in defense of human life, including the officer’s own life, or in defense of any person in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
2.Officers are not authorized to fire their weapons in order to subdue an escaping suspect who presents no immediate threat of death or serious injury.
3.System Police policy C-3 requires an arresting officer to identify themselves as a police officer and to state their purpose before effecting an arrest. The officer should communicate this in a clear, audible voice.
4.When possible, before using a firearm, officers shall identify themselves and their intent to fire.
5.An officer may also use a firearm under the following circumstances:
a.During range practice and qualification or competitive sporting events.
b.To destroy an animal that represents a threat to public safety, or as a humanitarian measure where the animal is seriously injured. The officer will obtain a supervisor’s permission before taking such action.
6.Officers shall adhere to the following restrictions when their weapon is exhibited:
a.Except for maintenance or during training, officers shall not draw or exhibit their firearm unless circumstances create reasonable cause to believe that it may be necessary to use the weapon in conformance with this policy.
b.Warning shots are prohibited.
c.Officers shall not fire their weapons at or from a moving vehicle except in defense of life.
d.Firearms shall not be discharged when it appears that an innocent person may be injured.
At that point we'll also see the NG go away. Eisenhower could use the NG for the Little Rock Nine because the Governor was using them for a cross purpose against the law. Federalized Guard can't be used for law enforcement unless the Governor/State and its subsidiaries are unable and/or unwilling to uphold the law themselves. How does one make the argument that the Governor isn't upholding the law by giving the NG the same basic role the President would?Given the response from the White House yesterday, I will not be surprised to see the NG troops "federalized" soon. Thus, removing the State from the equation.
Pointing out the possible lack of a need for "immediate" threat is irrelevant after it's discussion has begun? When someone questions one of your claims with a reason, it might be better to respond to the reason than dismiss the whole thing as irrelevant. Again, if for no other reason than you brought it up in the first place.Irrelevant. This guys was not Hannibal Lector, nor was he committing a felony under the scenario noted.
Again, as I read Tennessee v Garner it doesn't say he has to have actually committed it beyond any reasonable doubt. Probable Cause to have committed one is what is required. Right now I assume we've got probable cause to believe he assaulted an officer and tried to steal his sidearm. Or do you think if the two of them were standing on the sidewalk right now, and the Officer made the same statement Brown wouldn't be arrested on the spot?What dangerous felony had he committed again?
probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
zincwarrior said:What dangerous felony had he committed again?
Missouri Revised Statutes 565-082.1: A person commits the crime of assault of a law enforcement officer ... if such person: (2) Knowingly causes or attempts to cause physical injury to a law enforcement officer ... by means other than a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument;
however.probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.
motorhead0922 said:What is the cop on the left holding in his right hand?
Yes they are, but the police are responding to the looters by punishing peaceful protesters and journalists. That's the first problem.Rioting and looting is different from a peaceful protest. Rioting (disturbing the peace) and looting (stealing) are both against the law, so the police have to respond however they can--by militarized means if necessary
They actually did this earlier in the evening and it seemed to work. However, as the night wore on the crowd got more rowdy and the Police geared up. I suspect the trouble makers are a combination of local criminals and a suspicious number of young white men many with their own gas masks. I suspect as this drags on some professional radicals like the WTO protestors and various anarchist are making their way to town.I wonder if a few local cops known to the community might have been more reassuring, and if that wouldn't have been a much better course.
It depends on how we define rowdy.However, as the night wore on the crowd got more rowdy and the Police geared up.