What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Under what circumstances should an officer use deadly force? (1 Viewer)

Henry Ford

Henry Ford

Footballguy
An Arizona 14 year old with a stolen air soft gun was shot to death by police, and the body camera footage shows he was running away. 

There is a long-standing debate as to whether a police officer should shoot a suspect running away from behind. 

On one hand, a fleeing suspect likely does not pose a threat to an officer   On the other, a suspect with a gun fleeing may use that gun on a civilian at any time and many believe it’s a reasonable action.

We will likely not all agree on whether this particular incident was reasonable, but in general:

What do you think should be the standard by which use of force is judged reasonable?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tough call that would depend a lot on what happened per each case. I understand that if they’re running away it doesn’t pose a threat to the officer if the officer lets him go. I don’t think that is really an option for a good police officer- you can’t let an armed criminal get away- but I don’t expect him to follow just to get shot at. So what do you do in his shoes? Suspect is armed, you have to give chase, I think it’s reasonable to assume there is a threat to your life if you do this, so I’d have to err on the side of LEOs if they made that call. 

I think a lot depends on what happened prior to the fleeing- was the weapon used to commit a crime, like robbery? What was the suspect approached for? Did police know it was an air soft gun vs a real firearm? 

 
I think if proper warning is given (police! Stop or I’ll shoot!) and the suspect is known to be armed with a gun of unknown lethality it is reasonable to stop them from getting away. 

If they know it’s an air soft gun, the threat isn’t lethal enough to justify firing live rounds in public. 

 
Snorkelson said:
Tough call that would depend a lot on what happened per each case. I understand that if they’re running away it doesn’t pose a threat to the officer if the officer lets him go. I don’t think that is really an option for a good police officer- you can’t let an armed criminal get away- but I don’t expect him to follow just to get shot at. So what do you do in his shoes? Suspect is armed, you have to give chase, I think it’s reasonable to assume there is a threat to your life if you do this, so I’d have to err on the side of LEOs if they made that call. 

I think a lot depends on what happened prior to the fleeing- was the weapon used to commit a crime, like robbery? What was the suspect approached for? Did police know it was an air soft gun vs a real firearm? 
Click to expand...
Again, it’s hard to have everyone agree in any particular case, just trying to figure out if you’re writing policy - what’s the policy? Reasonably consider the suspect a danger to others? Imminent danger of loss of life or limb? Justified belief in danger of the imminent use of a deadly weapon?

 
Snorkelson said:
I think if proper warning is given (police! Stop or I’ll shoot!) and the suspect is known to be armed with a gun of unknown lethality it is reasonable to stop them from getting away. 

If they know it’s an air soft gun, the threat isn’t lethal enough to justify firing live rounds in public. 
Click to expand...
So if a suspect with a firearm is running away and doesn’t stop when the officer identifies himself and gives an order, the officer is justified in shooting?

Honestly not trying to judge the suggestion, just trying to clarify. 

 
Henry Ford said:
So if a suspect with a firearm is running away and doesn’t stop when the officer identifies himself and gives an order, the officer is justified in shooting?

Honestly not trying to judge the suggestion, just trying to clarify. 
Click to expand...
I think policy has to favor law enforcement here to give them adequate protection. They are the ones tasked with putting their life on the line and making the split second decision. The LEO has to understand that firing live rounds at a moving target in public is also a danger to consider, and what threat level does the suspect pose, whether it’s justified, there’s a lot to process between run/draw/fire. If I were making policy it would be a difficult case to charge an officer with murder for a shooting of this type. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Again, it’s hard to have everyone agree in any particular case, just trying to figure out if you’re writing policy - what’s the policy? Reasonably consider the suspect a danger to others? Imminent danger of loss of life or limb? Justified belief in danger of the imminent use of a deadly weapon?
Click to expand...
Reasonable threat to life if pursued? Armed suspect fleeing is a danger to the public- police officer should pursue (right? Wait for backup? I don’t know) but knowing the suspect is armed makes that significantly more dangerous. 

 
My personal opinion is that we should not allow police officers to shoot people who don't listen to them.  The only time that an officer should be allowed to shoot a fleeing suspect is if they have either shot at an officer already or have already threatened to shoot a civilian.  

Possessing a firearm is not a crime in AZ.  Under these circumstances the kid having the gun was a crime, but I think most would agree not a crime punishable by death.  If the kid in question never pointed the gun at anyone or made an aggressive move, why would the office believe that he is threat?  Running away is typically seen as not aggressive.  

Shooting people in the back is pretty cowardly and unbecoming of a police officer in general.  Shooting a kid is pretty cowardly as well.  I don't envy the police and the decisions that they have to make in real time, but I have the expectation that they wont shoot people in the back that haven't shown they are dangerous to them or society.

It also bothers me that there are no repercussions for the officers that do shoot people.  I think if some of these guys are held accountable, it might discourage this behavior some.

 
I understand that since police are public servants we should have a say on their behavior. And in terms of macro issues, like the very real problem of institutionalized racism, that seems appropriate. 

But this strikes me as a micro issue. You’re basically asking about tactics. And as such I feel very uncomfortable trying to direct a trained police officer how to perform in a given situation.  Very very of us have the necessary knowledge or experience to offer educated input on police tactics. I certainly don’t. 

 
timschochet said:
I understand that since police are public servants we should have a say on their behavior. And in terms of macro issues, like the very real problem of institutionalized racism, that seems appropriate. 

But this strikes me as a micro issue. You’re basically asking about tactics. And as such I feel very uncomfortable trying to direct a trained police officer how to perform in a given situation.  Very very of us have the necessary knowledge or experience to offer educated input on police tactics. I certainly don’t. 
Click to expand...
I posted this years ago but I was allowed to go on a ride along with 2 Detroit Police officers for 4 hours on a Saturday night in the summer. They do not allow these anymore. Had to sign up, get approved, sign waivers. A guy I grew up with was a Sargent and I rode with him and his partner.

This was not Mid-Town or Downtown of the stadium areas Detroit but in the places nobody talks about.   In 4 hours they had at least 10 calls but only made 5-6 due to time at calls.  Twice I was shocked they did not pull their weapons. Most people including myself have no idea what it is like. I was scared sitting in the car.  And they do this every day. The stress has to be unreal.

When I was dropped off I said "Wow..that was a busy night"  they starting laughing and said..it was actually slow and nobody got arrested or shot.

 
Da Guru said:
I posted this years ago but I was allowed to go on a ride along with 2 Detroit Police officers for 4 hours on a Saturday night in the summer. They do not allow these anymore. Had to sign up, get approved, sign waivers. A guy I grew up with was a Sargent and I rode with him and his partner.

This was not Mid-Town or Downtown of the stadium areas Detroit but in the places nobody talks about.   In 4 hours they had at least 10 calls but only made 5-6 due to time at calls.  Twice I was shocked they did not pull their weapons. Most people including myself have no idea what it is like. I was scared sitting in the car.  And they do this every day. The stress has to be unreal.

When I was dropped off I said "Wow..that was a busy night"  they starting laughing and said..it was actually slow and nobody got arrested or shot.
Click to expand...
Did you feel like Walter White on the first episode of Breaking Bad? Did they make you wear a vest? 

 
timschochet said:
Did you feel like Walter White on the first episode of Breaking Bad? Did they make you wear a vest? 
Click to expand...
Did not feel like Walter White but did wear a vest and was not allowed to get out of vehicle. The car I was in was a support car and not the first to arrive on scene.  It was called when supervision was needed.

 
timschochet said:
I understand that since police are public servants we should have a say on their behavior. And in terms of macro issues, like the very real problem of institutionalized racism, that seems appropriate. 

But this strikes me as a micro issue. You’re basically asking about tactics. And as such I feel very uncomfortable trying to direct a trained police officer how to perform in a given situation.  Very very of us have the necessary knowledge or experience to offer educated input on police tactics. I certainly don’t. 
Click to expand...
I’m asking how to define when it’s a reasonable shoot and when it’s prosecutable.  People do this every time someone gets shot by police.  Especially in the shootings at the hand of police thread. 

 
Da Guru said:
I posted this years ago but I was allowed to go on a ride along with 2 Detroit Police officers for 4 hours on a Saturday night in the summer. They do not allow these anymore. Had to sign up, get approved, sign waivers. A guy I grew up with was a Sargent and I rode with him and his partner.

This was not Mid-Town or Downtown of the stadium areas Detroit but in the places nobody talks about.   In 4 hours they had at least 10 calls but only made 5-6 due to time at calls.  Twice I was shocked they did not pull their weapons. Most people including myself have no idea what it is like. I was scared sitting in the car.  And they do this every day. The stress has to be unreal.

When I was dropped off I said "Wow..that was a busy night"  they starting laughing and said..it was actually slow and nobody got arrested or shot.
Click to expand...
It’s a nightmare job, especially in big cities. The vast majority of officers in this country do incredible work with difficult if not impossible circumstances. 

 
If an officer perceives a threat (regardless of whether the reality of that threat turns out to be real or not) to themselves or anyone else, the officer should be able to use whatever force they deem necessary based on their training.  

I do not think a suspect fleeing should be shot in the back, unless a threat is real and not simply perceived.  For example, a kid with maybe a real gun, maybe an air soft gun that has not shown aggression toward the police should not be shot.  A kid with glock that fires at police should absolutely be taken down regardless of what direction he is facing.

i also think in general, people should be trained on how to properly interact with police, properly get arrested, etc.  In the heat of the moment is not the time to litigate your innocence.  

 
I took a 5 weeker the last time I commented on cops unjustifiably killing civilians so I'll just sit back on this one. lolmods

 
I tend to think if there was a better way to define the standard (than what is in place now), someone would have done so by now. No matter what words are chosen, these are always situational and ultimately come down to a judgment call. There's really no getting around that. 

I don't think I could get very far into writing a definition/standard before I felt like the word "reasonable" belonged. At that point, its open to debate (as reasonable is subjective). :shrug:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
It’s a nightmare job, especially in big cities. The vast majority of officers in this country do incredible work with difficult if not impossible circumstances. 
Click to expand...
I agree Henry.

I am in a 40 man golf league. There are 4 police officers in the league.  Two black officers, one a Detroit officer and one a State Trooper.  The Detroit officer I have known since we were 10.

2 others are white suburban officers. They always sit together after the round. None of them have ever fired their weapon in the line of duty. And between them they had around 70 years on the job.

Over the last few years every time there has been a shooting involved with police they discuss it.  Each and every one of them say "No police officer anywhere goes to work and wants to be involved in a shooting. Let alone God forbid the subject or the officer is shot or  killed" They say that is their worst nightmare...but when adrenalin and fear are added to the mix things can get crazy even during a what appears to be a simple arrest.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Da Guru said:
I agree Henry.

I am in a 40 man golf league. There are 4 police officers in the league.  Two black officers, one a Detroit officer and one a State Trooper.  The Detroit officer I have known since we were 10.

2 others are white suburban officers. They always sit together after the round. None of them have ever fired their weapon in the line of duty. And between them they had around 70 years on the job.

Over the last few years every time there has been a shooting involved with police they discuss it.  Each and every one of them say "No police officer anywhere goes to work and wants to be involved in a shooting. Let alone God forbid the subject or the officer is shot or  killed" They say that is their worst nightmare...but when adrenalin and fear are added to the mix things can get crazy even during a what appears to be a simple arrest.
Click to expand...
A cop friend of mine has killed somebody. The guy had threatened to kill people in a bar and went out to his car to get a gun when cops arrived. By buddy told him he would shoot him if he didn't stop walking toward the door. The guy kept going and my friend had no choice. He's experienced significant PTSD. It really messed him up.

 
D_House said:
I Don’t Want to Shoot You Brother: Great longform article about a WV police offer who chose NOT to shoot and the repercussions he felt.

I agree with the general consensus here that a precise statute that adequately protects both the police and the public would be difficult to write. I can’t say that I agree with the decision made by the WV policd department in the linked article.
Click to expand...
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/podcast/dispatch/i-dont-want-to-shoot-you-brother/

touching and enlightening podcast along with it

 
I definitely don’t think LEO should shoot people who are running away unless that person is in the middle of a killing spree or they believe that person is running with the intent of attacking someone else. Definitely not because they had a gun or they are a robbery suspect, etc.

 
Dickies said:
This. Shooting someone running away is unjustifiable to me
Click to expand...
Under any circumstances? I mean, if that someone is fleeing toward the woods or something, then I am likely with ya on holding off on shooting as there may be a chance to still capture without killing (which is obviously preferable). But if they are fleeing toward a residence, business, group of people, etc? Part of police duty is to protect those folks, no? If a cop is pursuing an armed suspect and passes on a chance to take them down and that suspect proceeds to take a hostage or (worse) says “##### it” and kills a bystander, will people be saying it’s wrong to shoot someone running away or the cop should have stopped ‘em before it got that far? I know...strawman/whataboutism and all that. But that’s why I believe it’s always situational and a judgement call. And why cops are often damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
I definitely don’t think LEO should shoot people who are running away unless that person is in the middle of a killing spree or they believe that person is running with the intent of attacking someone else. Definitely not because they had a gun or they are a robbery suspect, etc.
Click to expand...
This.

 
whiskey7 said:
Under any circumstances? I mean, if that someone is fleeing toward the woods or something, then I am likely with ya on holding off on shooting as there may be a chance to still capture without killing (which is obviously preferable). But if they are fleeing toward a residence, business, group of people, etc? Part of police duty is to protect those folks, no? If a cop is pursuing an armed suspect and passes on a chance to take them down and that suspect proceeds to take a hostage or (worse) says “##### it” and kills a bystander, will people be saying it’s wrong to shoot someone running away or the cop should have stopped ‘em before it got that far? I know...strawman/whataboutism and all that. But that’s why I believe it’s always situational and a judgement call. And why cops are often damned if they do, damned if they don’t.
Click to expand...
Crime in America is creeping back up because people (liberals) have this bizarre sympathy for criminals.  Let's give them even more incentive to not comply and run from the police :mellow: .  No thanks, not the country I want to live in.  

 
Henry Ford said:
So if a suspect with a firearm is running away and doesn’t stop when the officer identifies himself and gives an order, the officer is justified in shooting?

Honestly not trying to judge the suggestion, just trying to clarify. 
Click to expand...
No

 
timschochet said:
I understand that since police are public servants we should have a say on their behavior. And in terms of macro issues, like the very real problem of institutionalized racism, that seems appropriate. 

But this strikes me as a micro issue. You’re basically asking about tactics. And as such I feel very uncomfortable trying to direct a trained police officer how to perform in a given situation.  Very very of us have the necessary knowledge or experience to offer educated input on police tactics. I certainly don’t. 
Click to expand...
There should be policy that micro manages decisions made in shooting durations

 
If a criminal has a gun, they put themself (along with others) in critical danger. 

How long does it take someone to point and shoot, regardless if they’re running in a direction? One second? 

I’d also think that a criminal who runs away and escapes while holding a firearm feels emboldened and that won’t be their last attempt on crime. We can debate that, but that isn’t the topic here. 

There are very few situations I would prosecute an office for shooting an armed criminal. I’m sure there are a few one-offs, but those are very far from the majority. If you’re holding a gun and a law enforcement officer tells you to put it down, you do so carefully, while not making any sudden movements.

Running, yelling, acting defiantly, pointing, etc.. any of these things while holding a gun poses a danger to the officer and possibly innocent civilians.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

 
fantasycurse42 said:
If a criminal has a gun, they put themself (along with others) in critical danger. 

How long does it take someone to point and shoot, regardless if they’re running in a direction? One second? 

I’d also think that a criminal who runs away and escapes while holding a firearm feels emboldened and that won’t be their last attempt on crime. We can debate that, but that isn’t the topic here. 

There are very few situations I would prosecute an office for shooting an armed criminal. I’m sure there are a few one-offs, but those are very far from the majority. If you’re holding a gun and a law enforcement officer tells you to put it down, you do so carefully, while not making any sudden movements.

Running, yelling, acting defiantly, pointing, etc.. any of these things while holding a gun poses a danger to the officer and possibly innocent civilians.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Click to expand...
Two cops in North Carolina were shot this month (one in the face and one in the neck I believe).  Hard to fault a cop when a criminal is waving a gun, not complying, running, or whatever.

 
Henry Ford said:
An Arizona 14 year old with a stolen air soft gun was shot to death by police, and the body camera footage shows he was running away. 

There is a long-standing debate as to whether a police officer should shoot a suspect running away from behind. 

On one hand, a fleeing suspect likely does not pose a threat to an officer   On the other, a suspect with a gun fleeing may use that gun on a civilian at any time and many believe it’s a reasonable action.

We will likely not all agree on whether this particular incident was reasonable, but in general:

What do you think should be the standard by which use of force is judged reasonable?
Click to expand...
When threatened or when the "suspect" is identified and someone on a wanted list for use of force.

 
BassNBrew said:
When threatened or when the "suspect" is identified and someone on a wanted list for use of force.
Click to expand...
This reads strangely to me.  It seems to say that any time someone is identified as being on a "wanted" list for use of force, the police can shoot him dead.  I know that's not what you probably mean - can you elaborate?

 
Henry Ford said:
This reads strangely to me.  It seems to say that any time someone is identified as being on a "wanted" list for use of force, the police can shoot him dead.  I know that's not what you probably mean - can you elaborate?
Click to expand...
Sorry.  Poorly written on my part.

I don't agree with shooting someone in the back who is fleeing even if they are carrying a gun/weapon unless it's someone who has hurt or injuries others.  If John Doe is wanted for kidnapping or blowing up abortion clinics and the officer knows this is John Doe and John Doe doesn't stop when ordered, then I'm OK with using deadly force to apprehend, gun or no gun in his hand.  I picture this more in the case of manhunt type scenarios that probably are that common.  I also think in this situation it falls on the officer to be reasonable certain of the suspects identity, not he matched the the description.  Basically you are open to getting shot for what you have done, not what you might do.

And yes I realize the cops are the judge and jury.

 
BassNBrew said:
Sorry.  Poorly written on my part.

I don't agree with shooting someone in the back who is fleeing even if they are carrying a gun/weapon unless it's someone who has hurt or injuries others.  If John Doe is wanted for kidnapping or blowing up abortion clinics and the officer knows this is John Doe and John Doe doesn't stop when ordered, then I'm OK with using deadly force to apprehend, gun or no gun in his hand.  I picture this more in the case of manhunt type scenarios that probably are that common.  I also think in this situation it falls on the officer to be reasonable certain of the suspects identity, not he matched the the description.  Basically you are open to getting shot for what you have done, not what you might do.

And yes I realize the cops are the judge and jury.
Click to expand...
Ah, that makes more sense.  Yeah, I think that a clearly dangerous fugitive from justice gets less leeway - but I think that all fits with "the officer having an objectively reasonable belief that failing to use deadly force would lead to imminent danger for the officer or a member of the public."  That's kind of where I go with it.  

 
Henry Ford said:
Ah, that makes more sense.  Yeah, I think that a clearly dangerous fugitive from justice gets less leeway - but I think that all fits with "the officer having an objectively reasonable belief that failing to use deadly force would lead to imminent danger for the officer or a member of the public."  That's kind of where I go with it.  
Click to expand...
Personally I would like threshold to be a hair higher than that.  I want this belief to be based on a past action, not an interoperation of expectation.  For example let's assume the suspect was wearing Bloods colors and Bloods in the neighborhood are known to have committed murder at a 70% rate.  Depending on your definition of imminent, you could argue that you had a reasonable belief that the suspect was dangerous.

 
BassNBrew said:
Personally I would like threshold to be a hair higher than that.  I want this belief to be based on a past action, not an interoperation of expectation.  For example let's assume the suspect was wearing Bloods colors and Bloods in the neighborhood are known to have committed murder at a 70% rate.  Depending on your definition of imminent, you could argue that you had a reasonable belief that the suspect was dangerous.
Click to expand...
Fair points.  Imminent would need a tight definition in the statute.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Police Departments Struggle With Critical Staffing Shortages Is A Threat To National Security ( 7/19/22 22:43 PST)
2 3
Replies
100
Views
3K
Yenrub
Yenrub
GordonGekko
Ben Shapiro Debates Piers Morgan On Gun Control & "Assault Rifles" (5/26/22 7:59 PST)
Replies
3
Views
442
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
E
Turns Out Officer Sicknick Died of Natural Causes
3 4 5
Replies
218
Views
4K
tonydead
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Top